Taking The Descartes Challenge

Philosophy
41

Picked this up from another thread by Lauston.

The Big Picture: From the Big Bang to the Meaning of Life - with Sean Carroll - YouTube

An excellent lecture and well worth the time .

I learned one thing from this lecture in relation abiogenesis that contrary to popular belief, high entropy is allows for and is responsible for the formation of complex patterns.

Low entropy keeps everything the same, there is very little interaction and natural experimentation. High entropy means there is lots of change and interaction, allowing for new patterns to emerge.

Of course, in the end entropy wins and all things will slowly dissipate into the great void. What happens after that is unknown.

But it seems clear that entropy is the dynamical function from which complex patterns evolve and temporarily acquire low entropy via natural selection and eventually reach a state of high entropy due to age and loss of energy.

But considered that the high entropy of a decomposing body feeds trilions of smaller organisms and allows them to acquire greater complexity and abilities via natural selection.

I havent thought this through all the way yet, but am very exited by what I learned from Carroll’s wonderful lecture at the Royal Society.

42

In furtherance of this, here is a quote that seems logical but yjere’s a catch.

All closed systems are subject to the second law of thermodynamics that everything goes from order to disorder. While living things have the informational capability to maintain an open system the living things are not subject to law of entropy.
Do living organisms defy the second law of thermodynamics? | Socratic

With “open systems” I assume it is meant that energy is available for use from outside for replenishment of energy loss by the open system.

But suppose there is no energy available from outside the open system?

When a person goes without food for a long enough time, his system will experience increased entropy and eventually he will die, no?

43

Is that a point of view thing. Sure what happens here on Earth means nothing to God or eternity, but it certainly mean a great deal to us who are experiencing this incomparable reality on Earth.

How do you figure that?
Other than Earth is a part of the universe.

Ohh, that I like!
Seems to me it’s an excellent encapsulation of something I’m trying to get across.

Learning to appreciate it. :v:t2:

I like that one too, takes me right back to the old standby:

Appreciating the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide

44

I’m happy to say I’m familiar with that particular talk. I’ve a big fan of his. Quite the leap from

A similar thing can be seen in ecology, the boundary area of clear cut in a forest is more biologically diverse and vigorous than deep within either the forest or deep within the cleaning. This sort of dynamic has been documented in numerous other ecology studies.

In the video she talks about finite volume, but infinite perimeter. I’ve heard the same thing can be said of lakes depending on how small you decide to make your measurement increment. Sort of a Zeno’s paradox thing.

It’s interesting, but it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view, folds within folds.

45

Earth, and worms, and you and me, and cow dung, etc. They’re all just various arrangements of star stuff, some of which have something we refer to as consciousness.

1 Like
46

I increasingly wonder about that philosophical tendency to trivialize the extraordinary - is it at the root of the communal disregard for tending to our biosphere and incorporating the needs of other creatures into our priorities?

A room full of rock samples might deserve the reduction to “just various arrangements of star stuff.” But to reduce one’s musing of living biology down to “just various arrangements of star stuff,” or “arrangements of information,” seems to me the epitome of nihilism.

Lausten. this is exactly the subtle stuff I’m talking about, when I complain about philosophical failings, and the general disconnect for Earth’s biosphere.

God used to provide that touchstone, but that only works so long as we are ignorant of Earth cornucopian of resources and the knowledge to understand and master natural laws of physics and biology.

By and by we have become God like in our understanding of those natural laws and that changed everything. Still, we don’t want to know about the dangers and responsibility that comes with power.

Sort of like giving an arrogant spoiled brat a Porsche 918 Spyder for their 17th birthday.

It’s so easy to get confused between the amazing universe of our thoughts, and the straight forward IS-ness of physical reality, when we never come to grips with ourselves, our natural condition, and the thoughts we entertain.

It occurs to me maybe my Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide should actually look more like a triplet:

Physical Reality ~ Biology (life) ~ Creature Mindscape

… that gets sort of messy since on the one hand our mind is definitely part of the mammalian brain continuum, yet there’s no denying it has made a ‘quantum leap’ onto a whole new processing level.

