Teleological Science

Warren Platts · #1 (**permalink**) 08-September-2007, 02:10 AM

In the beginning, there was nothing but the Plasma. Everything was simple. What existed before the Plasma, science cannot yet say. The Plasma had a high energy density. It condensed into complex atoms of hydrogen and helium. Then there was Light. When the universe lit up, there was valuing going on.

When everything lit up, the parts of the complex atoms functioned just thus and so, and so preserved themselves from the forces of destruction, thus demonstrating their Good Design. If things had been otherwise, everything would have fallen apart. And since there was Good Design, there were means-end relations. And since there were means, there was instrumental valuing going on. And since there was instrumental valuing going on, there was intrinsic valuing going on.

Eventually, the hydrogen and helium atoms in their turn condensed into galaxies and stars. Other types of atoms formed within the stars. Each epoch leading to the present was an epic unto itself, when prodigious things-valuing-in-themselves would form only to succumb to crisis, and then to reform, from the ensuing chaos, evermore complex things-valuing-in-themselves. Eventually, the planet we now call Earth formed, and life began.

Under the old-fashioned, physical view, law rules over all. The problem is that law cannot control events. Under teleological science, law is not important. The individual object rules supreme; each object is a law unto itself. This principle was no more clearly demonstrated than when the first close-up photos of the Jovian Galliean satellites taken by Voyager were returned. The diversity of moons was totally unprepared for; there was no law-like pattern to the gross morphology. Ultimately, astronomy as a science will be more about history than physics. For history is story, and every object has its own story. For such objects, the laws of physics are like the laws of man are to humans: law is a constraint to be followed or broken as the situation dictates.

I've argued elsewhere that science is epistemology--not metaphysics. So teleological science is a new epistemology--new to the physical sciences, that is. But not to biology.

What I posit is not just a methodological materialism, but also a methodological panpsychism. As such, there are no necessary metaphysical committments to panpsychsim.

I believe that if teleological science were adopted within the physical sciences as it already is within the biological sciences, it would speed scientific research, as well as provide a more satisfying understanding of the web of noncontroversial, empirical, scientific observations.

Nereid · #2 (**permalink**) 08-September-2007, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

In the beginning, there was nothing but the Plasma. Everything was simple. What existed before the Plasma, science cannot yet say. The Plasma had a high energy density. It condensed into complex atoms of hydrogen and helium. Then there was Light. When the universe lit up, there was valuing going on.

When everything lit up, the parts of the complex atoms functioned just thus and so, and so preserved themselves from the forces of destruction, thus demonstrating their Good Design. If things had been otherwise, everything would have fallen apart. And since there was Good Design, there were means-end relations. And since there were means, there was instrumental valuing going on. And since there was instrumental valuing going on, there was intrinsic valuing going on.

Eventually, the hydrogen and helium atoms in their turn condensed into galaxies and stars. Other types of atoms formed within the stars. Each epoch leading to the present was an epic unto itself, when prodigious things-valuing-in-themselves would form only to succumb to crisis, and then to reform, from the ensuing chaos, evermore complex things-valuing-in-themselves. Eventually, the planet we now call Earth formed, and life began.

Under the old-fashioned, physical view, law rules over all. The problem is that law cannot control events. Under teleological science, law is not important. The individual object rules supreme; each object is a law unto itself. This principle was no more clearly demonstrated than when the first close-up photos of the Jovian Galliean satellites taken by Voyager were returned. The diversity of moons was totally unprepared for; there was no law-like pattern to the gross morphology. Ultimately, astronomy as a science will be more about history than physics. For history is story, and every object has its own story. For such objects, the laws of physics are like the laws of man are to humans: law is a constraint to be followed or broken as the situation dictates.

I've argued elsewhere that science is epistemology--not metaphysics. So teleological science is a new epistemology--new to the physical sciences, that is. But not to biology.

What I posit is not just a methodological materialism, but also a methodological panpsychism. As such, there are no necessary metaphysical committments to panpsychsim.

I believe that if teleological science were adopted within the physical sciences as it already is within the biological sciences, it would speed scientific research, as well as provide a more satisfying understanding of the web of noncontroversial, empirical, scientific observations.

(my bold)

With specific reference to astronomy, can you give an outline of how this* might occur?

*if teleological science were adopted within astronomy, the scientific research - and astronomy in particular - would speed up.

Warren Platts · #3 (**permalink**) 08-September-2007, 02:31 PM

Specifically, I'm mainly referring to the epistemological technique of reverse engineering that used to be reserved for biology and human techonology. Rather than trying to deduce a system's emergent properties from first principles, one posits a design criteria for the system (that is, one adopts Dennett's design stance toward the system) and then works backwards. The advantage is that the search space of possible mechanisms is vastly reduced.

