Intelligent Evolution?

Evolution appears to be intelligently directed.  Is it?

 

According to standard evolution theory, it is not.  Darwinian evolution is said to be the result of random mutations, (emphasize the word, random) some of which enhance the chances of survival (emphasize the word, chances), during natural selection.  Although it relies upon two layers of random chance, the theory still seems to explain bio-diversity.  That is because over the vast expanse of the earth, and over the vast age of the earth, random chance has an unimaginably large number of opportunities to produce results that are seemingly purposeful, even if they are not.

Physicalist science accepts the standard model, and accepts that evolution is not intelligently guided.  But there are reasons to question that model.

One reason is that, if the model is correct, then evolution should be more gradual than seems to be the case.  Although the geologic record reveals numerous, so-called transitional forms, the general pattern seems to be that species remain stable over millions of years, then suddenly vanish, to be suddenly replaced by newer, fully established species.

Catastrophes could explain much of this.  The well-known case of dinosaur extinction is an example of a sudden catastrophe that abruptly exterminated the entire planetary population of dinosaurs in virtually a single day, or at least in a geologically brief time.  With the dinosaurs gone, and with the ecology of the planet suddenly and drastically altered, new environmental niches were open.  Into these niches, entered newly evolving life forms.  Continuing changes in the environments, with continued genetic mutations, resulted in the rise of mammals (for example), and eventually, modern humans.

Taken in isolation, catastrophism (combined with randomness) seems to be an acceptable explanation for the sudden spurts in evolution. 

But there are problems with evolution theory, especially with more complex life forms such as mammals.  One might liken the situation to that of starting with a bicycle, and with step-by-step modifications, ending up with a jet airliner.  At each transitional stage, from bicycle to airliner, the machine must remain completely functional.  There must be no useless parts to hinder further survival.  Every new part that is needed must be produced, and must be smoothly incorporated into the machine, in such a manner that it enhances the function of the machine.  That sounds impossible.

If this comparison seems illogical, one must bear in mind that even the simplest cell in your body is so complicated, and so intricately coordinated internally, and likewise coordinated with other cells, that the jet airliner is actually less complicated than your body.

Randomness might play a role, but randomness is not enough to explain away all the problems with random mutation and natural selection.  Indeed, randomness itself requires nonrandom parameters.  For example, the result of a die-roll might be considered to be random.  But the die itself is not randomly manufactured.  It is intelligently designed to have a set number of sides, as few as four, or many more.  The result of a four-sided die-roll cannot be a six.

This forces us to ask, not only how unlikely it is that the parameters of our universe produced, at random, the conditions suitable for life, but more than that, how did the universe get the parameters it has?  Why not fewer of them, or more?  We must ask, why is the gravitational constant what it is, but also, why is there a gravitational constant at all?

The old theory of a “life force,” has long since been abandoned by physicalist biology, but in fact, the entire universe seems to be an intricately coordinated life force, or at least governed by one.

Life, consciousness and free will, then, are not produced by the physical universe.  They are foundations of it.

-

 

 

 

 

 

Is Probability a Fundamental Force?

Anyone who has studied both physics and statistics can understand that there are two distinct forms of chance, both of which we call probability (or randomness).  One of them is termed pseudo-randomness.  The other is pure probability, which is the kind found in quantum physics.

The difference is night and day.  The kind of chance with which most of us are familiar is not what we think it is.  Indeed, if one knows all the factors involved, chance events are not chance at all.

A simple example involves a deck of shuffled cards.  When a standard deck of cards is thoroughly shuffled, we assume them to be in random order.  Trying to guess which card is on top gives us a one chance in 52 of being correct.  

But in fact, if one were to very carefully watch the shuffling, and if one had the ability to track each card during the process, then one could know exactly which card ends up on top.  Chance is not involved. 

It only seems to be chance, because it is virtually impossible to keep track of the cards as they are shuffled.  Our ignorance of where the cards are in the shuffled deck forces us to guess.  But the cards are not in truly random order.  They are in what is called, pseudo-random order, or fake-random order.  Computer-generated random numbers are actually the product of a pseudo-random algorithm.  If one knows the algorithm and the seed number, all the resulting numbers can be precisely predicted.

Even dice rolls are not truly random.  If one could know all the factors involved, all the physical parameters, all the velocities and angular momentum, the coefficients of friction, the air density—everything involved—then the outcome of the dice roll is in principle predictable, not random.

The other kind of randomness is truly random.  It applies in quantum physics.  Even Albert Einstein never accepted true randomness, but a century of experiments in quantum physics (QM) leave no doubt that only the theory of true randomness can explain QM.

In other words, unlike with the shuffled deck, no amount of knowledge of the factors involved can predict the outcome of quantum events, such as the spontaneous decay of a radioactive atom.

It is as if, after carefully watching the shuffling of a deck, the top card being known to be red, could suddenly change to a black one with no physical force being applied.  True chance, pure probability (within parameters) is the underlying reality.

Another way of saying this is that in pseudo-randomness, nature knows what the top card is.  But in quantum physics, not even nature knows when the spontaneous decay will occur in a radioactive atom.

-

 

 

Is the Primal Reality Self ?

According to Idealism, (the formal philosophy), the primal reality is consciousness.  A good case can be made for this, but perhaps a better case can be made for an alternative primal reality—the reality of self.

Consciousness requires a conscious entity.  In order for you to be conscious, there must be a you, a self.

You can be conscious only because you exist.

Even if one argues for a universal, or disembodied consciousness, that universal consciousness must be an entity.  To deny that would be like saying that hardness is a primal reality, without anything being hard (or soft).  Or like saying swiftness can be a primal reality without anything being swift.  It’s a cart before the horse situation.

