tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post4414807614935706844..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Jerry Coyne, then and nowUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger276125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15090910513068751892011-01-01T13:46:14.744-05:002011-01-01T13:46:14.744-05:00"I shall neither adopt nor reject the princip..."I shall neither adopt nor reject the principle of causality. I exclude it as metaphysical from the sphere of science." Karl Popper.<br /><br />It’s a scathing critique. Popper’s idea of falsifiability is probably the most often invoked to validate an idea as scientific. Most people using this logic separate the world into science/truth/reality and non-science/bogus/irrelevant. Popper clearly states that the entire scientific enterprise of natural laws giving rise to particular events is a causal explanation and that causality is a metaphysical assumption. The entirety of science is thus founded on metaphysics.<br /><br />Popper clearly states that metaphsics is necessary for the operation of science. Science works on a number of metaphysical assumptions - inductive logic, for example.kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12735451324931199027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26499089547675159662010-08-20T07:57:47.273-04:002010-08-20T07:57:47.273-04:00Camus,
RS actually does have a decent search func...Camus,<br /><br />RS actually does have a decent search function, it's a the top-left of the page.<br /><br />Here are some relevant posts (though more can be found, depending on what you are interested in):<br /><br />http://bit.ly/96Kkka<br />http://bit.ly/bPXFPw<br />http://bit.ly/agqCUg<br />http://bit.ly/cTUpyT<br />http://bit.ly/9YJmG7<br />http://bit.ly/dgKElU<br /><br />And no, I didn't mean Hume's point on reason vs. emotion (though I do think he was partially right), I meant that reason includes logic and rationality, not just empirical evidence. So math, logic, and philosophy are not sciences, but are done by reason. Science is therefore only one (albeit very important) way to apply reason.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5410519894222182272010-08-19T22:42:07.928-04:002010-08-19T22:42:07.928-04:00Hi Massimo,
Would you be kind enough to post some...Hi Massimo,<br /><br />Would you be kind enough to post some links to your posts about philosophy of science? I didn't mean to imply that you haven't written on the topic before, but how do I find them? As far as I can tell, there is no "Rationally Speaking" search function, or an archive by subject matter (as opposed to chronology).<br /><br />As for rationality and science, I also didn't mean to imply that all scientific discoveries result from logic, and agree that they could come from "inspiration" of some sort; I really am interested in what you mean by something to the effect that "reason is bigger than logic." Do you mean something like Hume - that reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions?<br /><br />Thanks.TheDudeDiogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613928663752680375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85967572239388419442010-08-13T19:43:46.122-04:002010-08-13T19:43:46.122-04:00Good point, Tyro. While we would need to have a de...Good point, Tyro. While we would need to have a decent definition of evil in the first place, and I am not sure the word even makes sense when applied to illnesses or suchlike, examining the problem is impossible without empirical evidence, so it is at least partly a scientific question. Ah but of course, the philosopher must be allowed to be informed by science, but if the scientist builds on principles that are not verified by science itself his argument is self-defeating and he arrogantly oversteps his epistemic limits. How silly of me.<br /><br />Massimo: <i>Nothing can be falsified in science unless it has observable consequences - science is not math or logic.</i><br /><br />Please consider carefully the first part of your sentence, then please compare it carefully to what the new atheists actually write and claim, and you will not find a contradiction. Nobody doubts that a god that does not have observable consequences cannot be rejected scientifically with 100% certainty. What they say is that (1) we reject all gods that are distinguishable from being non-existent, (2) nobody really believes in a god that doesn't do anything anyway if they are honest and (3) such a god would be of no consequence anyway.<br /><br />Apart from that, our disagreement may be one of emphasis: you say, a scientist cannot logically with 100% <i>reject</i> a shadow god. I say, <i>to be a consistent scientist</i> you cannot logically accept its existence if you consider lack of evidence sufficient to ignore proposals <i>about the existence of objects in processes in the universe</i> elsewhere (the latter italics are why math and logics are a red herring). The consequence of both positions together would strictly speaking be agnosticism unless you introduce a philosophical argument. But for one thing I consider agnosticism indistinguishable from weak atheism, and for another those necessary philosophical arguments are not of the I need to study for five years and do a PhD in philosophy of science afterwards type but of the everybody gets it by primary school type.