← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · NeoNietzsche
Thread ID: 4962 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2003-02-11
2003-02-11 22:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Feb 11 2003, 02:32 As a Christian, I see evolution as the Creator's tool. I reject the crudely materialistic notion that evolution is merely another phenomenon of matter, like water freezing into crystals. DNA is way too complex for that. DNA is information. It is vastly more complex than the combined works of Shakespeare. DNA was invented. That much is clear. It most certainly did not arise spontaneously from the primordial soup.
1) One cannot, in principle, declare any process absolutely impossible.
2) Therefore, the instantiation of a process is a question of probability.
3) The establishment of probability requires a determination of the number of opportunities.
4) One cannot, in principle, determine the number of universes of opportunity which did, do, and will exist.
5) As one cannot quantify the number of cosmological opportunities therefor, ranging from one to infinity, the "materialistic" emergence of life can as well be reckoned inevitable as reckoned wildly improbable.
6) Complexity does not imply invention. Evident intention implies invention.
7) Thus one cannot deduce "invention" of DNA from the considerations adduced above.
2003-02-12 06:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 11 2003, 22:27 ** ) One cannot, in principle, declare any process absolutely impossible.
**
Absolutely?
QED
Walter
2003-02-12 14:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Feb 12 2003, 00:10 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 11 2003, 22:27 ** ) One cannot, in principle, declare any process absolutely impossible.
**
Absolutely?
QED**
"Absolutely?"
No - rationally.
One can easily perform the "process" of declaring anything impossible merely by reciting the words.
I assumed that the context of the discussion was in mind when failing to refer to "any process" as any material process. "Impossibility" and "absolutely" properly obtain only in matters of logic (z.b, A is absolutely not not-A). The emergence of DNA, however, is a material process subject to empirical considerations which thus preclude the rational application of terms confined only to logic. Since, on the other hand, possibility is meaningful in empirical terms (we know that things are possible by virtue of having experienced them) my argument follows as to the equivalence of the inevitability (of the natural emergence of DNA) with its radical improbability.
2003-02-12 14:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 12 2003, 14:32 ** One cannot, in principle, declare any process absolutely impossible.
One can easily perform the "process" of declaring anything impossible merely by reciting the words.
**
The contradiction here is too obvious to require any further explication. You confuse the processes of deduction and induction and thus run afoul of your own argument.
You do make one good point:
Complexity does not imply invention. Evident intention implies invention.
This is precisely why DNA could not in all probability (again, we're using induction here) have been an accident: it conveys information (rather like a detailed instruction manual) rather than being merely complex. It therefore implies strongly the intention of an Author.
Walter
2003-02-12 17:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Feb 12 2003, 08:54 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 12 2003, 14:32 ** One cannot, in principle, declare any process absolutely impossible.
One can easily perform the "process" of declaring anything impossible merely by reciting the words.
**
The contradiction here is too obvious to require any further explication. You confuse the processes of deduction and induction and thus run afoul of your own argument.
You do make one good point:
Complexity does not imply invention. Evident intention implies invention.
This is precisely why DNA could not in all probability (again, we're using induction here) have been an accident: it conveys information (rather like a detailed instruction manual) rather than being merely complex. It therefore implies strongly the intention of an Author.
Walter**
I have not "confused" processes - I have appropriately responded to the only interpretation of your one-word objection "Absolutely?" which finds merit therein. It is your own position which must involve confusion of the logical/deductive with the empirical/inductive, since we cannot experience impossibility with regard to material processes. We can only conceptualize it, like literal infinity, as a tendency toward increasing improbability. Without impossibility, your position fails. You make your point about contradiction by abusing what obviously is my pro tempore revision of "declare" made in order to accommodate a reasonable interpretation of your objection.
Your point about "conveying information" is correct until you liken it to an "instruction manual". There is no conscious agent to be literally instructed in manifestation of an author's intention. All physical processes "convey" information in at least a very primitive sense (one electron state remotely excludes all others) - DNA is incomparably more complex in so doing, but we agree that complexity does not imply invention.
2003-02-13 12:40 | User Profile
**I have not "confused" processes - I have appropriately responded to the only interpretation of your one-word objection "Absolutely?" which finds merit therein. **
If I understand you correctly, you missed the point of my question > **"Absolutely?" **
You say:
**One cannot, in principle, declare any process absolutely impossible.ÃÂ **
This is oxymoronic, since your declaration of the impossibility of such a declaration is precisely such a declaration. My question "Absolutely? underscored in shorthand this self-evident internal contradiction.
You then confirm this internal contradiction in your next quote:
One can easily perform the "process" of declaring anything impossible merely by reciting the words.
As I said, the contradiction between your first and second quotes are entirely self-evident.
But, let's drop that as it's become tedious.
I would like to discuss with you your main point, which from you previous posts I understand as follows (please correct me if I'm wrong).