The most obvious astronomical example is the universe itself. If the universe is truly a random, one-off event, then there would be no point in positing a design criterion for the universe. If, however, the Strong Anthropic Principle is correct, then the universe is designed. On this view, the universe need not have been designed by a supernatural god--it was more likely the result of some sort of Darwinian process of natural selection.

If the universe is a unit of selection, that implies that this universe must have come from a previous universe not all that different from this one, and that it ought to be possible to create a new big bang from within this universe. And so this idea has led to an active research program where physicists are now approaching the big bang not so much as an astrophysics problem, but as an engineering problem--the idea being not just describing how the big bang occured, but also to develop the capability to actually, physically recreate a new big bang.

Nereid · #4 (**permalink**) 08-September-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Specifically, I'm mainly referring to the epistemological technique of reverse engineering that used to be reserved for biology and human techonology. Rather than trying to deduce a system's emergent properties from first principles, one posits a design criteria for the system (that is, one adopts Dennett's design stance toward the system) and then works backwards. The advantage is that the search space of possible mechanisms is vastly reduced.

The most obvious astronomical example is the universe itself. If the universe is truly a random, one-off event, then there would be no point in positing a design criterion for the universe. If, however, the Strong Anthropic Principle is correct, then the universe is designed. On this view, the universe need not have been designed by a supernatural god--it was more likely the result of some sort of Darwinian process of natural selection.

If the universe is a unit of selection, that implies that this universe must have come from a previous universe not all that different from this one, and that it ought to be possible to create a new big bang from within this universe. And so this idea has led to an active research program where physicists are now approaching the big bang not so much as an astrophysics problem, but as an engineering problem--the idea being not just describing how the big bang occured, but also to develop the capability to actually, physically recreate a new big bang.

I'm just not getting it, at all.

Perhaps another example might help?

Anyway, wrt the example you do give, how does thinking about 'how to physically (re)create a new big bang' lead to a speed up of astronomical (cosmological, astrophysical) research, compared with thinking about 'how the big bang occurred'?

Paracelsus · #5 (**permalink**) 08-September-2007, 07:50 PM

For anyone wondering what teleological is, here is the Wiki def:

Quote:

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in nature or human creations. (my bold) It is traditionally contrasted with philosophical naturalism, which views nature as lacking design or purpose. In opposition to this, teleology holds there is a final cause or purpose inherent in all beings. There are two types of such causes, intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality.

Historically, teleology may be identified with Aristotelianism and the scholastic tradition in philosophy, again, made central to speculative philosophy by Hegel. The rationale of teleology was explored in detail by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgement. Friedrich Engels refuted teleology as pantheism or deism and defended Darwin's evolution theory.

Quote:

I believe that if teleological science were adopted within the physical sciences as it already is within the biological sciences,

Sorry, Warren Platt, teleological science has not been adopted within the mainstream biological sciences. Teleological science translated into biology = ID theory.

Celestial Mechanic · #6 (**permalink**) 09-September-2007, 04:57 AM

In the beginning was the word-salad, and the word-salad was with ranch dressing, and ranch dressing was the word-salad.

davidlpf · #7 (**permalink**) 09-September-2007, 05:56 AM

Hmm, reverse enginerring the universe good luck at that.

Paracelsus · #8 (**permalink**) 09-September-2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

In the beginning was the word-salad, and the word-salad was with ranch dressing, and ranch dressing was the word-salad.

Entropy would not be increasing in the word-salad if the salad had begun with honey-mustard dressing instead of ranch.

Mmmmm...honey mustard....

Warren Platts · #9 (**permalink**) 09-September-2007, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

I'm just not getting it, at all.

Perhaps another example might help?

I briefly discussed this in the Bolzman Brain thread, but I would again argue that the serendipitous discovery of buckminsterfullerene during the course of a study on the properties of interstellar soot represents a genuine case of reverse-engineering of a physical system. Here's the exerpt:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