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39474059171157344952010-08-13T12:50:06.934-04:002010-08-13T12:50:06.934-04:00Wow, this post and the follow-up comments are a ni...Wow, this post and the follow-up comments are a nice introductory course in the philosophy of science and more in the topic of argumentation around the subject. <br /><br />These sorts of lively conversations are even more useful (well in some limited ways at least) than most beginner books on the subject. You not only get to see the right answers or at least good answers, but you can see for yourself in action where people start to go wrong and why. <br /><br />If you put some structure around this and add some annotation, it would make a wonderful tour through some of the ways people think about science and the lessons you can learn from each.Todd I. Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231844857877577527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70126620733399234242010-08-13T10:26:52.038-04:002010-08-13T10:26:52.038-04:00The problem is that popular culture has been creat...The problem is that popular culture has been creating a science - religion dichotomy with the implication that if something is not science then it is automatically less rigorous than science or just plain wrong.<br /><br />So when Massimo says something is not science it almost sounds like he is insulting it.<br /><br />Of course if you apply the definition too stringently you would have to banish a science teacher who proved Pythagoras' theorem to his student.<br /><br />Having said that I still disagree on the supernatural. There is no a priori reason to say that science can apply to the natural world, equally I see no a priori reason it should be excluded from a supernatural world.downquarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15154074859072874873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68017081651176898622010-08-13T10:02:24.349-04:002010-08-13T10:02:24.349-04:00Wait, what?
Just so we're on the same page, h...Wait, what?<br /><br />Just so we're on the same page, here's what I understand. Examining the PoE as a philosopher requires listening to the religious claims (omni-whatever), making predictions which can be observed (little suffering, little evil), making observations (lots of suffering & evil), and applying the consequences of these observations to the initial claims (some of the omni-'s must go).<br /><br />You're saying that when Jerry (or another scientist) looks a religious belief and sees if it matches reality then he's naive, presumptuous and ignorant of philosophy and science and has absolutely no hope of achieving anything.<br /><br />But if that person is wearing a philosopher's cap then he is doing a good job and can tear down holes in the religious edifice?<br /><br />I must be missing something because each explanation seems to further undermine your argument.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48479157023107044182010-08-13T09:29:59.329-04:002010-08-13T09:29:59.329-04:00Tyro, I have the strange feeling that we've be...Tyro, I have the strange feeling that we've been through this before...<br /><br />Logic and analytical reasonings are tools of science, but do not originate from within it - just like math is a tool of science but is not itself a science.<br /><br />When it comes to theological positions (not faith, which simply has nothing to do with any kind of discourse, philosophical or scientific), philosophers have done a great job at poking huge holes into the religious edifice. For instance the problem of evil. These holes have nothing to do with scientifically testable notions, as they concern concepts such as ethical gods, omniscience, and so forth.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63083048629981235752010-08-13T09:24:32.764-04:002010-08-13T09:24:32.764-04:00If logical is reasoning about observations made ab...If logical is reasoning about observations made about the world, wouldn't that be a part of science?<br /><br />And while I agree that parts of logic, math and philosophy do have their own domains, I can't see any of that being relevant to the discussion at hand, namely faith and religion.<br /><br />Philosophy and logic aren't going to be of any help since religions as a whole don't care for internal consistency and regard paradox as a virtue. Religions do often describe how the world is or was making science a very good tool where philosophy and logic fail.