You should join our great online community now - you can win great prizes
Register now
You should subscribe to our free MyBroadband newsletter


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Thread: Teleology - Debunked

  1. #1

    Default Teleology - Debunked

    With our resident supernaturalist in mind, I thought I'd start this thread with an extract from a post made by Calilasseia, who in my mind is simply brilliant. Follow the link to read the full post. A must read I might add!


    Quote Originally Posted by Calilasseia
    Teleology/ethics redux.

    First, in response to recent posting activity, I'd like to cover the matter of teleology. Which is defined as 'the doctrine of final purpose'. Basically, teleology erects the assertion (hand in hand with supernaturalism) that the universe and its contents are subject to an externally applied overarching 'purpose'. This is merely another example of the pervasiveness of the human tendency to project our own intentionality upon our surroundings, a process that our species applied from prehistoric times onwards. The operation thereof is very simple. Humans are beings who think about their actions (well, at least some of us are), and who frequently engage in activities with a specific end goal in mind. As a consequence, when our prehistoric ancestors saw natural forces at work, and saw that those natural forces shaped the landscape (and their own populations), they considered it entirely natural to conclude that this was the work of some entity similar to themselves, namely an entity with internally generated thoughts and goals, acting to achieve those goals. Basically, our prehistoric ancestors fabricated invisible magic men of various species because they didn't know any better, and in the absence of substantive scientific knowledge, doing so was the only way that they could make sense of a complex, dynamic world. It would take our species a good 200,000 years to reach the point where we could make sense of the world in a proper, rigorous, quantitative manner without erecting such fabrications, and thus, said mythological fabrications have enjoyed far more persistence and persuasiveness than their complete absence of genuine explanatory power warrants.

    Teleology is merely an extension of this. Because we have end goals and act to achieve those end goals in the real world, our ancestors assumed that the events around them arising from natural forces had a like origin, and that some sentient intent and planning lay behind them. However, this is merely another of those presuppositions that, in the fullness of time, was found severely wanting when subject to proper, intense critical scientific test. NO evidence has EVER arisen supporting the idea of an externally applied teleology governing the universe and its contents, indeed, with several physical systems, the idea that this is even possible looks decidedly nonsensical, in the light of the fact that those systems are best represented by systems of equations that are highly non-linear, exhibit extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, and wildly bifurcating behaviour. There is an entire branch of mathematics devoted to the study of such systems, namely the mathematics of chaotic dynamical systems, and even relatively simple, supposedly deterministic systems of equations have been demonstrated to exhibit wide variance in behaviour with only tiny changes in initial conditions. The Verhulst Equation that is used to model population dynamics is a prime example - even small changes in the fecundity parameter in this equation will lead, once the equation enters the bifurcating régime, in wildly different outcomes even if one starts with the same initial conditions. Indeed, once that equation enters the chaotic régime, our ability to predict future behaviour of the system is severely truncated.

    Now, if a simple ordinary differential equation can manifest this diversity of behaviour, it doesn't take much imagining, at least amongst those who paid attention in the requisite classes, to realise that a physical system such as the weather, which is best modelled using the Navier-Stokes Equations among others, is not going to be in any sense 'directable', no matter what delusions of grandeur any sentient entity has with respect to this. The Navier-Stokes Equations are not only highly non-linear interlinked partial differential equations (and in the most general case, tensor differential equations to boot, involving at least one second order tensor quantity), but have proven to be so intractable to attack by mathematicians, that the very existence of a general analytical solution to them remains unknown, despite a century or more of intense labour by the world's best mathematicians to answer this question. Indeed, anyone who succeeds in this endeavour will win themselves a $1 million prize courtesy of the Clay Mathematical Institute, and immediately find themselves receiving lucrative job offers from aerospace companies such as Boeing to come and help them streamline their supercomputer models of fluid flow. At the moment, Navier-Stokes turbulent flow modelling requires expensive teams of top-class mathematicians, computer scientists, and a $50 million supercomputer as baseline pre-requisites, and those operating in this field will readily tell you that there are limits to how far in future time one can push the models, particularly those using these tools for weather modelling. The idea that the behaviour of a physical system, governed by equations of this sort, is 'directable' by any sentience will result in considerable mirth amongst those who know. So if you think your magic man is capable of imposing an overarching teleology upon the universe and its contents, and micro-managing the entire show, those two gentlemen called Navier and Stokes flushed that presupposition down the toilet over 100 years ago.

    As a corollary, if there is hard evidence from 300 years of continued scientific endeavour, that an externally applied overarching teleology is not only conspicuous by its absence, but wholly absurd in the light of the divergent behaviour of key physical systems (and that's before we enter the world of quantum indeterminacy), then likewise, the idea that there exists one, single, overarching set of ethical precepts applied externally to the universe from the same source, a set of precepts that remains unconditionally valid for all time, is similarly ludicrous. Nietzsche castigated philosophers who erected grand, assertion-laden metaphysical systems for the purpose of imposing their pet ethics upon the universe even without the benefit of the latest scientific knowledge, and recognised the basic fallacy underlying this exercise. Modern physics simply propels the fallacy into the realms of Pythonesque absurdity. Apart from the cosmic level of anthropocentric conceit required to erect the notion, that the affairs of one small collection of primates on one small planet, orbiting an average star situated in a nondescript galaxy, are the central reason for the universe being here, there is the central absurdity involved in imposing an overarching set of ethical precepts upon a universe in which the supposedly central characters don't put in an appearance for over 13 billion years. The monumental metaphysical profligacy this assumes would make William of Ockham barf.