After Heath obtained his results, the group temporarily forgot about interstellar soot and devoted their full attention to explaining the apparent superstability of C₆₀. On Monday evening, September 9, 1985, the team, with the exception of Curl, went to a Mexican restaurant to discuss the C₆₀ anomaly. Clearly, not just any combination of 60 carbon atoms would do. The problem is that there is a myriad of ways to arrange a ball and stick model composed of 60 balls representing 60 carbon atoms; yet nearly all such arrangements result in so-called dangling bonds. In general, carbon atoms “want” to have a total of four bonds. In diamond, each carbon atom is connected by one single bond to four other carbon atoms forming a 3-dimensional structure. In graphite, the carbon atoms form 2-dimensional hexagonal sheets; each carbon atom is connected to two other carbon atoms by single bonds, and to another carbon atom by a double bond, for a total of four bonds each. The problem is that at the edges of diamond and graphite particles, the requirements that each carbon atom be bonded to four or three other carbon atoms, respectively, are not met. Ordinarily, the resultant dangling bonds are bound to hydrogen. Thus, diamond and graphite are technically not pure forms of carbon because they require small amounts of hydrogen to tie up the dangling bonds (Taylor 1999, 2-4). Similarly, the aromatic benzene (C₆H₆) consists of a ring of six carbon atoms connected by alternating single and double bonds, with the extra bonds tied up with six hydrogen atoms. However, the Rice University group knew from the mass spectrometer results that the species they were observing contained 60 and only 60 carbon atoms; it could not be 60 carbon atoms plus one or a few hydrogen atoms. Moreover, if there were somehow some unbound dangling bonds in the C60 molecule, such molecules would quickly react with other molecules. Consequently, a C₆₀ molecule with any dangling bonds would not be stable.

Thus, the task for Rice University group was to think up a structure for a 60-atom carbon molecule that contained no dangling bonds. Two broad classes of models were suggested. One, the so-called “flatlander” model, proposed that C₆₀ was made of stacks of hexagonal carbon sheets, but it was difficult to see how such models could completely eliminate all dangling bonds.

The other broad class of models suggested that the carbon had to somehow form a closed cage; but exactly how such a cage would be arranged was still a mystery. Kroto discussed Buckminster Fuller and geodesic domes, recalling that he thought that the dome that he had been inside of at the American pavilion at Expo 67 in Montreal had been constructed of hexagons (in truth it contained a few pentagons as well). Meanwhile, Smalley mentioned chicken wire cages. Finally, Kroto recalled a roughly spherical “stardome” that contained a map of the night sky that he had once constructed out of paper for his children. The only problem was that Kroto could not remember exactly how the stardome was put together, nor could he recall how many vertices the stardome possessed. Kroto did recall, however, that he thought that the stardome had incorporated pentagons as well as hexagons.

After dinner, the team members went their separate ways. Kroto went to Curl’s house where he was staying while in Texas. Once there, Kroto wanted to call his wife in England in order to have her count the vertices on the stardome to see if they added up to 60. However, Curl talked him out of it, saying that it didn’t make sense to call in the middle of the night and that Kroto’s wife probably wouldn’t be able to find the stardome anyway. Heath went home and tried to construct a cage with gummy bears and toothpicks. Though Heath was ultimately unsuccessful, he at least reached the conclusion that a cage with only hexagons would not work, no matter how much one tried to cheat. O’Brien apparently fell fast asleep. Meanwhile, Smalley felt restless after arriving home.

Quote:

It was midnight, but instead of going to bed, I went to the kitchen for a beer. Halfway through it I remembered Kroto’s saying that pentagons might have been part of his children’s geodesic dome. Maybe pentagons would be part of carbon clusters too; after all many carbon compounds are made of both five-member and six-member rings. (quoted in Koruga et al. 1993, 18)

So Smalley obtained scissors, sticky tape, and paper, and soon constructed a symmetrical bowl made out of both hexagons and pentagons—the structure of corannulene. It was then that Smalley had his eureka experience. After he finished his crude paper sphere, Smalley counted the vertices. Sure enough, there were 60 of them. When Smalley dropped his paper model, the geodesic strength of the structure was evident when it bounced. The next morning Smalley tossed his paper model on the coffee table in front of his colleagues. Finally, the team had a concrete hypothesis that could explain the superstability of C₆₀ (Taubes 1991).

So, that's a clear case where concrete results were speedily achieved--and they won a Nobel Prize as a result. As for other examples within astronomy, I am hoping that perhaps some other posters or lurkers here might know about some examples where an astronomical system was reverse-engineered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Anyway, wrt the example you do give, how does thinking about 'how to physically (re)create a new big bang' lead to a speed up of astronomical (cosmological, astrophysical) research, compared with thinking about 'how the big bang occurred'?

That's like the difference between thinking about how nuclear fission happens, and how to build your own atomic pile.

absael · #10 (**permalink**) 09-September-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

In the beginning, there was nothing but the Plasma. Everything was simple. What existed before the Plasma, science cannot yet say. The Plasma had a high energy density. It condensed into complex atoms of hydrogen and helium. Then there was Light.

I'm with you so far.

Quote:

When the universe lit up, there was valuing going on.

Now you're starting to lose me.

Quote:

When everything lit up, the parts of the complex atoms functioned just thus and so, and so preserved themselves from the forces of destruction, thus demonstrating their Good Design.

Why "Design"? Couldn't it be that it couldn't have happened any other way, or that it could have, but just didn't in this case?

Quote:

If things had been otherwise, everything would have fallen apart.