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46655631441555413342010-08-13T09:10:57.364-04:002010-08-13T09:10:57.364-04:00Tyro, those methodologies are included under analy...Tyro, those methodologies are included under analytical philosophy and logical reasoning. Nothing can be falsified in science unless it has observable consequences - science is not math or logic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35702328917466797522010-08-13T08:59:17.881-04:002010-08-13T08:59:17.881-04:00Massimo's view of science is not "narrow&...<i>Massimo's view of science is not "narrow"; it's consistent. Theories which could not in principle be verified by scientific method cannot be rejected by science</i><br /><br />By all appearance, Massimo is discarding a lot more than many would. He's tossing out theories which can be falsified based on the proposed mechanism without caring if there are observable consequences. That's the problem which you would see if you scanned through even a fraction of the comments.<br /><br /><i>There are other means of rejecting propositions. Where science cannot go, everything else can. </i><br /><br />What are some of these methodologies, for instance?Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27591228651538661922010-08-13T08:28:52.363-04:002010-08-13T08:28:52.363-04:00Couldn't have said it better myself...Couldn't have said it better myself...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44547915865604301492010-08-13T08:22:21.923-04:002010-08-13T08:22:21.923-04:00Scientific suppositions cannot all be tested in ex...Scientific suppositions cannot all be tested in experience without begging the question (enter induction); thus, science itself is not scientifically verifiable. If everything which is not scientifically verifiable is rejected on these grounds, then science itself must be rejected.<br /><br />Massimo's view of science is not "narrow"; it's consistent. Theories which could not in principle be verified by scientific method cannot be rejected by science (including scientific method itself).<br /><br />But don't freak out. There are other means of rejecting propositions. Where science cannot go, everything else can.Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56279761170030091582010-08-13T05:07:15.172-04:002010-08-13T05:07:15.172-04:00@Alex August 12, 2010 7:31 PM::
And if there is n...@Alex August 12, 2010 7:31 PM::<br /><br /><i>And if there is no evidence for something, if it is indistinguishable from being non-existent, the concept of parsimony not only allows but requires a scientist to consider it non-existent. </i><br /><br />So if 3 scientists observe 'supernatural' phenomena, and 100 of their peers cannot corroborate same, did the phenomena exist? More importantly did the evidence even exist? Let's keep things simple by saying 'exists' means 'exists for the 100 peers', Let's also say that the judgment of these 100 determines whether something is considered science. <br /><br />Then I agree with all conservative skeptics. Yes, the phenomena is onboarded given a body of evidence acquired via parsimonious means - laid out on a plate for all to see, for many to adjudicate, and scientific knowledge to be augmented. What was observed by only 3 does not make the cut. <br /><br />In agreeing this, I think science can alternatively be described as a "Scientist's Club, Established ~3500 BC - Only Evidence Need Apply" and tells us less about what happens (if we can even say stuff happens) and more about what people believe? By that I mean that science must be a function of people as well as the stuff the people are examining. No observe? No exist.<br /> <br />But we undertake a philosophical investigation, yes? Be it science, politics, family and workplace goings-on, people tend to be less interested in the basics: science textbooks, political slogans, our excuses to each other - than they are in what is really going on: controversial topics, private workplace and family dirt and so forth.<br /><br />That's why it seems that the philosophy of science is mainly a social philosophy.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61318030200031659582010-08-12T19:31:35.645-04:002010-08-12T19:31:35.645-04:00Have been thinking a bit more, and I believe part ...Have been thinking a bit more, and I believe part of the reason why we do not reach any agreement may actually be a failure to differentiate appropriately between two issues: (1) whether explanations involving a "supernatural element" can be scientific theories and (2) whether science can say anything about effects and processes claimed to exist by the religious.<br /><br />I can certainly understand the logic that leads people to postulate #1. I disagree with the stance, but let us for the purposes of the discussion grant that a scientist born into the world of Dungeons and Dragons would have to pretend divine magic does not exist even after seeing a cleric resurrect a fallen warrior with prayer, and that<br /><br /><i>I postulate that objects have a property which I will now call "mass" that attracts them to each other. Don't ask me what mass is or where it comes from, please; I just said that it is a property which attracts objects to each other. Maybe scientists in the distant future of 1850 will understand it better.