Physical Reality ~ Biology ~ Creature Mindscape
-------------------------------------\\\\\\
-------------------------------------- Human Mindscape

47

Given the choice, I’d rather have people with Cuthbert’s concept of life, than Domionists who think earth’s resources are there for them. I’m not sure the knowledge of how things functions leads to caring about those things. But, for me, knowing it will all end one day, leaves me to focus on what I can do in my short time, and it seems like a simple choice between burning it down or making it a little nicer.

1 Like
48

Sure. Being into learning isn’t easy, especially since it is full of so many moments one needs to face up to their own ignorance, and reconcile apparently mistaken personal beliefs &. assumptions, with contrary facts. But, in that resolution there’s growth and that makes it well worth it for a certain type of person.

I believe one of the things that does matter to people very much is a sense of kinship. That belonging, caring, being there when a “family” member needs help, having people that will step up offer help, being able to graciously accept help, all without the need for constant balance sheet accounting.

I believe only a sense of kinship not just with each other, but with Earth and her creatures and processes, will empower some to survive the coming collapse of our society. Although I’m also becoming convinced that only the catastrophe will supply the forge to bring about such a profound attitude change.

One thing I do know is our philosophical fascination with all things otherworldly and beyond our reach, does nothing but help, it simply furthers the distractions and stupefaction of the masses, when it’s what we are doing to this planet and ourselves that people ought to be focused on for any sort of sustainable future, in the hellhouse climate we are creating.

If the treasure and brains used for this Siren Song of Fusion Energy (with its supposed promise of power so cheap and plentiful we won’t even need to meter it,) and the salvation from all our problems - had instead been devoted to reinvent how we dealing with fresh water use, recycling, conserving, humanity would have been far better served. {If fusion were where it’s at now, seventy years ago, then it might have been a game changer, but no matter how future research goes, it’ll never return all that runway (decades) we’ve squandered. That does carry consequences with it.

But back to your point Lausten, look what came across my YouTube radar this morning.
Guess this sums it up,

image
image1920×1269 193 KB

source

49

No sooner did I post in this thread, when Neil Tyson showed up on Instagram saying literally the same exact thing. He put it very nicely - the four main atoms in the universe are H, N, C, and O. And the four main atoms in each of us (and all living things) are the same four. And then he says exactly what I say - that doesn’t make us NOT special, it makes us incredibly special - we ARE the universe and the universe is us.

And that’s a something I think so many people miss, by trying to imply some kind of artificial distinction between everything.

2 Likes
50

And that leads us to understand that there is no such thing as “irreducible complexity” and reductionism is a perfectly logical approach to try and understand reality.

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy suggests that reductionism is “one of the most used and abused terms in the philosophical lexicon” and suggests a three-part division:[3]

Ontological reductionism: a belief that the whole of reality consists of a minimal number of parts.

Methodological reductionism: the scientific attempt to provide an explanation in terms of ever-smaller entities.

Theory reductionism: the suggestion that a newer theory does not replace or absorb an older one, but reduces it to more basic terms.

Theory reduction itself is divisible into three parts: translation, derivation, and explanation.[4]

Reductionism can be applied to any phenomenon, including objects, problems, explanations, theories, and meanings.[4][5][6]

I would add one more item to the equation and that is ; Complexity acquires “emergent” properties over and above the sum of its parts.

51

My vision, which only exists in a half written scifi book, is an alternate planet, where they figured out fossil fuel but everyone saw the short sighted vision of it’s use. They used for emergencies only and kept looking for something better. The culture was built on caring for nature and valuing education, so they were able get to sustainability without going through any exploitation phases.

It could still be our future, but to the rich and lazy it would seem like an incredible sacrifice. Stopping all international wars would also be seen as bad for the economy.

52

When I add yellow and blue together, does green emerge from this (admittedly simple example of) complexity?

53

Yes. Green does not exist independently, whereas blue and yellow are primary colors and cannot be derived from mixing other colors.

Do blue and yellow actually make green?