This may very well be true, but again, I don't see a need to invoke "design". And for all we know, countless universes not possessing the properties required for survival may have been stillborn before, during and after the birth of the Universe that we inhabit.

Quote:

And since there was Good Design, there were means-end relations.

It seems to me that you're making a leap of logic based on an unsupported assumption.

Quote:

[SNIP]Under the old-fashioned, physical view, law rules over all. The problem is that law cannot control events.

I suppose that depends on your perspective... while one might say that events aren't actively controlled by laws, they must conform to them.

Quote:

Under teleological science, law is not important. The individual object rules supreme; each object is a law unto itself.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this.

Quote:

For such objects, the laws of physics are like the laws of man are to humans: law is a constraint to be followed or broken as the situation dictates.[SNIP]

I disagree. Laws accurately describe the behavior of phenomena; the exceptions are indicative of an incorrect theory, not of the inherent fallacy of the laws of physics.

I must admit that I'm not entirely sure what the thrust of your argument is... you speak of design, but your response to Nereid's post mentions "some sort of Darwinian process" which to me implies a lack of design. The only common thread I can see here might be some sort of "evolutionary" pressure, but I don't see any reason to invoke that idea either.

And regarding your second post, could you provide some more info regarding how this Universe could have been born of a previous, similar universe?

Nereid · #11 (**permalink**) 09-September-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

I briefly discussed this in the Bolzman Brain thread, but I would again argue that the serendipitous discovery of buckminsterfullerene during the course of a study on the properties of interstellar soot represents a genuine case of reverse-engineering of a physical system. Here's the exerpt:

Thanks.

I'm afraid I'm still missing something ... you have relayed how, in this instance, one particular new result (which you call a breakthrough) came about.

We could compile a set of anecdotes on how a thousand, or million, other new results came about.

As I understand your ATM claim, there would be a clear, consistent, unambiguous pattern among those anecdotes - 'reverse engineering thinking' would be more fruitful, in some as yet undefined way, than one or more alternatives (the sum total of 'non-teleological science'?)

Is that a reasonable summary of your claim?

In any case, isn't your example merely one of 'confirmation bias'? That is, you have not considered, in any way at all (as far as I can see), let alone factored in, any alternative.

Quote:

So, that's a clear case where concrete results were speedily achieved--and they won a Nobel Prize as a result. As for other examples within astronomy, I am hoping that perhaps some other posters or lurkers here might know about some examples where an astronomical system was reverse-engineered.

Hmm ... bit of a cop-out isn't it?

I mean, this is 'your' ATM thread, and it's in BAUT, a discussion forum devoted to astronomy and space science.

Are you asking BAUT members to do the work which you yourself could reasonably be expected to have done, before you started this thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Anyway, wrt the example you do give, how does thinking about 'how to physically (re)create a new big bang' lead to a speed up of astronomical (cosmological, astrophysical) research, compared with thinking about 'how the big bang occurred'?

That's like the difference between thinking about how nuclear fission happens, and how to build your own atomic pile.

Would you please amplify on this?

In particular, please address the 'speed up astronomical research' part.

Warren Platts · #12 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by absael

Why "Design"? Couldn't it be that it couldn't have happened any other way, or that it could have, but just didn't in this case?

This may very well be true, but again, I don't see a need to invoke "design". And for all we know, countless universes not possessing the properties required for survival may have been stillborn before, during and after the birth of the Universe that we inhabit.

Design posits would have neither less nor more merit than they do in biology, if it is in fact the case that natural selection happens in the physical domain.

Quote:

I disagree. Laws accurately describe the behavior of phenomena; the exceptions are indicative of an incorrect theory, not of the inherent fallacy of the laws of physics.

Laws are OK as far as they go. We have various laws of gravitation and motion, but such laws cannot predict how the solar system that precipitates from a nebula will look like. Bodies start clumping together, they compete for mass since the more mass a body has, the more likely it is to maintain that identity in the future. Each planet or moon or whatever will have it's own powers, history, and peculiar environment. All the laws of physics can't predict how any particular protoplanitesimal will turn out, just as physics couldn't predict the diversity of moons and planets in our solar system. That's why I referred to astronomical objects as "laws unto themselves".

Quote:

And regarding your second post, could you provide some more info regarding how this Universe could have been born of a previous, similar universe?

There are just a few basic posibilities:

the universe was created by God
the universe is has always been in a steady state
the universe bounces back and forth pendulum-style
the universe came from nothingness
the universe came from a universe more or less like ours

We can eliminate (1), since we're all atheists; (2) can't be true because of expansion. (3) used to be in vogue, but with the new discovery that the expansion is accelerating, it doesn't seem likely that the universe will collapse on itself; (4) requires truly Vast eternities of waiting for the proper quantum fluctuation to occur.