</i><br /><br />is any more scientific than<br /><br /><i>I postulate that a force exists which I will now call "Allah" that consistently (p < 0.00005) makes lost limbs regrow over night if prayed to in Arabic. Don't ask me what Allah is or where it comes from, please...</i><br /><br />Let us just grant that it is and move on.<br /><br />The important thing is that this is ever only a problem when you actually find indications of supernatural activity. It still does not follow that science has to remain silent on supernatural claims if (as is the case) there is absolutely no evidence for anything supernatural. Saying "what you claim to exist has not been observed" is different from invoking a supernatural explanation. And if there is no evidence for something, if it is indistinguishable from being non-existent, the concept of parsimony not only allows but requires a scientist to consider it non-existent. And I certainly hope that philosophy of science textbooks agree on that even if they take the stance described as #1. If parsimony is not science, then any hallucination is compatible with science.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82451882914887265022010-08-12T13:32:59.988-04:002010-08-12T13:32:59.988-04:00Massimo: " Philosophy, of course, is an examp...Massimo: "<i> Philosophy, of course, is an example, as it makes progress through the analysis and dissection of concepts, not via empirical discoveries. Logic and mathematics are additional obvious examples: mathematical theorems are neither discovered nor proved by using scientific methods at all. Unless one wishes to conclude that math is not a rational enterprise, then one is forced to admit that science = reason is a bad equation.</i>"<br /><br />Agreed. Cantor believed he had proven the existence of God with the creation of "set theory" (you could call it "mathematical theology").<br /><br />"<i>To Cantor, his mathematical views were intrinsically linked to their philosophical and theological implications — he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,[46] and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.[12]</i>"<br /><br />(source: Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor" rel="nofollow">George Cantor</a>)Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14880376171203957562010-08-12T13:04:14.481-04:002010-08-12T13:04:14.481-04:00Richard W: "It's open to religious scient...Richard W: "<i>It's open to religious scientists to say that such consistency doesn't matter, at least to them. But it's clear they feel it does matter. That's why they invoke methodological naturalism to justify applying such different standards.</i>"<br /><br />You are conflating "methodological naturalism" with "philosophical naturalism." Philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical belief based on faith - faith as the skeptic defines the term (belief without sufficient or no evidence). What exactly is the philosophical inconsistency of a <i>dualist</i> employing "methodological naturalism" to study the natural or physical world?Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54993471616192445462010-08-12T05:28:07.529-04:002010-08-12T05:28:07.529-04:00@Paisley August 11, 2010 11:54 PM::
While Chalm...@Paisley August 11, 2010 11:54 PM:: <br /><br />While Chalmers is OK with the "conscious thermostat", I do not think he is OK with monistic information, and he says he subscribes to a type of dualism that could explain both consciousness and the stuff of materialism.<br /><br />For a narrow definition of consciousness which says requires (1) thoughts, (2) awareness, (3) feelings, etc... then my argument against restriction to 'living things' is along Chalmers' lines. He would say you can't really pin down what it means to have a thought or a feeling, although most would grant that awareness can certainly be attributed to anything one likes. <br /><br />But Chalmers was halfhearted in his attack on our understanding of consciousness from an informational point of view. Based on my reading, he did not do two things which would go further to justify the failure of the current human-centric definition of consciousness.<br /><br />(1) He did not clump two or more people together and looking at a group consciousness and how that might work - without resorting to New Age fluff that does not explain the mechanics.<br /><br />(2) He did not flesh out his speculation about information in terms of inputs we humans do NOT receive. For example, lets say there are three more streams of sensory information walled off to us because of the lack of sense organs with which to process the inputs. An entity having those 3 extra senses observing us would say that we are not fully conscious in terms of all three of the above requirements for consciousness.<br /><br />Similarly, cases abound about people deprived of all known senses, but have brainwave activity - they are said to be conscious for the most arbitrary of reasons.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54286743132235912012010-08-12T05:09:46.377-04:002010-08-12T05:09:46.377-04:00GoogleGhost,
