Principles

[pramodbiligiri]

Since I criticise others' philosophical theories a lot, it's useful if I can provide my own general beliefs about the world.

Here's a few principles I've internalized currently:

1. The world is not an entity. It has no intent. It is purely random.
2. There is no goal or purpose.
3. There are small emergent orders within the overall chaos.
4.  

4 can be

Comments

[pramodbiligiri]

I think my previous comment sounded rather rude
No probs, I didn't take any offense :)

Coming to the proof of it, here goes. Of course it's not scientific ("beliefs"), but just a bunch of conclusions based on what science I know. Fairly straightforward, actually.

i)Evolution
It's taken me a while to realize what a fundamental breakthrough this was. I use it as a rationale for why humans procreate and how intelligent life evolved on earth. One of these days I plan to read The Selfish Gene to learn more.

ii)Creation of Universe
Most scientific theories behind the creation of the earth/solar system so far says it was just due to combination of gases over millions of years. That's what I meant by "purely random".

iii)Emergent order
This is a hunch. Since there are so many regular patterns in the universe (like Maths), I can only imagine some initial conditions led to the creation of these patterns. Something I haven't explored yet.

Evolution also shows how the complex can arise from the simple, over a period of millions of years.

iv)Ethical relativism
Even a cursory glance at history shows that human values, beliefs have changed remarkably over time. As a species, dinosaurs and cockroaches have outlived humans by a long time. So nothing special about us per se.

P.S: Bertrand Russell covers this kind of a philosophy beautifully, in A Free Man's Worship. Read the first few paras.

[pramodbiligiri]

I don't understand how random and evolution can go together. If something is evolutionary, it cannot be random.

As I understand it, one of the mechanisms of evolution is random genetic variation. A contrasting one is Natural Selection, due to which organisms not adapted to the immediate environment will die out.

From TalkOrigins:

#(The Modern Synthesis theory) recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.

Wikipedia lists 6 processes which result in evolution. I also liked the sections on evolution in this book.

It might look random on a very small time scale but it cannot be random.
Interestingly, the book mentioned above makes a great case for why in the long term, evolution and life on earth can be shown to be completely random! :))

I was saying that since our earth and life on it seems be an accident, there can't possibly be a goal for human beings except self-decided ones. Whatever I know (like the above) and experienced (in life) has not pointed to any over-arching purpose. Though I will keep looking, I won't assume a purpose till I find one :D

About our grasping power being limited, I can't argue with that. However, check this (brilliant) lecture on Brain controlling the body where he argues with examples that physical movement and motion were the driving forces for our brains to evolve to even the current grasping power! Abstract thought could be a (happy?) side-effect of this.

[pramodbiligiri]

Again, everything in this universe is bound by the law of cause and effect and nothing is an accident. Just because the causes remain unknown does not mean that they are not there.

That's a valid philosophical argument though I disagree with its contents. But of course, there's no way I can disprove that claim of yours.

[pramodbiligiri]

Looks like we keep going in circular arguments! :))

I don't agree with your belief that the world/life has a purpose. I believe it doesn't. Since it's a belief, by definition I can't prove it (in the scientific sense of the term). I tried to explain some rationale for my beliefs, which you have read in previous comments.

You have a right to be dissatisfied with my rationale, but I would encourage you to check out all the sources I've mentioned. For all we know, someone out there might have even scientifically proved whatever I stated! (extremely implausible)

Just because the causes remain unknown does not mean that they are not there.
Isn't this is an academic point? Nothing to argue about in that sentence.

Also, you've made a few strong assertions about purpose and non-randomness. I am interested in knowing how you can back up such claims. I am not saying you ought to know the exact answers - I'm only curious what aspects led you to this belief. Or you can point to some primary sources/links as I did above.

[pramodbiligiri]

Reading back, I see that you've mentioned you have not yet decided whether life/world has a purpose. So I was wrong there. In saying "There is no goal or purpose", it's implied that no purpose has been found so far, by either me or anyone else.

About causality, I was speaking in the larger sense. The fact that mammalian life on Earth evolved because dinosaurs were wiped out in a meteorite impact (which seems the accepted theory currently) shows the role that chance plays in the world. Ditto with formation of the Earth right?

W.r.t randomness in evolution, I might explain better when I read more. But you can try those sources yourself.

All the above makes the existence of a larger goal/purpose highly improbable, though some dramatic new evidence could change that.

Also, there's a difference b/w logical possibilities and empirical realities. There can be a million logical (causal) explanations for any event/process, but it's only the ones with some kind of acceptable evidence that are to be evaluated. So in the end, the evidence itself and the way it was gathered is put to great scrutiny.

P.S: That (video) lecture is absolutely entertaining to watch, irrespective of its relevance to the topic.

[mat_attack]

Evolution doesn't need a guiding hand, the beauty of it is that it works through of random changes and selection. With random changes I include changes in the genes and the environment itself. There might be an underlying goal but it is not necessary for one to exist for evolution to work.

A bad analogy if I may, to give an alternative view. The cellular automata game, life. Based on a given set of starting conditions and some simple rules, interesting patterns may emerge on the board. There is no need to directly interfere in the working of the the program.

Its impossible to tell what the patterns might be without observing them. Some patterns may appear quite random, it is impossible to say whether they are truly random without observing them.

Basically given some initial condition you could see interesting patterns emerging but you won't know what those patterns are until they actually appear. They feed themselves and create their own.

It can be said that once you understand a pattern it should be possible to create variations on that pattern. But it still involves the iterative process of finding the pattern in the first place.

Maybe we got lucky and the pattern of the universe was one that could sustain itself. Also it doesn't need to be that a creator if such a being exists, actually knew that the universe would end up this way.