But (5) does not require supernatural deities, it is not belied by observations, and doesn't require the deus ex machina of miraculous quantum events combined with eternities of time.

captain swoop · #13 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 01:58 AM

Quote:

We can eliminate (1), since we're all atheists

Are we?

Warren Platts · #14 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Are we?

OK, maybe we aren't.

absael · #15 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Design posits would have neither less nor more merit than they do in biology, if it is in fact the case that natural selection happens in the physical domain.

I agree with that, as far as it goes, but I don't believe that it addresses my question of why you feel it necessary to say that a design is involved in the evolution of the Universe.

Quote:

Laws are OK as far as they go. We have various laws of gravitation and motion, but such laws cannot predict how the solar system that precipitates from a nebula will look like. Bodies start clumping together, they compete for mass since the more mass a body has, the more likely it is to maintain that identity in the future. Each planet or moon or whatever will have it's own powers, history, and peculiar environment. All the laws of physics can't predict how any particular protoplanitesimal will turn out, just as physics couldn't predict the diversity of moons and planets in our solar system. That's why I referred to astronomical objects as "laws unto themselves".

I still disagree. I believe that our failure to predict the behavior of astronomical objects lies in our inadequate understanding of the applicable laws and our inability to precisely model the initial conditions. If I understand you correctly, you're inferring that astronomical objects “make up their own rules as they go”, so to speak. I can't think of a less scientific concept, and I don't believe it.

Quote:

There are just a few basic posibilities:

the universe was created by God
the universe is has always been in a steady state
the universe bounces back and forth pendulum-style
the universe came from nothingness
the universe came from a universe more or less like ours

We can eliminate (1), since we're all atheists; (2) can't be true because of expansion. (3) used to be in vogue, but with the new discovery that the expansion is accelerating, it doesn't seem likely that the universe will collapse on itself; (4) requires truly Vast eternities of waiting for the proper quantum fluctuation to occur.

But (5) does not require supernatural deities, it is not belied by observations, and doesn't require the deus ex machina of miraculous quantum events combined with eternities of time.

The first problem I see here is that you've assumed that we know all the possibilities, then included yours with those that you feel are unlikely, and eliminated the “unlikely” ones. I don't see what's wrong with saying “We haven't thought of all the possibilities yet, so we aren't going to pick one of the ones that we have thought of simply because we don't have any better ideas right now.” Also, regarding your comment on #4 in your list I have two thoughts: First of all, so what if it takes vast eternities? I don't understand why that would exempt this possibility from consideration. Secondly, I'm not sure that time even has a meaning without a universe to exist in. I thought about that after my first post; my comment that “countless universes not possessing the properties required for survival may have been stillborn before, during and after the birth of the Universe that we inhabit” may be inaccurate, since I don't believe that we can speak of time except in reference to a particular universe.

But besides all this, instead of answering my question you simply restated your position. I may not have phrased the question clearly, so I'll try again (and expand on it a bit): By what mechanism do you propose that our Universe could have come from a previous universe, and how would information from that universe be passed to this one so that it could continue to evolve toward some design goal?

Warren Platts · #16 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

As I understand your ATM claim, there would be a clear, consistent, unambiguous pattern among those anecdotes - 'reverse engineering thinking' would be more fruitful, in some as yet undefined way, than one or more alternatives (the sum total of 'non-teleological science'?)

I'm saying that incorporating teleological explanations might at times be a useful supplement to a physical scientist's toolbox, not a replacement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

In any case, isn't your example merely one of 'confirmation bias'? That is, you have not considered, in any way at all (as far as I can see), let alone factored in, any alternative.

Like I said above, teleological explanations are meant to be supplemental.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Hmm ... bit of a cop-out isn't it?

I mean, this is 'your' ATM thread, and it's in BAUT, a discussion forum devoted to astronomy and space science.

That and guitars, and Larry Craig, and movies, and the Beatles, and wine, and all kinds of other cool stuff!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Are you asking BAUT members to do the work which you yourself could reasonably be expected to have done, before you started this thread?Would you please amplify on this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fraser

There are two kinds of people who post threads in the ATM section:

1.People who have an interesting idea to explain some aspect of the Universe. They post their idea, community members generously donate their time to help think it through and provide ways to test the theory. It happens quickly and we all move on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

In particular, please address the 'speed up astronomical research' part.

A recent account of how the reverse-engineering of C₆₀ sped up astronomical research may be found here: (Ehrenfreund, Cox, and Foing, 2007)

Quote:

The prediction of the existence of the fullerene C60 and its subsequent isolation from soot produced a large interest for fullerenes in the astronomical community. Fullerenes of astronomical origin have only been detected in meteorites and associated with an impact crater on the Long Duration Exposure Facility spacecraft. The discovery of fullerenes led to the hypothesis that they may be stable carbon molecules present in interstellar space. Many authors have suggested the possible presence of C60 and carbon onions in astrophysical environments as well as their relation to the diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs) and the UV bump at 220 nm in the interstellar extinction curve. As first evidence for the largest molecule ever detected in space, two diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs) have been identified in the near infrared that are consistent with laboratory measurements of the C60 cation. We review the current knowledge on fullerenes in space and present new observations of the interstellar bands at 957.7 nm and 963.2 nm.

(my emphasis)

Nereid · #17 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

As I understand your ATM claim, there would be a clear, consistent, unambiguous pattern among those anecdotes - 'reverse engineering thinking' would be more fruitful, in some as yet undefined way, than one or more alternatives (the sum total of 'non-teleological science'?)

I'm saying that incorporating teleological explanations might at times be a useful supplement to a physical scientist's toolbox, not a replacement.

Quote:

In any case, isn't your example merely one of 'confirmation bias'? That is, you have not considered, in any way at all (as far as I can see), let alone factored in, any alternative.

Like I said above, teleological explanations are meant to be supplemental.

Quote:

I believe that if teleological science were adopted within the physical sciences as it already is within the biological sciences, it would speed scientific research, [...]

[snip]

(my bold)

Maybe if physicists ate more brown rice and drank more cold water it might speed scientific research.

Of course that's turning up the contrast.

However, I'm trying to home in on the extent to which your ATM idea resembles just another cute soundbite vs a powerful new approach.

Could you please clarify?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Warren Platts: The most obvious astronomical example is the universe itself. [...] And so this idea has led to an active research program where physicists are now approaching the big bang not so much as an astrophysics problem, but as an engineering problem--the idea being not just describing how the big bang occured, but also to develop the capability to actually, physically recreate a new big bang.

Nereid: [...] wrt the example you do give, how does thinking about 'how to physically (re)create a new big bang' lead to a speed up of astronomical (cosmological, astrophysical) research, compared with thinking about 'how the big bang occurred'?

Warren Platts: That's like the difference between thinking about how nuclear fission happens, and how to build your own atomic pile.

Nereid: Would you please amplify on this?

In particular, please address the 'speed up astronomical research' part.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It seems my question was insufficiently clear; let me try again.

Would you please explain in more detail how "[t]hat's like the difference between thinking about how nuclear fission happens, and how to build your own atomic pile" would speed up cosmological research?

Cougar · #18 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

In the beginning, there was nothing but the Plasma. Everything was simple. What existed before the Plasma, science cannot yet say. The Plasma had a high energy density. It condensed into complex atoms of hydrogen and helium.....

You want to explain this "condensation"?

Cougar · #19 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Under the old-fashioned, physical view, law rules over all. The problem is that law cannot control events.

Excuse me? The law of gravity controls orbiting planets and falling apples. How do you claim it "cannot"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

This principle was no more clearly demonstrated than when the first close-up photos of the Jovian Galliean satellites taken by Voyager were returned. The diversity of moons was totally unprepared for; there was no law-like pattern to the gross morphology.

Correction: No known pattern. Obviously they evolved differently. You seem to be saying that each moon developed according to its own laws of physics?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Ultimately, astronomy as a science will be more about history than physics. For history is story, and every object has its own story. For such objects, the laws of physics are like the laws of man are to humans: law is a constraint to be followed or broken as the situation dictates.

You are anthropomorphizing the universe and the laws that govern it. This is rather pre-Copernican, isn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

What I posit is not just a methodological materialism, but also a methodological panpsychism. As such, there are no necessary metaphysical committments to panpsychsim.

Philosophy does, however, seem to have a commitment to long, complex words, and even to coining new words. Is there some reason not to keep it simple so everyone might understand what the heck you're talking about?

Warren Platts · #20 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

(my bold)

Maybe if physicists ate more brown rice and drank more cold water it might speed scientific research.

Of course that's turning up the contrast.

However, I'm trying to home in on the extent to which your ATM idea resembles just another cute soundbite vs a powerful new approach.

Could you please clarify?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Warren Platts: The most obvious astronomical example is the universe itself. [...] And so this idea has led to an active research program where physicists are now approaching the big bang not so much as an astrophysics problem, but as an engineering problem--the idea being not just describing how the big bang occured, but also to develop the capability to actually, physically recreate a new big bang.

Nereid: [...] wrt the example you do give, how does thinking about 'how to physically (re)create a new big bang' lead to a speed up of astronomical (cosmological, astrophysical) research, compared with thinking about 'how the big bang occurred'?

Warren Platts: That's like the difference between thinking about how nuclear fission happens, and how to build your own atomic pile.

Nereid: Would you please amplify on this?

In particular, please address the 'speed up astronomical research' part.

