Ham - [Platt] > > I hate to disappoint you, Ham, but your view of my (and Pirsig's) > > view is wrong. The laws of physics and the laws of the jungle are > > inimical to human life, that is, not good at all. > > Society evolved for the specific purpose of protecting humans > > from the evils of the lower levels, whether it be protection from > > the elements or tigers. > > That's simply untrue, Platt, as Robert Lanza (a biotechnologist) makes clear > in an essay from which I quoted in my book. Since you apparently missed it, > he says: > > "Modern science cannot explain why the LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE EXACTLY BALANCED > for animal life to exist. For example, if the big bang had been > one-part-in-a-billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for > the galaxies to form and for life to begin. If the strong nuclear force > were decreased by two percent, atomic nuclei wouldn't hold together. > Hydrogen would be the only atom in the universe. If the gravitational force > were decreased, stars (including the sun) would not ignite. These are just > three of more than 200 physical parameters within the solar system and > universe so exact that they cannot be random. Indeed, the lack of a > scientific explanation has allowed these facts to be hijacked as a defense > of intelligent design." [Emphasis mine]
I refer you to Ian's post reporting that this "Anthropic Principle" is a matter of great debate and is hardly settled "truth." There is the Weak Anthropic Principle and Strong Anthropic Principle, both originated by cosmologist Brandon Carter. This led to a Participatory Anthropic Principle by John Wheeler and the Final Anthropic Principle by Martin Gardner. For a fuller discussion of these various arguments I refer you to "Equations of Eternity" by David Darling. As for the laws of physics being inimical to human life, I draw on Pirsig: "The law of gravity, for example, is perhaps the most ruthlessly static pattern of order in the universe. So, correspondingly, there is no single living thing that does not thumb its nose at that law day in and day out. One could almost define life as the organized disobedience of the law of gravity. One could show that the degree to which an organism disobeys this law is a measure of its degree of evolution. Thus, while the simple protozoa just barely get around on their cilia, earthworms manage to control their distance and direction, birds fly into the sky, and man goes all the way to the moon. "A similar analysis could be made with other physical laws such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it seemed to Phaedrus that if one gathered together enough of these deliberate violations of the laws of the universe and formed a generalization from them, a quite different theory of evolution could be inferred. If life is to be explained on the basis of physical laws, then the overwhelming evidence that life deliberately works around these laws cannot be ignored. The reason atoms become chemistry professors has got to be that something in nature does not like laws of chemical equilibrium or the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics or any other law that restricts the molecules' freedom. They only go along with laws of any kind because they have to, preferring an existence that does not follow any laws whatsoever." (Lila, 11) Makes sense to me even if it may not fit your Essentialist philosophy. > As for the "law of the jungle", don't forget that the jungle was once man's > habitat, and that having the power to subdue your enemy is still necessary > for survival in modern civilization. Absolutely. As Pirsig pointed out, you can't talk crime to death. Jungle means must be used to subdue jungle behavior. That's why modern societies depend on the military and police. > > The universe is moral in the sense that it is evolving towards > > betterness, that is, toward self-consciousness and ability to > > understand itself. Yes, we are now the principle players because > > the moral force has made us the culmination of betterness so far. > Surely you don't mean to imply that everything in existence will one day be > conscious! Organic life could not subsist in the absence of bio-chemical > processes, the H2O/CO2 cycle, and an inorganic terrestrial environment, none > of which can in any conceivable way have conscious understanding. From what > Pirsig quotation have you extracted such a fanciful paradise? I guess you missed my words "self-consciousness" and "ability to understand itself." Humans qualify for the former and you and many others qualify for the latter. Surely you grant that you exist and are as much a part of the universe as chemicals and rocks. > > We have a way to go for sure, but the very fact we are conversing > > in this manner over a global network that didn't exist ten years ago > > shows the direction the universe, through us, is moving. > > The universe has nothing to do with it. Science and technology are > inventions of man, Platt, not nature or the universe. Why this separation of man and nature or man and the universe? You are a pattern of stardust, Ham, as are the rest of us. > Human research and > engineering (man's intellect and creativity) have made these things > possible. It is Value, not the universe, that drives mankind to organize > for security and adapt moral codes for an orderly society. It is human > beings who have discovered the physical principles of nature and applied > them to the enhancement of civilization. We are not moving the universe, we > are moving ourselves, individually and collectively -- hopefully toward a > more authentic and harmonious society. I think you just confirmed my point about the universe evolving, through us. > Your surprise me sometimes. What has happened to your verve for individual > ingenuity? I don't claim to have any individual ingenuity, but I do admire it in others -- like you and Mr. Pirsig. Regards, Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