  2. #2
    Banned Balstrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    10,691

    Default

    This Calilasseia is one bad ass atheist, he eats theists for breakfast, lunch and supper. Like a round house kick from Chuck but only in debate.

  3. #3

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by code View Post
    I thought I'd start this thread with an extract from a post made by Calilasseia, who in my mind is simply brilliant. Follow the link to read the full post. A must read I might add!
    I would pick a bone with “there exists one, single, overarching set of ethical precepts applied externally to the universe from the same source, a set of precepts that remains unconditionally valid for all time, is similarly ludicrous.

    Ethics is a human construct. It doesn’t exist separate from humanity. There is no ‘ethics’ or good & evil. A more realistic concept is chaos and order (in human terms - chaos = evil & order = good [ethical]). Fortunately, there is a natural progression from chaos to order. Chaos seeks order (although it doesn’t always appear so). This is universal and has nothing to do with ethics. It is simply coincidental (and fortunate IMO) that there is an ethical trend through chaos seeking order.

  5. #5

    Default

    @Palimino

    Believe it or not, the general trend, by far, is from Order to Chaos. The unfortunate fact is that the entropy of the universe is increasing steadily - when you consider the universe as a whole, or even (comparatively) small regions such as galaxies. Entropy is likely decreasing on Earth, at the moment, that doesnt mean that this will hold for all time or that it is true for the universe.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palimino View Post
    I would pick a bone with “there exists one, single, overarching set of ethical precepts applied externally to the universe from the same source, a set of precepts that remains unconditionally valid for all time, is similarly ludicrous."
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Palimino
    Ethics is a human construct. It doesn’t exist separate from humanity. There is no ‘ethics’ or good & evil. A more realistic concept is chaos and order (in human terms - chaos = evil & order = good [ethical]). Fortunately, there is a natural progression from chaos to order. Chaos seeks order (although it doesn’t always appear so). This is universal and has nothing to do with ethics. It is simply coincidental (and fortunate IMO) that there is an ethical trend through chaos seeking order.
    I'm not sure about chaos seeking order being universal. Perhaps provide me with a couple of examples to clarify where you're coming from?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancalagon View Post
    Believe it or not, the general trend, by far, is from Order to Chaos. The unfortunate fact is that the entropy of the universe is increasing steadily - when you consider the universe as a whole, or even (comparatively) small regions such as galaxies. Entropy is likely decreasing on Earth, at the moment, that doesnt mean that this will hold for all time or that it is true for the universe.
    Chaos theory and Fractal theory says otherwise.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by code View Post
    I'm not sure about chaos seeking order being universal. Perhaps provide me with a couple of examples to clarify where you're coming from?
    It’s in nature’s toolbox. I fear that convincing examples only exist on the quantum level. The random geometry of coastlines and Fractal theory is quoted as one example of where nature employs this tool. Chaos theory also seems to support this view (although I have only read primer texts). I am assuming that the physical laws which ‘our’ nature wields are universal.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palimino View Post
    Chaos theory and Fractal theory says otherwise.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

    I'm not sure what fractals say about the amount of entropy in a closed system with respect to time - I suspect nothing at all. Fractals are more concerned with parts of the system that resemble the whole at a specific point in time - not that order increases with time.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palimino View Post
    It’s in nature’s toolbox. I fear that convincing examples only exist on the quantum level. The random geometry of coastlines and Fractal theory is quoted as one example of where nature employs this tool. Chaos theory also seems to support this view (although I have only read primer texts). I am assuming that the physical laws which ‘our’ nature wields are universal.
    Ah OK. I'll take your word for it as I've never researched Chaos or Fractal theory.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancalagon View Post
    Fractals are more concerned with parts of the system that resemble the whole at a specific point in time - not that order increases with time.
    When explaining fractals **a part** of the system is focused upon. You cannot see the whole system (it would be HUGE), particularly as you have to zoom-in on a microscopic part to see the fractal effect.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palimino View Post
    When explaining fractals **a part** of the system is focused upon. You cannot see the whole system (it would be HUGE), particularly as you have to zoom-in on a microscopic part to see the fractal effect.
    Yes, but what does this imply about entropy? Are you saying the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesnt apply?

  13. #13

    Default

    How does this "debunk" obvious goal-directed behaviour of minds?
    Atheism = "sh|t just happens"

  14. #14
    Banned Balstrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    10,691

    Default

    There is not one that is observable in the universe, so yes, debunked. Unless you have evidence ?

  15. #15

    Default

    @Phronesis

    It says nothing about whether minds have goals, only whether inanimate objects such as the universe do. As far as we can, nothing inanimate has any goal at all.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •