Power Evolving Universe

[Legion]

Good people I ask if you read this, that you please overlook the evidence of my ego found herein. An exchange between MM and me precipitated many of these thoughts. (Actually, maybe we can proceduralize this instead of me spouting off a bunch of 'knowledge' and thereby avoid the inevitable pride of acquisition and conveyance.)

 

It seems to me that evolutionary forces are implacable. I'm struggling to express myself here. I've come to suspect evolution is not random per se. I'm not speaking of teleology here, or directed evolution. But I am speaking about the possibility of there being entailments associated with evolution.

 

Gracious, this is difficult for me. What am I saying here?

 

I don't believe in the inevitable progress of terrestrial life (e.g the sun could go red giant, catastrophic meteor strike, alien apocalypse, lol, etc). But I do think that if life here is given the opportunity to continue evolving, then we can predict, in some rough or coarse fashion, what will happen as a result.

 

What do you guys think of that?

[mwc]

There's no way to know. Evolution is a means not an end. Would could become some slug-like creature or we could be become some "super" human (as seen in the movies) if that is what is required to exist. If the parameters are outside what we are able to "become" then we will become extinct.

 

So the question really has no meaning unless you believe evolution is something that is directed. That it is something that has some "goal" or "end game" of sorts. That we are evolving "towards" something. This would demonstrate a misunderstanding of evolution. You might want to ask something more along the lines of if we were to keep evolving, much as we have been up until now, what might we become? This would assume all things remain the same and we have the ability to keep growing and evolving along some fairly predictable lines (ie. project the past "growth" into the future). This isn't the case with what evolution really is, however.

 

mwc

[Legion]

... what evolution really is...

 

With as much respect as I can muster, we don't fully understand evolution. Those who believe they do, are self-deluded.

[mwc]

With as much respect as I can muster, we don't fully understand evolution. Those who believe they do, are self-deluded.

Wonderful response. I fixed it for you:

 

*I* don't understand evolution. Therefore those who believe they do, are self-deluded.

 

mwc

[Legion]

MWC if human science already understands evolution to the fullest extent possible, then why do many scientists continue to study it?

[stryper]

In the most basic sense, evolution is the adaptation of species to their environment in such a way as to increase the potential for propagation of the species.

 

No, we don't fully understand it. Nor do we fully understand fusion in stars. But, we have observed enough to be able to interpret and deduce what most likely will happen next.

[florduh]

...why do many scientists continue to study it?

To find a cure?

 

 

Barring any major interventions over the next million or so years (unlikely), I expect humans (?) to resemble our current science fiction portrayals of advanced alien beings. Continuing an unaltered path of natural selection, we should need less muscle power and more brain power. Greater brain power/size would be a favored trait for transmission, and body strength or size wouldn't offer much advantage for the survival of future generations.

 

However, we are already interfering with the process of natural selection so all bets are off for me.

[mwc]

MWC if human science already understands evolution to the fullest extent possible, then why do many scientists continue to study it?

Boy, that is a genius argument. So what does that mean for Pi? I guess since we don't, and CAN NEVER, understand it to its fullest extent that we'll just sit back and use the argument from your beautiful mind and just avoid Pi and deride those who use just parts of Pi, the parts we DO KNOW, as self-deluded. That's what we'll do alright.

 

Pi is a stupid example? Don't like Pi? It is silly. How about something else? The Theory of Relativity? The laws of thermodynamics? Newtonian Physics? What self-deluded fools would like to take as your example? The ones that we have used TIME AND AGAIN, without understanding to the "fullest extent possible, but with great SUCCESS? I would love to hear it.

 

mwc

[Legion]

Fiesty

 

Uh, I think you raise some interesting points. I like the one on Pi, and I want to address the others too.

 

Pi is a transcendental number. It exists in the set of real numbers, but it can only be approached in a limiting process. This may relate it to complexity.

 

I find it interesting that the remainder of your examples are all based on reductionistic formal systems. They contain models (explicit understandings of nature) which produce predictions within a given context, but there are other formal languages which will support paradox (i.e. impredicativity, complexity) which are likely relevant to the modeling of nature.

[mwc]

Fiesty

 

Uh, I think you raise some interesting points. I like the one on Pi, and I want to address the others too.

 

Pi is a transcendental number. It exists in the set of real numbers, but it can only be approached in a limiting process. This may relate it to complexity.

 

I find it interesting that the remainder of your examples are all based on reductionistic formal systems. They contain models (explicit understandings of nature) which produce predictions within a given context, but there are other formal languages which will support paradox (i.e. impredicativity, complexity) which are likely relevant to the modeling of nature.

None of this matters. Which will you choose? I gave an off-the-cuff list. Which of those might you apply "we don't fully understand [<item>]. Those who believe they do, are self-deluded."?

 

You appear to want *perfect* knowledge as a part of your requirement. This is very unrealistic no matter what you're addressing. You're never going to get it.

 

mwc

[Legion]

No, no, I've come to know that nature is beyond humanity to fully understand. Indeed, I further suspect that nature is incapable of being fully understood in principle. I think it will require and infinitude of understandings to even begin to encompass our rich reality.

 

And this bears upon my point. We have only begun to understand evolution.

[mwc]

No, no, I've come to know that nature is beyond humanity to fully understand. Indeed, I further suspect that nature is incapable of being fully understood in principle. I think it will require and infinitude of understandings to even begin to encompass our rich reality.

 

And this bears upon my point. We have only begun to understand evolution.

I'm going to help us both out...

 

Suppressed correlative

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument that tries to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible.^[1] This has also been known as the fallacy of lost contrast^[2] and the fallacy of the suppressed relative.^[3]

 

Description

 

A conceptual example:

 

Person 1: "All things are either X or not X."

(The correlatives: X–not X.)

Person 2: "I define X such that all things that you claim are not X are included in X."

(The suppressed correlative: not X.)

 

Alternatively Person 2 can redefine X in way that instead concludes all things are not X.

 

A simple example based on one by Alexander Bain:^[4]

 

Person 1: "Things are either mysterious or not mysterious. Exactly when an earthquake will strike is still a mystery, but how blood circulates in the body is not."

Person 2: "

Everything

is mysterious. There are still things to be learned about how blood circulates."

 

Regardless of whether Person 2's statement about blood circulation is true or not, the redefinition of "mysterious" is so broad that it omits significant contrast in the level of scientific understanding between earthquakes and blood circulation. Bain argues that if we hold the origin of the universe as equally mysterious against simple equations such as 3×4=12, it seems unimaginable what kind of concepts would be described as non-mysterious. Through redefinition "mysterious" has lost any useful meaning, he says.

 

The redefinition is not always so obvious. At first glance it might appear reasonable to define brakes as "a method to quickly stop a vehicle", however this permits all vehicles to be described as having brakes. Any car could be driven into a sturdy barrier to stop it, but to therefore say the car has brakes seems absurd.

 

This type of fallacy is often used in conjunction with one of the fallacies of definition.^{[citation needed]} It is an informal fallacy.^[2]

 

Usage

 

The Scottish logician Alexander Bain discussed the fallacy of suppressed correlative, which he also called the fallacy of suppressed relative, in the 19th century. He provided many example relative pairs where the correlative terms find their meaning through contrast: rest-toil, knowledge-ignorance, silence-speech, and so on.^[5] Bain classified this type of error as a fallacy of relativity, which in turn was one of many fallacies of confusion.^[6]

 

J. Loewenberg rejected a certain definition of empirical method – one that seemed so broad as to encompass all possible methods – as committing the fallacy of suppressed correlative.^[7][8] This error has been said to be found in the philosophy of some empiricists, including Edgar S. Brightman, sometimes in broadening the meaning of other terms relevant to these arguments, such as "perception" (when taken to include entirely cognitive processes in addition to ones usually classified as perceptual).^[9]

 

Critics identify the fallacy in arguments for psychological egoism, which proposes that all actions conducted by individuals are motivated by their own self-interest. Outside of this idea it is believed that sometimes people do things selflessly, such as acts of charitable giving or self-sacrifice. Psychological egoism explains all scenarios entirely in terms of selfish motivations (e.g., that acting for one's own purposes is an act of self-interest), however critics charge that in doing so they are redefining selfishness to the point where it encompasses all motivated actions and thus makes the term meaningless.^[1]

 

You sneak in words, or ideas, like "fully" and "fullest extent possible" which are missing from the original post and redefine what is expected of *anyone* in *any* field. This, of course, makes it *IMPOSSIBLE* for evolution to measure up. It just can't. Because, *no one* has this level of knowledge, and, *no one* CAN EVER obtain this level of knowledge. I mentioned my examples because they were OLD (and off the top of my head). Pi is very old. Not "fully" understood. Newtonian Physics? Old. Not "fully" understood. And so forth. Not one of them can meet your impossible standard. No one in any field can do it (see the second example quoted above if this still eludes you). So why talk evolution if you demand a standard that cannot now nor can it ever be met at any time in the future? This is nonsensical.

 

mwc

[Legion]

I think you make some interesting points MWC. I'm going to think on this further and get back later.

[Legion]

You sneak in words, or ideas, like "fully" and "fullest extent possible" which are missing from the original post and redefine what is expected of *anyone* in *any* field. This, of course, makes it *IMPOSSIBLE* for evolution to measure up. It just can't. Because, *no one* has this level of knowledge, and, *no one* CAN EVER obtain this level of knowledge. I mentioned my examples because they were OLD (and off the top of my head). Pi is very old. Not "fully" understood. Newtonian Physics? Old. Not "fully" understood. And so forth. Not one of them can meet your impossible standard. No one in any field can do it (see the second example quoted above if this still eludes you). So why talk evolution if you demand a standard that cannot now nor can it ever be met at any time in the future? This is nonsensical.

 

Hmm...

 

I think we can have some understandings nature, out of an infinite number of understandings. So, if I avoid using the term "fullest extent possible" that might avoid confusion because there is likely an unreachable number of understandings of nature in principle.

 

I think Darwin basically formulated our first understanding of evolution. We know it to have a certain degree of accuracy because it explains and predicts a few things. Again, as I said in the opening post, I don't adhere to directed evolution. However, given that our current understandings of the process are so sparse then this implies in my mind that there are as yet to be seen entailments associated with it.

 

Those are some of the first thoughts I've had here, but I definitely want to look over that last post of yours further.

[Guest Valk0010]

You sneak in words, or ideas, like "fully" and "fullest extent possible" which are missing from the original post and redefine what is expected of *anyone* in *any* field. This, of course, makes it *IMPOSSIBLE* for evolution to measure up. It just can't. Because, *no one* has this level of knowledge, and, *no one* CAN EVER obtain this level of knowledge. I mentioned my examples because they were OLD (and off the top of my head). Pi is very old. Not "fully" understood. Newtonian Physics? Old. Not "fully" understood. And so forth. Not one of them can meet your impossible standard. No one in any field can do it (see the second example quoted above if this still eludes you). So why talk evolution if you demand a standard that cannot now nor can it ever be met at any time in the future? This is nonsensical.

 

Hmm...

 

I think we can have some understandings nature, out of an infinite number of understandings. So, if I avoid using the term "fullest extent possible" that might avoid confusion because there is likely an unreachable number of understandings of nature in principle.

 

I think Darwin basically formulated our first understanding of evolution. We know it to have a certain degree of accuracy because it explains and predicts a few things. Again, as I said in the opening post, I don't adhere to directed evolution. However, given that our current understandings of the process are so sparse then this implies in my mind that there are as yet to be seen POSSIBLE entailments associated with it.

 

Those are some of the first thoughts I've had here, but I definitely want to look over that last post of yours further.

There you go...now perfect....

[mwc]

Fine. I give up. I change my answer. Evolution is so poorly understood that little does anyone in the field know that humans will eventually turn into plastic and wood objects much like those in Toy Story. They won't be animated they will simply appear as those animated characters now. Some of us will run on batteries and some will need cords pulled. This is the reality of evolution. Anything can happen. Yes, it's just that bizarre. No one can understand it. Not now. Not ever. Not even when we're toyified.

 

mwc

[Legion]

I don't understand why you're acting this way MWC. I think you raised some interesting points. I don't see the need to deliver what appears to be a strawman.

 

Come let us think through this a bit. I think we can both contribute here.

[skepticalme]

 

I don't believe in the inevitable progress of terrestrial life (e.g the sun could go red giant, catastrophic meteor strike, alien apocalypse, lol, etc). But I do think that if life here is given the opportunity to continue evolving, then we can predict, in some rough or coarse fashion, what will happen as a result.

 

What do you guys think of that?

 

Legion, you have negated your own idea. You have stated that we don't have a full all-encompassing understanding of evolution. That in itself makes it unpredictable. Evolution is a chaotic process. Tiny variations in even the smallest variables vastly alter the outcome and that variance goes up exponentially with time. On top of this, some of the variables, such as mutation, are random. You can't predict them even with a full understanding of the process.

[Ouroboros]

I think Darwin basically formulated our first understanding of evolution. We know it to have a certain degree of accuracy because it explains and predicts a few things. Again, as I said in the opening post, I don't adhere to directed evolution. However, given that our current understandings of the process are so sparse then this implies in my mind that there are as yet to be seen entailments associated with it.

Modern evolution theory is not exactly the same as Darwinian evolution. There has been improvements to the theory since Darwin, and there are a lot more knowledge about how things work now than every before. And yes, there are still a lot that has not been answered or fully understood, but that doesn't mean that the things we do understand are "not understood."

 

Evolutionary and genetic algorithms have been used for real-world applications for solving computer problems.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

[BrotherJosh]

[Legion]

Skepticalme, Hans, BrotherJosh, thanks for throwing in here. I am bedding down shortly and want to unwind from 'serious' considerations a bit before I do so. I hope I can get to your posts in more detail in the morning.

 

Thanks again.

[Ouroboros]

I hope I can get to your posts in more detail in the morning.

Sure. No rush. No worries. No problem.

 

(On a completely different note. I just tried our jalapeño infused tequila. Damn, that was spicy.)

[Legion]

Okay, let's get to these responses now.

 

Skepticalme yeah, we don't have an all encompassing understanding of evolution, and I don't believe the process can be completely understood. But as Hans points out, we DO have a few understandings of it, and in the time since Darwin, this understanding has grown.

 

Let me jump out of these higher considerations, and drop into specifics. If we take certain modern extremophiles to be representative of our most distant ancestors, what do we see? Relative to many of today's organisms, they have low fecundity, low reproductive rates, and low complexity. I don't believe that trends establish a rule, but they are often suggestive. I tend to believe that if terrestrial life is given the opportunity to continue to evolve then we can reasonably expect that relative to today's organisms Earth's future inhabitants will have higher fecundity, higher reproductive rates, and higher complexity.

 

And this brings me to BrotherJosh. Perhaps, in effect, Sagan is correct here. Perhaps as organisms become ever more adapted to the variegated environment of the cosmos they must necessarily become ever more AWARE of the cosmos.

[mwc]

I don't understand why you're acting this way MWC. I think you raised some interesting points. I don't see the need to deliver what appears to be a strawman.

 

Come let us think through this a bit. I think we can both contribute here.

What are we thinking through? I've already pointed out all the flaws in your argument. I didn't mention your most common tool, used in many (most?) of your posts, which is just argument from ignorance.

 

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).^[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

 

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.

 

Overview

 

Basic argument

 

Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not “wait” upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality. This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some^[2] to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives. A false dilemma may take the form:

• If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
  
• If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
  

Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and ( false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true (therein lies the fallacy).

 

To reiterate, these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some true things may never be proven, and some false things may never be disproved with absolute certainty. The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be used as a shorthand rebuttal to the second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely proven and is therefore certainly false.). Most often it is directed at any conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-detection of something. In other words, where one researcher may say their experiment suggests evidence of absence, another researcher might argue that the experiment failed to detect a phenomenon for other reasons.

and I'll include these related items:

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

 

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1. P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
   
2. It is obvious that P is true (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.
   

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

 

Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic)

 

Arguments from self-knowing take the form:

1. If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
   
2. If P were false then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be false.
   

In practice these arguments are often fallacious and rely on the veracity of the supporting premise. For example the argument that If I had just sat on a wild porcupine then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore I did not just sit on a wild porcupine is probably not a fallacy and depends entirely on the veracity of the leading proposition that supports it. (See Contraposition and Transposition in the Related terms section in this article.)

I'm sorry that you cannot understand how all these things work and so you have determined that *no one* truly understands it. The world is a place where all people don't understand things because you don't personally understand things. It's apparent in your posts. You sample us and confirm it. We don't understand most of these things with any level of expertise. That's probably because we're not experts OR anyone who is an expert isn't going to waste their time educating someone who thinks no one is an expert and dispelling every ignorant bit of gibberish that is thrown at them. I wouldn't bother. I'd rather talk to a wall.

 

But why don't you go ahead and link to the "evolution" you wanted everyone to use for your little thought experiment instead of the actual evolution that is the theory. It would really simplify things and avoid having to make-up one's own definition and them switch them mid-stream. You know? The "evolution" that *is* apparently fully understood and can be used to predict the future, as opposed the evolution that is not understood and cannot be used for such things.

 

mwc

[Legion]

MWC, I'm talking about evolution. You're talking about me.

 

When we can speak of the same subject, perhaps we'll make greater progress.