Thanks for summing up the issues so ...GoogleGhost,<br /><br />Thanks for summing up the issues so well. I would add that if we follow Massimo's narrow definition of "science", then it's not clear that "science" is relevant to the original question of inconsistency. If much of what scientists do professionally is not "science", then there can be an inconsistency between what religious scientists do professionally and outside their professional work, without this inconsistency necessarily involving "science". I'd also add that Coyne's way of expressing the inconsistency claim is problematic, because of his use of the vague words "philosophy" and "philosophical".<br /><br />Here's how I would express the inconsistency claim, without using the words "science" or "philosophy". I would say that religious scientists are being inconsistent in their application of epistemological standards across their range of beliefs, applying high standards in their professional work (and expecting others to apply those standards) but far lower standards to other beliefs that they are particularly committed to.<br /><br />It's open to religious scientists to say that such consistency doesn't matter, at least to them. But it's clear they feel it does matter. That's why they invoke methodological naturalism to justify applying such different standards.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42876470313225951852010-08-12T02:43:42.775-04:002010-08-12T02:43:42.775-04:00downquark: "Well it depends on how you want t...downquark: "<i>Well it depends on how you want to apply the jargon, but you are essentially correct. But that doesn't stop quantum mystics like yourself proposing "interpretations" that are completely wrong.</i>"<br /><br />The problem with your analysis is some of the most prominent names in physics (Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, Neils Bohr, Eugene Wigner, David Bohm, John A. Wheeler, Brian Josephson, etc.) have been guilty of "quantum mysticism."<br /><br />downquark: "<i>If you stretched the jargon you could say he is making a case for some form of idealism (you or massimo would probably know the correct terminology) but in that case you gained nothing by invoking quantum jargon.</i>"<br /><br />Both advaita vedanta Hinduism and Buddhism qualify as forms of idealism. Quantum mechanics meshes well with idealism - "esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived").Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30069486863676814312010-08-11T23:54:12.931-04:002010-08-11T23:54:12.931-04:00Dave S: "That's right, digital physics is...Dave S: "<i>That's right, digital physics is compatible with a kind of neutral monism, not dualism. Except for a digital physicist, information is the monistic thing, not energy.</i>"<br /><br />Yes, I am aware that <i>information</i> as been proposed as the "neutral stuff" in neutral monism. But others (such as Frank Tipler) do have a different take on this.<br /><br />Dave S: "<i>Wait, I don't want downquark snapping at me, so let's switch Wheeler in and 'digital physicist' out.</i>"<br /><br />I will soon be reading Paul Davies' rendition of John A. Wheeler's "particpatory universe."<br /><br />Dave S: "<i>The reason it is not god that creates the laws of physics is part semantics and part misplaced focus. If you define a god as a singleton with overarching control over all, you negate the possibility of lower-level gods who may have done the lion's share of the definition. Of course, if you substitute the word 'machinery' for 'god' you can arrive at the same kind of dualism you seek, but don't forget to include humanity in the machinery too.</i>"<br /><br />I don't have a problem with panpsychism or pantheism (which neutral monism or dual-aspect monism supports).<br /><br />Dave S: "<i>That is why the lottery machine is conscious. Just at a different level. My prejudices put it at a lower level than human but the machine may not see things the same way.</i>"<br /><br />I haven't read Chalmers' theory, so I probably should refrain from judgment. (I like to keep an open mind on these things.) But right now, I can't see a lottery machine (or a thermostat) as being conscious.Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78789007291716373112010-08-11T17:47:03.178-04:002010-08-11T17:47:03.178-04:00downquark, note the earlier comment that "phy...downquark, note the earlier comment that "physicists may have reason to suspect that some laws of nature are not in fact constant." I'd argue that a certain lack of constancy may apply to all of of our conceptions of nature's regulatory forces.