And what is a self?  It is a triad of life, consciousness and free will.  Without all three of those, there is no self, and no reality.

(Is there a supreme self?  Is God the ultimate reality?  I say, no.  God is more than that—immeasurably more—and even that falls short—infinitely short.)

-

-

-

The Final Chapter of Science ?

 

The well-known British scientist, JBS Haldane (1892-1964), made two statements that are far more profound today than when he made them.  Do they presage the end of science?

 

“. . . my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” 

“If materialism is true, it seems to me that we cannot know that it is true. If my opinions are the result of the chemical processes going on in my brain, they are determined by the laws of chemistry, not those of logic.” 

Both of these, especially taken together, hint rather strongly, at a future time when science may grind to a halt.  That statement may sound spectacular, even unreasonable, but Haldane was on to something, perhaps more so than even he himself suspected.

The first quote expresses the idea that the universe is quite possibly unfathomable to the human brain.  For evidence of that, consider relativity and quantum mechanics (QM).  They are counterintuitive to us.  They are far beyond the reach of most people to understand, much less to develop. 

The second quote is even more discouraging than the first, because it questions whether the human brain, the instrument of our intellectual abilities, is even designed to understand nature beyond our immediate needs.  When we venture beyond our primitive skills, then as someone once said, we cannot answer the questions we ask, and perhaps we are incapable of even asking the right questions.  Our brains are wired for certain limited functions, mainly having to do with survival and reproduction.

That said, it is indeed amazing that great minds have developed such theories as relativity and quantum mechanics, and the other endeavors of humanity (music, art, etc) that seem disconnected in whole or part from our survival needs.  One explanation might be that the ability to form a mental model of the grand design of the universe is simply an overextension of our survival talents, much as a bird can fly higher than it really needs to, simply because evolution did not stop when it could have.

For whatever reason, natural or supernatural, a tiny portion of humanity has devised the Standard Model of Physics, which is considered to be a step toward a complete fundamental understanding of physical nature.  Do we need that much intellectual skill?  Do only a very few individuals need it?  Judging from the generally few offspring of such mental giants, (Isaac Newton had none), it would seem that powerful intellect is actually an impediment to survival.

But can the final goal of science (fundamentally complete understanding of nature), ever be reached?  What if it cannot?  Will the moment ever come when the best scientists announce that not only is it true that they cannot presently explain certain features of nature, but also, that they have demonstrated conclusively that they have reached the finite limit of human understanding?

That moment came decades ago, and more than once.  For example, at one time, scientists announced that the earliest moment of the Big Bang is fundamentally unknowable.  That may still be true, but today, it seems that many scientists are pressing on, theorizing as to how the Big Bang occurred, and not only that, speculating on what might have existed before time began (an oxymoron, but nevertheless).

We are reaching that moment again.  Science still has not reconciled relativity theory with quantum theory.  Will it ever?  Moreover, the widely accepted theory of dark matter has a rival theory called MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics), which is held by a minority of physicists, but which in some limited respects does a better job of explaining observed gravitational effects.  Whichever theory (if either) is ever demonstrated beyond doubt to be true, it will perplex physicists, because both theories seem to be outside the Standard Model.

Beyond all that, there are unexplained phenomena that are entirely beyond physics, for example a definition and explanation of consciousness.  On the largest scales, physicists have been unable to explain why the universe is so precisely suited for human life, with a precision vastly more exacting than that required to fly a jet airliner.  In their attempt to explain the fine tuning of the universe, scientists have had to resort to very unscientific theories involving infinite numbers of unobserved, undetected universes, a theory requiring more fine tuning than our presently known universe does.

Let us conclude with two further quotes from Haldane.  They may offer an explanation as to why science may eventually become an inherently futile endeavor.

“The advance of scientific knowledge does not seem to make either our universe or our inner life in it any less mysterious.”

“The conclusion forced upon me in the course of a life devoted to natural science is that the universe as it is assumed to be in physical science is only an idealized world, while the real universe is the spiritual universe in which spiritual values count for everything.”

-

Free Will Summarized

Without free will, we are witnesses to our lives, but not participants.

Without free will, we are powerless to choose between right and wrong,

between truth and falsehood, between good and evil.

Without free will, there is no justice, no accountability, and no mercy,

neither courage nor cowardice.

 

Without free will, we cannot choose what to believe nor to disbelieve.

Without free will all our beliefs are just random babblings of a robot, a puppet on a cosmic string.

 

Without free will, we are all actors on a stage, reciting lines that nobody wrote.

As Shakespeare says, "a sound and fury signifying nothing," and "a tale told by an idiot."

 

Physicalists preach the absence of free will, because free will overturns all their precepts.

 

Exceptions to free will include reflexes, but when it comes to moral choices,

free will overrides the tenets of cause and effect.

 

It is a truly supernatural power, an image of God.

= = = = =

Physicalists go completely off track when they try to explain consciousness,

because they fail to distinguish between the outward appearance of consciousness (responsiveness)

from the inward experience of consciousness (which is ineffable, indeed, undefinable).

 

Philosophical Idealists are on the right track

when they affirm that consciousness is fundamental and irreducible.

But they stop too soon.

They omit the other two key elements of human experience,

which are life and free will.

 

Without these two, consciousness becomes a prison.

 

Indeed, all three are so intimately connected that we might almost regard them as one.

 

Another misconception by Idealists (if I read them correctly) is that

they fail to understand that human beings are sovereign, autonomous individual agents,

influenced by, but not controlled by, the laws of physics, at least as regards moral decisions.

 

This is what makes us accountable for our deeds, our words, even our thoughts.

What we think, say and do, have not merely reactions, but eternal consequence.

 

Fortunately, God involves Himself in our lives, offering guidance when we will accept it,

and forgiveness when we don't.

.

.