JAS; list Who are you agreeing with in your sentence ' > I agree that technically, the universe as a whole cannot be accurately > characterized as a complex adaptive system
My view is that the universe ‘as a whole IS a complex adaptive system - and as such there is no ‘environment external to it’. ..Therefore, the universe is most certainly not adapting itself to this non-existent ‘external environment’. Edwina > On Aug 30, 2024, at 1:25 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List: > > I agree that technically, the universe as a whole cannot be accurately > characterized as a complex adaptive system unless there is an environment > external to it, to which it is constantly adapting itself. What could that > be, and how would we ever know anything about it? > > Gödel's incompleteness theorems tell us nothing whatsoever about God or > religious beliefs--they are purely logical demonstrations that certain kinds > of sentences are undecidable within any sufficiently powerful formal system > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems). In > fact, Gödel himself developed a modal ontological argument for the > existence/reality of God > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof). As stated > in the linked article, "Gödel described his religion as 'baptized Lutheran > (but not member of any religious congregation). My belief is theistic, not > pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza.'" He also echoed Peirce > by saying, "Religions are, for the most part, bad--but religion is not." > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:03 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Supplement: That "the question, whether the universe is God´s tool, a part >> of God, or God Himself" cannot be answered by us, is proved by Goedel, with >> his incompleteness theorem. Meaning, argueing about religious belief is >> futile. >> Edwina, List, >> >> in my last post I was trying to not anthropomorphise: I wrote, that the >> non-atheist view, that God is a person, can be justified by saying, that >> what makes a person is intelligence, and the reason for everything is >> intelligent, so a person. Of course, this argument is only then not >> anthropomorphic, if we all agree, that "intelligence" is not an >> anthropomorphic concept. Is it or not? >> >> About "agential, deterministic": "Deteministic" I see as too mechanical, >> intending only one purpose, instead of the Talcottian system aspects >> "AGIL": Adaption, goal attainment, integration, latency. These system >> properties can also be explained in a Peircean way, I think, with habit >> formation and the three categories. >> >> I´d say, everything is a system, but the more complex a system is, the more >> these AGIL aspects hold. "Goal attainment" of course is agential. Luhmann >> too spoke of the intention of a system. Its intention is to get bigger, more >> powerful, more complex, more latent (homeostatic), and therefore more >> capable of integrating all that may help to achieve all that. >> >> Now- Is the universe a system? I´d say, yes, but a perfectly closed one >> (apart from possibly presumed divine intervention). Because of this >> closedness, it doesn´t have to adapt, and it cannot integrate, at least >> nothing from outside. But intention and agentiality, I´d say, yes, it has. >> The question, whether the universe is God´s tool, a part of God, or God >> Himself, I find irrelevant, due to this question´s non-solubility for us >> humble creatures. We should rather bother with problems we can deal with, >> and, apart from that, either unify or dump all religions, and praise God >> (just a suggestion). >> >> Best regards, Helmut >> 29. August 2024 um 20:39 Uhr >> "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> Helmut, List >> >> Since I follow the theory of CAS, complex adaptive systems, then, I view the >> universe as a logical process of energy/matter transformation. And yes - >> this doesn’t necessarily lead to theism, unless one wants to >> anthropomorphize the nature of this logical adaptive process. Andn of >> course- to atheism, which merely rejects the anthropomorphic or agential, >> deterministic Supreme purpose—and, more often, accepts a self-organizing, >> self-creating process of energy transforming to matter. As Peirce so often >> says ‘ matter is effete mind’. >> >> Edwina. >> On Aug 29, 2024, at 2:05 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> List, >> >> the argument "If A then B, if B then C, so: If A then C", given, that the >> two premisses are true, has a third premiss: Transitivity. Transitivity is >> an axiom, because it cannot be deduced from other premisses. Logic/reason is >> based on axioms. They are the reason for logic. In a universe, where in this >> example "If A then C" would not be true, no intelligent life could emerge, I >> am quite sure. And there would be no reason for anything. >> >> Given, that the axioms are the ens nessecitarium, we may say with John >> (Johannes) of the bible, that God is logic. I think, this view does not >> nessecarily lead to theism, it might as well lead to pantheism or >> panentheism. Panentheism, because logic/reason/God may exist ouside of our >> universe too. >> >> May it lead to atheism too? I guess, atheists say, that there is no personal >> God. But may logic, reason, the reason, be impersonal, inanimate? I´d say, >> if something is intelligent, it is a person. Intelligence is proved by >> action, e.g. if somebody fills out well an IQ-test. The emergence of >> intelligent life on our planet has a reason, because transitivity is in >> charge. This reason has done an act, we may call "creation" or "evolution". >> So this reason is intelligent, so it is a person, no matter, however >> technical, inanimate the term "axioms" sounds, with which mathematicians >> name the reason. >> >> Best regards, Helmut >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. August 2024 um 13:57 Uhr >> Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> An: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: "Peirce-L" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Anselm (was "A man could not have any >> idea that was not anthropomorphic") >> JAS, List >> >> But - Peirce, in 1.412, does indeed very specifically outline how the three >> categories ‘come into being’ from Nothing. So, contrary to your >> interpretation, I think it’s quite proper to ‘ascribe this belief’ to him. >> >> As for your arguments about ponens and tollens [both are modus] - if your >> premises are false due to circularity or ambiguity or.., then the logical >> validity is totally irrelevant. >> >> You can hardly want to ‘prove’ an assertion by its logical format alone; >> your premises must have value of truth. Otherwise, I could ‘prove’ anything >> - such as the existence of unicorns and .. >> >> If horses exist, then unicorns exist. >> Horses exist >> Therefore, unicorns exist. >> >> Finally - The ambiguity comes from the merger of ‘possible’ and >> ’necessary’…which makes the ‘god' argument false. >> >> Edwina > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