<br />Statistical functions don't make "choices" but take measure of what we ironically refer to as the law of probability. And note that I said choices that result from natural strategies are reactive. <br />There is no anthropomorphizing going on with respect to choice in my examples, as human or biological choices are based on assessments that natural or non-living or non-calculative elements cannot necessarily make beforehand. <br /><br />And you would have strategies seeking some conception of their goals, when the inherent goal of any strategy is to first maintain the integrity of whatever structure it was fashioned to support.<br /><br />But yes, the contemplation of the strategic nature of the universe and how and why this arrangement was arrived at, or improved upon, or as in my own view has always been extant, does raise more questions than it answers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61576248502991846932010-08-11T16:26:19.829-04:002010-08-11T16:26:19.829-04:00@Artie
But this this raises more questions than it...@Artie<br />But this this raises more questions than it answers.<br /><br />I still don't get why gravity is a law but statistical functions are "choices". If it has a definite goal why do they do the suboptimal thing some of the time?<br /><br />The use of the word strategy implies 2 things, a goal and limitations on reaching that goal. I would guess the limitations are physical laws that they must strategise around, but from my point of view their entire behaviour is governed by stochastic laws (I can't prove this but I can't prove water is being pulled beyond the limits of the scientific framework).<br /><br />And what is the goal? Life? There are plenty of things in physics that seem completely inconvenient for life and others completely irrelevant, Time dilation, half the standard model, the absence of a room temperature superconductor.<br /><br />Before quantum theory everyone was more than happy with determinism, I don't see why it is an "essential source of spontaneity". What's essential about it?<br /><br />So which laws are choice and which are natural? Is the pattern of a double slit experiment a strategy? Is the decay of the uranium atom a strategy? Is the fact the binding energy trend reverses once you reach iron a strategy. Superfluidity?<br /><br />Frankly I don't see how anything of this is any different than other efforts to anthropomorphise any other feature of nature. Although I am reminded of the comparison of how electrons fill energy states the same way the British fill bus seats.downquarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15154074859072874873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24723234033349671872010-08-11T14:17:31.726-04:002010-08-11T14:17:31.726-04:00downquark writes:
"What about particles or nu...downquark writes:<br />"What about particles or nuclei that decay then, do they choose to decay, why would it want they their structure to remain consistent or those that fail suicidal? The wavefunction is deterministically calculative by mathematics, the collapse is where spontaneity comes into it. You can manipulate the bias of the dice but it ultimately gets rolled." <br />He also infers my argument to mean that "water flows to the sea because it likes being with its friends. "<br /><br />Water has no choice except to run downhill, or to be pulled downhill if you will; but when it does so, the structures of its atoms retain their unique natures as elements of water. (And hydrogen and oxygen combined have attained an added state of strategic formulation - one that can optionally be formed as steam, ice, vapor, etc.)<br />The "choices" are reactive, and reactions are dependent on internal strategies that are unique to their chemical properties, and the indeterminacy involved is in the nature of the "laws" that regulate all such interactions - including the integrity of these algorithmic strategies that are the essential sources of any spontaneity in nature.<br /> The indeterminate element, the advent of spontaneity, lies with the apparent fact that the laws that seem to govern the movements of the particles involved are in and of themselves the maximizers of probability in the cosmos. Particles that decay can be predicted to decay, but not with any certainty as to when your spontaneity will kick in. But with a virtual certainty that it eventually will. Who are we to say that this is not a consequence of some contesting strategies, or that the predictability we observe is cannot be simply the effect of sequential accidents? <br />Because it seems the universe has learned to take advantage of its "accidental" aspects.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44391405428031508902010-08-11T12:31:21.223-04:002010-08-11T12:31:21.223-04:00downquark, I'd be curious to see what you thin...downquark, I'd be curious to see what you think of the book. Yeah, I don't think science can make sensible use of the anthropic principle in anything beyond its tautologically obvious version. On the other hand, I don't buy Smolin's theory of inter-universe natural selection either.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.com