You seem to believe that man should not shrink from embracing the abyss, from accepting the utter meaninglessness of life, celebrating the fact that there is no God and no moral standard outside ourselves, accepting that we're alone in the Universe, and that man is the measure of all things. Put another way, that we should leave behind all the fairy tales of religion and accept that there is no standard of conduct outside ourselves, that the naked Will to Power prevails in everything including the moral, and that we should greet all of that with certain austere nobility of spirit.
I mean this with all respect, and I apologize for any unwarranted flippancy in my previous responses.
Walter
2003-02-13 15:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Feb 13 2003, 06:40 **
As I said, the contradiction between your first and second quotes are entirely self-evident.
But, let's drop that as it's become tedious.
I would like to discuss with you your main point, which from you previous posts I understand as follows (please correct me if I'm wrong).
You seem to believe that man should not shrink from embracing the abyss, from accepting the utter meaninglessness of life, celebrating the fact that there is no God and no moral standard outside ourselves, accepting that we're alone in the Universe, and that man is the measure of all things. Put another way, that we should leave behind all the fairy tales of religion and accept that there is no standard of conduct outside ourselves, that the naked Will to Power prevails in everything including the moral, and that we should greet all of that with certain austere nobility of spirit.
I mean this with all respect, and I apologize for any unwarranted flippancy in my previous responses.
Walter**
**As I said, the contradiction between your first and second quotes are entirely self-evident.
But, let's drop that as it's become tedious.**
Briefly then:
You fail to note the distinction I drew between uses of "declare" as they relate to material process and you then employ this, your failure, toward "confirming" my putative self-contradiction. My original declaration of impossibility was obviously not to be taken as, itself, a material (rather than ratiocinative) process in regard to material (DNA) processes (please read my responses to your objections and keep context in mind) and so was not "oxymoronic". I temporarily revised the meaning of "declare" to accommodate its treatment as such a material process, however, in order to meet and make a concession to your objection, interpreted in this, its only relevant form. But this distinction escapes you. So let me restate an alternative to my statement: "absolute" and "impossible" are categorically meaningful and applicable (and just marginally so) only in logic, not in regard to material/empirical process. Therefore you cannot properly employ the term "impossibility" in regard to the natural emergence of DNA. Therefore, the inevitability of such is equivalent to its radical improbability, in view of other considerations previously adduced.
I would like to discuss with you your main point, which from you previous posts I understand as follows (please correct me if I'm wrong)....I mean this with all respect, and I apologize for any unwarranted flippancy in my previous responses.
Your upright posture is much appreciated, thank you.
You seem to believe that man should not shrink from embracing the abyss,...
In what would naturally be varying degrees of capability, intellectually and emotionally. However, in my vocabulary, one is a "man" rather than otherwise to the extent that one bears this burden.
...from accepting the utter meaninglessness of life,...
This is a mis-impression. The meaning of life for the masters is the ordering of life - the meaning of life for the slaves is thus being ordered or resisting that order.
...celebrating the fact that there is no God...
Another mis-impression. The fact is not a cause for celebration, it is simply the circumstance which must be dealt with. Nietzsche hoped and anticipated that what he saw as the distinctly Christian emphasis on confessional truthfulness would presently result in a "self-overcoming" of the unfortunate "lie" involved in Christianity itself.
...and no moral standard outside ourselves,...
Yet another. The masters are naturally given to collective aristocratic master morality, as emerges in all stratified society.
...accepting that we're alone in the Universe, and that man is the measure of all things....
Absent some non-self-deceptively evident transcendent and predictable/systematic influence, we are left to deal with the world as we find it. There are a great many people's lives I would sacrifice to save a beloved pet, if I properly object to the above formulation about measure.
Put another way, that we should leave behind all the fairy tales of religion and accept that there is no standard of conduct outside ourselves, that the naked Will to Power prevails in everything including the moral, and that we should greet all of that with certain austere nobility of spirit.
As qualified above, I would accept this as a negatively-shaded but legitimate presentation.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these qualifications.
2003-02-14 06:44 | User Profile
Therefore, the instantiation of a process is a question of probability
Then I take it that you actually believe the old undergraduate physics quantum JOKE that an infinite number of monkeys pounding on an infinite number of keyboards will bang out the entire literary canon of western civilization in 24 hours. Or just snoop dogg and dirty ol bastid with poofy combs "coordinatin", if you give them an extension on the assignment.
2003-02-14 14:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by Marcus Porcius Cato@Feb 14 2003, 00:44 > Therefore, the instantiation of a process is a question of probability**
Then I take it that you actually believe the old undergraduate physics quantum JOKE that an infinite number of monkeys pounding on an infinite number of keyboards will bang out the entire literary canon of western civilization in 24 hours. Or just snoop dogg and dirty ol bastid with poofy combs "coordinatin", if you give them an extension on the assignment.**
If we substitute for "monkeys" the random letter generators which they are sardonically intended to represent, the canon will emerge amongst that infinitude of such random product by immediate implication of that premise. There is no question of "belief".
Thank you for the opportunity to correct what evidently is your misconception in this regard.