The Scientific Worldview

This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.

20140730

Critique of TSW Part 16b Univironmental Determinism: The Expansion

Blog 20140730

Bill adheres to his belief that neo-Darwinism (genes + environment) is quite sufficient as the mechanism of biological evolution and that a universal mechanism of evolution is either obvious or unnecessary.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

Univironmental Determinism: The Expansion (Part 2 of 2)

TSW: "When food is abundant, the microcosm of the neck grows sleek and fat, its bones and muscles strengthen - the neck expands."

BW: Lamarckian fallacy: offspring do NOT acquire developed traits. The abundance of food has no effect on the genetic material of the animal, even if its own genetic composition is "naturally selected" as beneficial to its reproduction. Nature *selects*, it doesn't *cause* persistent changes. Of course, changes in the genetic code are also "natural", but mutations don't happen because genes "know" the change will be successful.

[GB: The statement is correct as it stands. Actually, all traits are developed, that is, they evolve from previous matter. Part of that development is the effect of the macrocosm on the particular microcosm of interest. For instance, no microcosm on Earth can escape the intrusion of the radioactivity of the rocks of which it is composed, nor of the cosmic bombardment of the Sun. I beg to differ. It is not true that “Nature… doesn't *cause* persistent changes.” “Persistent changes” produced by the macrocosm are what produce the mutations necessary for ND (neo-Darwinism) to work. As an indeterminist, you might think that all mutations are spontaneous, submicrocosmic events, but you would be wrong. You are right about one thing: “mutations don't happen because genes "know" the change will be successful.”]

TSW: "Its position relative to the tree may be nearly identical on different days, but its space-time position is not."

BW: True, but it's ironic that you use the term "space-time" after rejecting it as a "thing". Position and time are not essential characteristics of any object, including animals.

[GB: Remember that spacetime neither exists nor occurs. Space exists; time occurs. Spacetime is purely imaginary. It is our way of imagining past, present, and future. All microcosms have xyz dimensions and location with respect to other microcosms. Time is motion, and according to the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Thus, your claim that “position and time are not essential characteristics of any object, including animals” is false.]

TSW: "The sensitivity of the microcosm of the neck is total. Its every motion is an evolutionary motion."

BW: Again, confusing generic evolution with biological evolution. Of course, necks change, as does everything, in response to influential forces, including its own motion. But, the only motion that is consequential to biological evolution is herd migration to a more favorable environment, which is one aspect of selection.

[GB: Absolutely untrue. General evolution applies to biological evolution, not the other way around. Also, there is no particular reason to pick out migration as a dominant motion in evolution except in a few cases.]

TSW: "Well-nourished animals reproduced at faster rates than those poorly nourished ..."

BW: Sure. Standard NeoDarwinism.

TSW: "Evolution would occur even if genes did not exist."

BW: Again, confusing generic with biologic. A thing cannot be *alive* without genes and a species cannot *change* its essential characteristics without changes in its genes, perpetuated by reproduction.

[GB: The statement is true. You are the one confusing the issue. I note that you previously mentioned that you thought the evolution of all things was obvious. Why bring up ND then? It seems that, like orthodox neo-Darwinists, you still cannot think of evolution in other than biologic terms. BTW: You are correct that “a species cannot change its essential characteristics.” That is a job performed by the univironment.]

TSW: "When these interactions result in microcosmic changes we call them mutations: physicochemical alterations of the gene."

BW: More Lamarckian malarkey. The incidental changes of an *individual* organism are NOT inherited. If a giraffe breaks its leg, its children will not be born with a broken leg.

[GB: Totally mixed up! The discussion revolves around mutations produced by univironmental interactions (cosmic rays, etc.), not by any broken legs. It seems that your anti-Lamarckism has required you to assume that mutations occur in perfect isolation.]

TSW: "The most vulgar way of explaining the evolution of the giraffe’s neck would be to hypothesize a 'random' mutation ... Although mutations producing such great changes are perhaps not impossible, they are extremely unlikely."

BW: Although this is a popular misconception, "randomness" isn't required by NeoDarwinism. Genetic mutations can be caused by a wide array of environmental influences, usually chemical. Although it's not considered a "mutation", sexual reproduction is inherently a process that produces novel genetic combinations in every child. The composition of mitochondrial (mother's) DNA is critical to the "expression" of core DNA into proteins and cells, adding even more variability. Obviously, sexual reproduction is naturally beneficial to large animals, simply because it produces diversity in offspring.