I can see why you might be confused. I stated my bottom line as a conditional: if teleological science were accepted by physical scientists then it would speed up astronomical research. I did not quantify the "speed up research", so the consequent could be interepreted as "would speed up some research", or as "would speed up all scientific research." Therefore, let me clarify that I intended the existential "some", because the very idea that any single approach could speed up all scientific research is ridiculous on the face of it.

And I have already demonstrated that the consequent is true, because the reverse-engineering of buckminsterfullerene not only sped up scientific research, it created a new field of astronomical research where there was none before.

Well, I suppose I should also discuss the counterfactual "would". What if the buckyball example had not panned out? Would teleological science speed up some other area of research? I would say so, but addressing the issue is a difficult question in the history of science in that it requires analyzing what scientists are doing before they write-up their results. So unless you have access to scientists willing to be interviewed, you're limited to others' interviews, memoirs, and biographies, as bland papers in Science or Nature don't reveal much of the thought process that went into the discovery.

One possible example, but not within astronomy, however, might be Ted Fujita's studies of tornados. He built an apparatus in his lab to make little mini-tornados. He seemed to treat tornados as if they were alive. He did not ask "How is it that the first principles of fluid mechanics generate tornados?" Rather, he asked "What do tornados need in order to survive?" So the tornados in his lab were more like fish in an aquarium, rather than crystaline, celestial bodies effortlessly gliding to the tune of general relativity. He found that simply placing rulers on the floor of his apparatus would disrupt the airflow enough to dissipate the mini-tornados. From this he generalized the principle that tornados need a low-level supply of air; and then he was able to use this as an explanation for the historic decline in frequency of tornados in the Chicagoland area, because as the area was increasingly built up with 3-story buildings, the lower level fresh air that tornados require became harder and harder to find.

Note here that he was able to generate predictions from a teleological approach that were not forthcoming at the time from computer simulations based on solving the partial differential equations of fluid mechanics--even though much research in this area was going on in Fujita's department at the time in the 1980's.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Quote:

It seems my question was insufficiently clear; let me try again.

Would you please explain in more detail how "[t]hat's like the difference between thinking about how nuclear fission happens, and how to build your own atomic pile" would speed up cosmological research?

We can use Fujita's tornado example here too. He created minitornados in the lab and was able to gain insight that was to be found neither in direct observations of real tornados, nor in theoretical computer simulations.

Warren Platts · #21 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cougar

You want to explain this "condensation"?

It's sort of like how water droplets form from water vapor before it rains.

Quote:

Excuse me? The law of gravity controls orbiting planets and falling apples. How do you claim it "cannot"?

Because birds and helium baloons break the law of gravity every day.

Quote:

Correction: No known pattern. Obviously they evolved differently. You seem to be saying that each moon developed according to its own laws of physics?

Exactly, no known pattern mainly because there doesn't seem to be a pattern at all!

Quote:

You are anthropomorphizing the universe and the laws that govern it. This is rather pre-Copernican, isn't it?

Technically, it's neo-Empedoclesianism.

Quote:

Philosophy does, however, seem to have a commitment to long, complex words, and even to coining new words. Is there some reason not to keep it simple so everyone might understand what the heck you're talking about?

I agree that the world would be a better place if only philosophers would the sorts of short, easily understood words that physicists choose, like "charm" or "dark matter" or "big bang"!

Nereid · #22 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

I can see why you might be confused. I stated my bottom line as a conditional: if teleological science were accepted by physical scientists then it would speed up astronomical research. I did not quantify the "speed up research", so the consequent could be interepreted as "would speed up some research", or as "would speed up all scientific research." Therefore, let me clarify that I intended the existential "some", because the very idea that any single approach could speed up all scientific research is ridiculous on the face of it.

And I have already demonstrated that the consequent is true, because the reverse-engineering of buckminsterfullerene not only sped up scientific research, it created a new field of astronomical research where there was none before.

Well, I suppose I should also discuss the counterfactual "would". What if the buckyball example had not panned out? Would teleological science speed up some other area of research? I would say so, but addressing the issue is a difficult question in the history of science in that it requires analyzing what scientists are doing before they write-up their results. So unless you have access to scientists willing to be interviewed, you're limited to others' interviews, memoirs, and biographies, as bland papers in Science or Nature don't reveal much of the thought process that went into the discovery.

One possible example, but not within astronomy, however, might be Ted Fujita's studies of tornados. He built an apparatus in his lab to make little mini-tornados. He seemed to treat tornados as if they were alive. He did not ask "How is it that the first principles of fluid mechanics generate tornados?" Rather, he asked "What do tornados need in order to survive?" So the tornados in his lab were more like fish in an aquarium, rather than crystaline, celestial bodies effortlessly gliding to the tune of general relativity. He found that simply placing rulers on the floor of his apparatus would disrupt the airflow enough to dissipate the mini-tornados. From this he generalized the principle that tornados need a low-level supply of air; and then he was able to use this as an explanation for the historic decline in frequency of tornados in the Chicagoland area, because as the area was increasingly built up with 3-story buildings, the lower level fresh air that tornados require became harder and harder to find.