Image result for can green exist independent of blue and yellow image

Because blue paint and yellow paint both reflect middle (green appearing) wavelengths when blue and yellow paint are mixed together, the mixture appears green.
Primary color - Wikipedia

What are known as “secondary colors” are the emergent colors derived from mixing primary colors/

What are examples of emergent properties?

Some examples of emergent properties include that of life, where life begins to emerge at the cellular level; things below cells are non-living. Cells then interact and come together to make further emergent properties such as tissues, organs, organisms, and populations.Nov 19, 2021

Emergent Properties: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

https://study.com/academy/lesson/emergent-properties-definition-examples.html

Come to look at it; Seems that evolution itself is the process of new properties emerging from complex patterns.

i.e. Nature itself is an emergent property of the Earth’s biosphere.

54

Color is maddeningly fun. Used to paint, and it would blow me away how the same color on four walls, of the same room, will look significantly differently according to how the sun is coming through a window, and other things.

As for mixing colors.

There are two main types of color mixing: additive color mixing and subtractive color mixing.

Additive color mixing is creating a new color by a process that adds one set of wavelengths to another set of wavelengths.

Additive color mixing is what happens when lights of different wavelengths are mixed. When we add all of the different wavelengths of sunlight, we see white light rather than many individual colors. It is called additive because all of the wavelengths still reach our eyes. It is the combination of different wavelengths that creates the diversity of colors.

Subtractive color mixing is creating a new color by the removal of wavelengths from a light with a broad spectrum of wavelengths.

Subtractive color mixing occurs when we mix paints, dyes, or pigments. When we mix paints, both paints still absorb all of the wavelengths they did previously, so what we are left with is only the wavelengths that both paints reflect.

It is called subtractive mixing because when the paints mix, wavelengths are deleted from what we see because each paint will absorb some wavelengths that the other paint reflects, thus leaving us with a lesser number of wavelengths remaining afterward.

So the easy way to remember the difference between additive and subtractive color mixing is that additive color mixing is what happens when we mix lights of different colors whereas subtractive color mixing occurs when we mix paints or other colored material. (source)

55

I’ve always though an interesting sci-fi, would be assuming WWII didn’t take place, then look at all the war related science and technology projects that a private for profit company would have never undertaken.

I imagine scientists would still discover most the stuff we did but without the wars
(of course WWI would have needed to be averted for WWII not to have happened, but that’s for the sequel :crazy_face:. )
In any event, had the discoveries stretched out over decades, rather than in a couple tsunamis.

I’m thinking it might have given our brains a chance to catch up with our power.

After all, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and if post WWII politics and the self-destructive future we have created for ourselves isn’t proof of that, well, well, I don’t what to say.

56

Citizenschallengev4 maybe you should write the story, instead of just imagining it. It sounds like it could be very interesting.

57

There is the famous “City on the Edge of forever”, where history is changed by a pacifist. But in that story, the Nazis take over, because the US doesn’t enter the war. Your idea sounds like the Nazis never were enough of a threat to start the war.

Let’s hope we would still find incentives to invent things, without a conflict.

58

Amen.
Imagine if those intelligent Germans hadn’t of been had by Hitler’s siren song of hatred and rage.

I remember growing up a German/American and the pressing question of my early years 1960s world was: How could such a thing have happened to such a, at heart, good people?

Now we know, all too easily.

And why? I blame liberals for never confronting the Jesus Obsessive Absolutist Faith movement (I’m told never to use the Jesus Freak label, accurate thought it might be). Why couldn’t we push back by pointing out, God is product of our minds and hearts and it belongs within the human realm,
and not the physical realm of Earth and her resources and biosphere and our lives unfolding.

But that’s all runway behind us. We are here, a fully loaded supertanker of delusionals, and that takes a long time to turn around and even longer to stop. :sleepy:

59

As long as there are unknowns, people will point to the sky and say “it is the invisible agency that is doing all these things”, just like our hominid ancestors did a few hundred thousand years ago.

60

Thomas Jefferson thought the world was trending toward the UU church. Scopes Monkey trail seemed like a turning point. So yes, long time