Whence came the order in the cosmos?

[QED]

Self-organization is a widely recognized and well understood principle. It can operate over a vast range of scales in any dynamic system that is far from thermal equilibrium. One example of this is our biosphere which is driven away from thermal equilibrium by the Suns radiant energy. Self-organization arises from various feedback mechanisms such as those operating within our biosphere serving as a good (and very large) example: the energy output from the Sun has fallen by some 30% while the average temperature within the biosphere has remained far more constant over the same period.

What may not be so widely recognized is that the principles of self-organization extend much further up in scale than our planet: Galaxies are ecology's in their own right within which stars are born and die. Carbon plays a central role in the self-regulation and evolution of galactic systems. So it turns out that we ourselves are riding on this carbon regulated merry-go-round of stellar evolution.

In principle there is no upper limit on the scope of self-organization. Astronomers have started to recognize structure in the distribution of galaxies hinting at higher levels of organization. So, it seems that a sound philosophical conclusion can be drawn here: self-organization is a natural principle within the cosmos as it can be seen operating over some 40 or so orders of magnitude. A few more orders would take this to the entire extent of our universe and, according to Professor Lee Smolin and others, there is good reason to believe that our universe is but one of a vast collection representing yet higher opportunities for self-organisation.

Now, what strikes me about all this is that we have potential answers to some very fundamental questions here. We should not be surprised to find order among the chaos. As a natural principal of the cosmos it should be expected for life to emerge. Now that we're here it is not surprising that we find ourselves looking upon order and chaos and speculating over such matters as good and evil. The simple fact is that goodness and order are prerequisites for our existence and they are born out of nothing more fancy than feedback in systems far from thermal equilibrium.

I would like this to stimulate a debate over the implications this has for the opposing worldviews of theists and atheists.

[QED]

This is mind at work.

It could just as easily be pixies. You know, every-time I look for examples of consistency the last place I find it is in minds. Your OI (that you misappropriated from the late Donald Davidson) does not seem to provide us with the same sort of mind that lets us personify God anyway. Either way the self-organization of the universe has God kicking back with nothing to do for 13 billion years, then one day -- voila! Man finally shows up and gets busy making history. The timeline of which sees much experimentation with Gods and other religious ideas before a particular era when, for some reason, we're all supposed to start taking the conversations between God and man seriously. Like this one for example:

And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen

You ought to be able to see what fuels my skepticism. The whole of Christianity is founded on obviously made-up nonsense like this. Simply refining things further and creating a whole new testament in an attempt to regain credibility doesn't ameliorate the situation. If they were struggling to capture some deeper "truths" and used colorful allegories to describe them, it gives us all the insight we need into the actual provenance of the stories of miracles and the like.

In a self-organizing universe the very principles are such that they actively resist interference so you deserve to have an extraordinarily hard time in convincing me that after 13 billion years of kicking-back God looks down upon man and starts to fiddle.

[harvey1]

Your OI (that you misappropriated from the late Donald Davidson) does not seem to provide us with the same sort of mind that lets us personify God anyway.

Why do you think it is a misappropriation? I choose that term because it specifically refers to a God that serves a particular function with regard to interpretations. If I used the term, "God" it might not be as clear as to what I meant.

Either way the self-organization of the universe has God kicking back with nothing to do for 13 billion years, then one day -- voila! Man finally shows up and gets busy making history.

I don't think so. God is extremely active in self-organization models since symmetry-breaking that occurs at phase transitions are the chief object of a self-organized event.

The whole of Christianity is founded on obviously made-up nonsense like this. Simply refining things further and creating a whole new testament in an attempt to regain credibility doesn't ameliorate the situation. If they were struggling to capture some deeper "truths" and used colorful allegories to describe them, it gives us all the insight we need into the actual provenance of the stories of miracles and the like. In a self-organizing universe the very principles are such that they actively resist interference so you deserve to have an extraordinarily hard time in convincing me that after 13 billion years of kicking-back God looks down upon man and starts to fiddle.

I think one of the chief elements lacking in your view is that everything is a self-organized system. So, for example, Christianity is a phase transition based on a former self-organized system of a primitive Hebrew religion. As such, it took elements from that former system and transcended it while keeping some of its key elements invariant. This is the process of truth creation in the universe. What you consider to be fiction producing systems (built on their own fiction) is what I consider to be a unique feature to the real world as an evolving computer-like, cellular automata-like existence. It contains raw material that self-organizes via phase transitions with symmetry breaking boundaries imposed by God. As a result, humanity (and the whole natural world, actually) is in an act of communication with God.