Note here that he was able to generate predictions from a teleological approach that were not forthcoming at the time from computer simulations based on solving the partial differential equations of fluid mechanics--even though much research in this area was going on in Fujita's department at the time in the 1980's.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We can use Fujita's tornado example here too. He created minitornados in the lab and was able to gain insight that was to be found neither in direct observations of real tornados, nor in theoretical computer simulations.

Just quickly ... one aspect (a 't' left uncrossed?) is "The most obvious astronomical example is the universe itself." (my bold)

The only (astronomical) example you actually cited has nothing to do with cosmology; in what sense then do you mean "most obvious"?

(I'll return to the rest of the post later ... other than to note that it does, indeed, seem to clarify your ATM idea considerable).

Celestial Mechanic · #23 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

[Snip!] Technically, it's neo-Empedoclesianism. [Snip!]

Super-neo-Empedoclesialistic-expialidocious!
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious.
If you say it long enough you're sure to sound precocious,
Super-neo-Empedoclesialistic-expialidocious!

korjik · #24 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

It's sort of like how water droplets form from water vapor before it rains.

Because birds and helium baloons break the law of gravity every day.

Ummmm, no.

Birds and balloons obey the law of gravity all the time.

CodeSlinger · #25 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Because birds and helium baloons break the law of gravity every day.

I'm sorely tempted to sig that along with some sarcastic comment about philosophers and science, but that would probably be Bad Manners.

Warren Platts · #26 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

in what sense then do you mean "most obvious"?

I was referring to the press that the Strong Anthropic Principle has received over the last couple of decades because the SAP naturally lends itself to a teleological view of the universe.

Celestial Mechanic · #27 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

[Snip!] Because birds and helium balloons break the law of gravity every day. [Snip!]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't always serve up such tasty morsels every day! Must strike while the pasta fork is hot!

Birds do not break the law of gravity; as soon as Dick Cheney plugs one instead of a lawyer it falls like a rock. Only by flapping wings or holding them in a certain position in a thermal does a bird seem to evade gravity. The law still holds; gravity is merely one of several forces acting on a bird.

Similarly with helium balloons, once they burst or the helium diffuses out, the balloon falls like a rock.

Who says philosophy develops rigorous reasoning skills?

Warren Platts · #28 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

Ummmm, no.

Birds and balloons obey the law of gravity all the time.

They pay lip service to the law, but they are not in accord with the spirit of the law.

Warren Platts · #29 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by absael

But besides all this, instead of answering my question you simply restated your position. I may not have phrased the question clearly, so I'll try again (and expand on it a bit): By what mechanism do you propose that our Universe could have come from a previous universe, and how would information from that universe be passed to this one so that it could continue to evolve toward some design goal?

Sorry I didn't notice your post earlier. It was posted simultaneously with one of mine. As for mechanisms for one universe to come from another, Leo Smolin and Louis Crane have proposed that black holes may have something to do with it. Check out Crane's paper:

Quote:

If both Smolin’s two conjectures and mine are true, then the fine tuning of physical constants would not stop with physics which produced stars and gas clouds which cool. Rather, the selection would continue until physics evolved which resulted in successful civilizations, with a very exacting definition of success.

Crane actually got his Ph.D. at Chicago in the '80's while I was there . . . Coincidence?

cjl · #30 (**permalink**) 10-September-2007, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

They pay lip service to the law, but they are not in accord with the spirit of the law.

Not at all.

The law of gravity states that an object in a gravitational field feels a force towards the source of that gravitational field proportional to the product of their masses. Birds obey this perfectly, and require an opposing force to maintain flight. If they did not obey the law of gravity, they would not require an opposing force.

Balloons are an even better example - gravity pulls down more strongly on the more dense air around the balloon, displacing the balloon upwards. Balloons obey the law of gravity as thoroughly as ships do.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Reflections on a year and a half’s experience with BAUT’s ATM section	Nereid	Forum Introductions and Feedback	50	19-April-2007 10:09 AM
There was once a religion called Science.	Rebelsuns	Against the Mainstream	33	30-January-2007 12:20 AM
Scientific, undeniable fact that proves God exists	StevenCrum	Against the Mainstream	107	30-September-2006 01:46 PM
doc. film on radical science needs subjects	shugh	Against the Mainstream	14	05-February-2004 03:48 PM
Bad news in Georgia?	David Hall	Against the Mainstream	111	03-September-2002 08:01 PM