DNA structure
there are 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA. How incredible. But coincidence or deliberate?
56-60, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ElRengo · 70-79, M
"But coincidence or deliberate?"
" ...but would you say it's deliberate or by chance?"
With all my respect, my friend, this is what is called a false dilemma.
The opposite of chance is not agency.
That is a remaining of an old but stil pop mistook of concepts (Leo Da Vinci pointed at it when dismounted the world "raggioni" as causal).
"Chance" and material functionality as much as complexity are not absolute, both constrained. And they seem to necessarily coexist and interact.
To avoid posting an essay myself, I suggest you to explore what material "Degrees of Freedom" are (a concept taken from math but with a correlate in all the natural world).
" ...but would you say it's deliberate or by chance?"
With all my respect, my friend, this is what is called a false dilemma.
The opposite of chance is not agency.
That is a remaining of an old but stil pop mistook of concepts (Leo Da Vinci pointed at it when dismounted the world "raggioni" as causal).
"Chance" and material functionality as much as complexity are not absolute, both constrained. And they seem to necessarily coexist and interact.
To avoid posting an essay myself, I suggest you to explore what material "Degrees of Freedom" are (a concept taken from math but with a correlate in all the natural world).
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@Millerdog
My dear friend, I can post some on what you said to explain why I don´t agree with your view.
But let´s take a step back and consider it as if it were like true, just as a mind experiment.
Right, the probabilities AS YOU LOOK AT RANDOMNESS are quite low.
And then?
Should we turn to what seems to be (only SEEMS to) the "logical" opposite?
That is, if it´s not chance THEN it´s agency, concious pupose, design? Well, no need of.
To say that chance and design (as philosophic absolutes) are the opposite alternatives for what happens is a fallacy if tried to be applied to the material world.
The problem is that there is not such a thing as unbounded chance.
And that there is not such a thing as simple determism untouched by randomness.
Design is not a scientific hypotesis and can´t be said that have roots on logical necessity.
That said, I have full respect for faith based believes while they don´t need validation claiming they have support on Science.
If you are interested I may develop what I think about in more detail and examples.
But I´m afraid that this will bore most of people here.
My dear friend, I can post some on what you said to explain why I don´t agree with your view.
But let´s take a step back and consider it as if it were like true, just as a mind experiment.
Right, the probabilities AS YOU LOOK AT RANDOMNESS are quite low.
And then?
Should we turn to what seems to be (only SEEMS to) the "logical" opposite?
That is, if it´s not chance THEN it´s agency, concious pupose, design? Well, no need of.
To say that chance and design (as philosophic absolutes) are the opposite alternatives for what happens is a fallacy if tried to be applied to the material world.
The problem is that there is not such a thing as unbounded chance.
And that there is not such a thing as simple determism untouched by randomness.
Design is not a scientific hypotesis and can´t be said that have roots on logical necessity.
That said, I have full respect for faith based believes while they don´t need validation claiming they have support on Science.
If you are interested I may develop what I think about in more detail and examples.
But I´m afraid that this will bore most of people here.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@Millerdog
Sorry to say but the opposite is true.
When something already happened it´s "probability" is 1.
May be you should drop the comfort of some thoughts:
- That the material Universe is "made" of the same stuff as our reasoning tools or by some kind of afine Logos.
- That should by intuitive or close to individual "common sense".
And first things first, to update some ideas on what causality and chance may mean.
Not in our minds but out there.
Sorry to say but the opposite is true.
When something already happened it´s "probability" is 1.
May be you should drop the comfort of some thoughts:
- That the material Universe is "made" of the same stuff as our reasoning tools or by some kind of afine Logos.
- That should by intuitive or close to individual "common sense".
And first things first, to update some ideas on what causality and chance may mean.
Not in our minds but out there.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@Millerdog
My dear friend, as you may already know I have the higher respect to each one´s faith and hopes.
And I have my own.
But I do it somehow like that one that once said: "I believe BECAUSE it´s absurd".
Please note that what you expect to happen (can´t say if right or wrong) it´s almost exactly the opposite of what Science had been finding out for the last (a bit more than) 400 years.
And that is since it exists as such and perhaps thats´why it exists.
About logic.........
Well, logic is a branch of Math.
And so formal what means that have not what is called an "ontological commitment".
What we already knew since it´s founder Aristotle, but THAT was forgotten or ommited by scholasticism, "rationalism", as much as by some actual "schools of thought".
That prefer to play with rethoric and call it logic.
Best best wishes.
My dear friend, as you may already know I have the higher respect to each one´s faith and hopes.
And I have my own.
But I do it somehow like that one that once said: "I believe BECAUSE it´s absurd".
Please note that what you expect to happen (can´t say if right or wrong) it´s almost exactly the opposite of what Science had been finding out for the last (a bit more than) 400 years.
And that is since it exists as such and perhaps thats´why it exists.
About logic.........
Well, logic is a branch of Math.
And so formal what means that have not what is called an "ontological commitment".
What we already knew since it´s founder Aristotle, but THAT was forgotten or ommited by scholasticism, "rationalism", as much as by some actual "schools of thought".
That prefer to play with rethoric and call it logic.
Best best wishes.