I don't know if you read the book or saw the movie, "Contact" written by Carl Sagan. Early in the contact with ET intelligence (ETI) the signal from space was a very primitive sequence of primes. The deeper they looked into the signal, the more information they found. Each finding created a plot twist (e.g., getting a video signal from space of Adolf Hitler at the opening of the Olympics in 1933). The plot twists were like phase transitions where a new reality was created, and humans came closer and closer to the ETI that had made contact with them. It wasn't in the movie, but in the book the main character (Elle) had found proof of God.

What I see in your worldview is the worldview of the scientists looking at the signal in "Contact." There's this deep skepticism about what is going to occur next, but it is as if you've never asked yourself the question as to whether this is how you were meant to encounter the signal. The "plot twists" are still early enough in this chapter of our timeline that we cannot clearly see that we are not alone in our quest for knowledge. I'm afraid it is beyond our lifetime, but as time goes by I believe the sciences of the future will realize that everything is interconnected and that we are part of this larger whole which is part of a larger destiny.

Unfortunately for us, we cannot access this knowledge. All that we have right now is philosophical arguments that should lead us to this conclusion, but nothing tangible enough to twist our minds into conviction. Of course, I find it humorous that some atheists are getting some tangible mind twisting (e.g., the axis of evil?), but until this phase transition occurs, we'll all going to be having these unending discussions.

[Scrotum]

Unfortunately for us, we cannot access this knowledge. All that we have right now is philosophical arguments that should lead us to this conclusion, but nothing tangible enough to twist our minds into conviction.

Out of curiousity, how can you Harvey, claim this knowledge if we do not have access to this knowledge?

[harvey1]

Out of curiousity, how can you Harvey, claim this knowledge if we do not have access to this knowledge?

We have access to the philosophical issues. What we don't have access to is the knowledge which will cause a major phase transition in how I think the vast majority of scientists will eventually perceive the universe.

[Scrotum]

We have access to the philosophical issues. What we don't have access to is the knowledge which will cause a major phase transition in how I think the vast majority of scientists will eventually perceive the universe.

Skipping the semantics here, how do you percieve the universe? And where do you get this view from? (as you just stated reality is not a valid source of information for us).

[harvey1]

(as you just stated reality is not a valid source of information for us).

Where did you get that?

[Cephus]

I think what you're overlooking is that while we might see a particular horizon as some kind of ultimate boundary, the explanation for the next discovered state space that is discovered is more fundamental and lawlike. In each case, the universe became more mathematical. Now, even the objects themselves (e.g., strings) are often considered to be mathematical entities. So, I think the myth of God being replaced with each subsequent scientific paradigm is just false. The age of LaPlacean materialism is over.

The problem is that as time goes on and we make new discoveries, we find that the universe is more and more understandable and that reliance on the supernatural to 'explain' things simply isn't necessary. Scientists haven't hit any brick walls, shrugged and suggested "God did it". The more we find out, the more naturalistic it appears.

Now granted, you have a particular philosophical need to force God into all the cracks and I acknowledge that, but it doesn't make it so, nor is it defensible.

[Scrotum]

Where did you get that?

Let´s see now:

I asked: ´Out of curiousity, how can you Harvey, claim this knowledge if we do not have access to this knowledge?´

Your answer: ´We have access to the philosophical issues.´


As this was your only answer to my question, i must then submit that philosophy is the only "knowledge" we can obtain regarding this, which is not knowledge per say.

Hence, reality, is according to you not a valid source of information. Only rhetoric , it seems. (which is pretty flexible compared to reality).[/quote]

[harvey1]

The problem is that as time goes on and we make new discoveries, we find that the universe is more and more understandable and that reliance on the supernatural to 'explain' things simply isn't necessary.

What do you mean by supernatural?

Scientists haven't hit any brick walls, shrugged and suggested "God did it".

It depends on what you mean by "God." If you mean an invisible order to the world that structures the Cosmos, then I would argue that more than a few interpretations of science require it.

The more we find out, the more naturalistic it appears. Now granted, you have a particular philosophical need to force God into all the cracks and I acknowledge that, but it doesn't make it so, nor is it defensible.

Well, I think it is defensible. For example, there's this thread and this thread . I would be happy to respond if you think there is something wrong in the logic of these posts.

[harvey1]

[As this was your only answer to my question, i must then submit that philosophy is the only "knowledge" we can obtain regarding this, which is not knowledge per say. Hence, reality, is according to you not a valid source of information. Only rhetoric , it seems. (which is pretty flexible compared to reality).

No, philosophical arguments access reality. Are you suggesting that you think philosophy is just rhetoric? If so, then how can we have a pleasant discussion if we cannot argue the merits of our philosophy?