One hypothetical is that the Iron Age had a significant influence on the evolution of human intelligence, simply because all of those eating food from an iron skillet increased their metabolic iron, increasing the energy-carrying capacity of their blood, facilitating a marginal benefit to brain functions. You might call that a "macrocosmic" influence on evolution, but it's purely a chemical change in one component of the environment (which happened to have been created by humans themselves, for other reasons: cooking made food easier to chew and digest). The same probably applies to your example of increased calcium consumption, probably as a consequence of domesticating lactating mammals.

TSW: "On the other hand, the effect of a particular gene on the development of the offspring is by no means total, as is sometimes implied by neo-Darwinists."

BW: Strawman. Because one person - who calls himself a NeoDarwinist - says something stupid, does not mean that his assertion becomes part of ND theory. Any geneticist will readily grant that random genetic mutations may have *no effect whatever* on offspring. It is true, as noted, that there are many popular misconceptions.

TSW: "Gradually, through thousands of generations, the necks of Samotherium interacted with the macrocosm in ways in which the macrocosm changed them and they changed the macrocosm."

BW: This is just a poor restatement of NeoDarwinism, with different jargon. Through thousands of generations, *nature* selected those individual variations that were to survive, even if each generation of a species migrated to different environments. Each animal either survived to reproduce or it didn't.

It is true that *animals* have a distinct advantage over plants, in that they can "naturally select" a new environment by herd migration. For millennia, humans survived only because they migrated to more favorable environments. But, you don't need micro and macro jargon to make that observation.

TSW: "Not only is neo-Darwinism of no help in explaining inorganic evolution ..."

BW: LOL. This is not a problem of NeoDarwinism, but a failure to distinguish between generic and biologic evolution. The ND inquiry just doesn't care about the dissolution of rocks or fission in stars.

[GB: You are correct that ND has no general applicability to evolution, just like the book says.]

TSW: "Chardin was not one to shirk tough questions. Getting right to the point of it all, he once asked, 'How can life respect determinism on the without and yet act in freedom within?"

BW: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wasn't a NeoDarwinist of any sort. He was a Jesuit theologian, for heaven's sake! He even opposed Darwinism, with his proposed human motivation of a "vital impetus" bestowed by God. I don't think you want to cite him as a proponent of the "without/within" of your cosims.

[GB: One does not have to be an authority on anything to ask the right questions. Chardin, like other indeterminists, was partial to free will, using that assumption as a foil against determinism. His famous book, “The Phenomenon of Man,” was one of the triggers for my own philosophical explorations. I disagreed with almost all of it, using many of its pronouncements as indicative of the opposing view. On the good side, he is known for proposing that evolution proceeds toward complexity, eventually producing a sort of collective consciousness for humanity. In practical terms, this would be produced by the growth of international trade and the transmission of ideas. Although he did not shirk from the woo-woo idea of a universal consciousness, a version of immatialism promoted today by the likes of Deepak Chopra, globalization and the advent of the internet have shown that he was not entirely off-base.]

TSW: "... said by philosopher Whitehead to produce instability within the microcosm ..."

BW: Another mystic, Alfred North Whitehead, propounding a theory of "process theology", guided by God. I don't know why you have this affinity for theologians.

[GB: Bill, remember that I was very religious for over 20 years and grew up in an extremely religious environment. There is a neat story that goes with Whitehead. In college I was assigned his “Science and the Modern World” as extra reading by my Quaker professor of pedology. I tried to read it, but could not make sense of it. I concluded that I was not smart enough, and breathed a sigh of relief when none of the exams included anything about it. This was my only brush with formal philosophy. About 15 years later, I read it as part of my research on why cosmologists thought the universe exploded out of nothing. I breezed right through it, recognizing that it was mostly nonsense.]

TSW: Velikovsky: "...some organisms, like foraminifera survived all geological ages without participating in evolution, a point of perplexity in the theory of natural selection."

BW: Another mystic: Immanuel Velikovsky was a foolish biblical literalist, who was clearly wrong about foraminifera and everything else he said about biological evolution. I don't know why you would quote him. Stephen J. Gould tears him to shreds:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_velikovsky.html

The problem here is that you're grossly misrepresenting NeoDarwinism, at least by implication, while citing the most ridiculous mystics' views about biological evolution. You don't even define what ND says, then cast it in the light of some kind of crazy theological or solipsistic indeterminism.

[GB: Bill, you seem a bit credulous about all this. After getting through The Ten Assumptions of Science you should be familiar with my dialectical method. I use quotes from indeterminists (mystics, as you call those other than yourself) to illustrate opposing assumptions and the incorrect interpretations derived from them. Velikovsky is one of the worst of the worst. His statement about forams is one of my favorites. Foram evolution is slow because its macrocosm (deep-sea sediments) changes very slowly. The theme of “nonparticipation in evolution” can be found among orthodox representatives of ND. Again, according to these folks, unless genes are involved, no evolution occurs. That is the jist of ND. It is not my purpose here to delve into the intricacies, other than point out that ND cannot be the universal mechanism of evolution. As you say, Bill, “no sane person could think otherwise.”]

TSW: For neo-Darwinists, the direction remains unclear even though they have a law for it.

I don't know any NDs who believe in teleology: that nature has some kind of conscious "goal" that it seeks. All ND does is say that survivors who reproduce will perpetuate their species.

Presumably, all humans seek to survive, but ND has nothing to say about ethics or the "proper" means of achieving survival or reproduction. It's science, not ethics or politics ... though I realize that many ethicists and politicians want to twist it to their own ideals.

Marx and Engel thought Darwinism reflected their view of the "progress of human society by class struggle." Hitler thought Darwinism demanded the "pursuit of racial purity", so that humanity could achieve its highest potential. Many religions (e.g.: Catholics) endorse bioevolution as "God's Means" of achieving His goal of developing willing and intelligent friends.

TSW: "... Dollo’s Law: Evolution is irreversible."

BW: Yes and no. Logically, devolution would require that nature reward failure: the least capable of survival are the ones that survive. That's nonsense. However, bioevolution doesn't necessarily preclude devolution in "lower" life forms, if the environment changes radically to a prior state that punishes adaptations to the recent state of the environment. That *could* happen to non-transient plants and "ignorant" organisms, but it's not likely.

[GB: Dollo’s Law is the same as the Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible), so obviously I am not a friend of your word “devolution.” Nonetheless, I think you are right “if the environment changes radically to a prior state that punishes adaptations to the recent state of the environment.”]

TSW: "Hardin insisted that 'Darwinian adaptation is not in its essence a progressive change, but merely a dynamic way of preserving the status quo.' Like other conservatives, Hardin seems ever hopeful that the status quo is a real possibility."

BW: Well, if you aren't quoting mystics, it's fools. Hardin was neither a conservative nor a NeoDarwinist. He was essentially a Fascist (or "Social" Darwinist), advocating coerced abortion, eugenics by forced sterilization, and strict limits on the "mixing of races" by immigration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

[GB: Quite a lot of labels flying around… His statement is merely a denial of progress, which is the mark of a true conservative, as indicated by his words: “dynamic way of preserving the status quo.” Hardin was quite influential, no matter what you call him.]

TSW: "Miller and Miller, for example, suggest that 'Perhaps the most effective present-day evolution of man is being caused by a lack of genetically selective deaths, so that genetic defects are being perpetuated in the gene pool.'"

BW: Found another mystic to quote! Assuming you're referring to Kenneth R. Miller, he also believes that "Saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the great Christian writers, his great insight was that God, if he exists, is the cause of causes."

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/dvd/transcripts/Ken%20Miller%20Evolution%20Lecture%20Transcript.pdf

[GB: I gave quite an extensive answer to that oft-proclaimed complaint of indeterminists. Your quote comes right to the crux of the determinism-indeterminism struggle: either there is a first cause or there is not. Infinite Universe Theory, of course, says there is not.]

TSW: "... the struggle between Univironmental Determinism and neo-Darwinism ... Evolution is not merely the property of every living thing; it is the property of every single thing."

BW: There is no conflict, once you distinguish between generic evolution and biological evolution. You haven't even stated the propositions that define NeoDarwinism, much less refuted them. You've quoted a lot of confused mystics, fascists, and philosophical fools, but you've offered no argument against the ND theory. Moreover, you've failed to show any benefit, scientifically or philosophically, from abandoning the simple rules of bioevolution.

[GB: I imagine that, after all this, that you will continue to believe that 1) ND is just fine as genes + environment (ignoring other important submicrocosms within the microcosm) and 2) a universal mechanism of evolution is unnecessary.

Next: Univironmental Analysis

cotsw 035

20140723

Critique of TSW Part 16a Univironmental Determinism: The Expansion

Blog 20140723

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

Univironmental Determinism: The Expansion (Part 1 of 2)

BW: I'm not sure how to approach this chapter. Although you roundly condemn NeoDarwinism [ND], everything you describe is part of the ND concept. For the most part, you fault multiple statements of obscure people who aren't even NDs. As with preceding chapters, you fail to define terms, which leads to extreme complexity and vagueness.

[GB: Bill, you must remember that neo-Darwinism is only a special case of univironmental determinism (UD). It only concerns biological systems, and thus cannot be the mechanism of evolution. If you ask folks: “What is evolution?” or “What is the mechanism of evolution?” they generally will mention only biological changes. To modern evolutionists and creationists alike, the great debate is still hung up on genes and natural selection. Although it is obvious that everything in the universe is constantly evolving. Neo-Darwinists tend to be so specialized and so myopic that they maintain their steadfast claims on the mechanism of evolution. An example: We once advertized “The Scientific Worldview” at a conference on biological evolution. The result: no sales, even though the book had a parenthetical subtitle that should have intrigued all but the walking dead: “(Understanding the Universal Mechanism of Evolution).”]

TSW: Henderson: "Logically, in some obscure manner, cosmic and biological evolution are one."

BW: It's not obscure at all. Evolution applies to both, but in slightly different ways. In general terms, the word "evolution" refers to ANY "process of change in a certain direction".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

[I agree, of course, but Henderson was able to write an entire book without realizing the general importance of matter in motion. I thought the word “obscure” was telling, in view of his title: “The fitness of the environment; an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter.” Here is a fellow, writing in 1913, who is moving in the right direction, but never really gets to univironmental determinism. This struck me as being similar to the popular writers who still consider time to be a great mystery. To get there, you have to have all your ducks in a row. Thus, your dictionary quote does not make it either. Evolution is not any "process of change in a certain direction"; it is the "process of change,” or simply “change.” Directionality is irrelevant. Change in any direction is still evolution.]

BW: Everything changes, sooner or later, more or less. Every change is either beneficial to the persistence of the object, detrimental, or irrelevant. That's evolution, in a nutshell.

As applied to biology, evolution is the observation that organisms change; some changes are beneficial to survival, some are detrimental, others irrelevant. Obviously, every aspect of the environment affects the success or failure of every organism. That's natural selection. The only thing added by NeoDarwinism was changes to genetic material, which simply keeps a "record" of successes through generations. Nothing you've written here refutes or even mitigates the merits of ND.

[GB: I am afraid that you have grossly reduced ND. The movement from Darwinism to neo-Darwinism was a movement toward concern for the importance of the submicrocosms within the biological microcosm. Your use of the words “the only thing added” and “simply keeps a record” was in that vein—sort of an off-hand recognition of some of the insides of the microcosm of concern. Neo-Darwinists have hardly advanced beyond that, as evidenced by the popularity of such books as “The Selfish Gene.” The old guard still resists modern ideas involving group selection, generally with the rubric that “If it does not have genes, it does not evolve.” The fact that there is a great debate among neo-Darwinists over group selection indicates the failure of ND to include all of the matter in motion within and without. The fact that neo-Darwinists have overwhelmingly fallen for the Big Bang Theory also indicates that things are amiss in the ND shed.]

BW: Generic evolution is and always has been a universal concept. Biological evolution focuses on changes in the proximate influences (environment) on organisms, but it certainly doesn't deny or ignore changes within the organism itself. Because biology is primarily interested in *successful* species over time, it has to focus on successful reproduction and the genetic variables that control the changes in every living thing's essential characteristics.

[GB: How can you call biological evolution universal? It only applies to biology—most of the universe is not included.]

BW: Nevertheless, a few notes on a smattering of topics:

It's a little strange that you start the chapter with a quote from L.J. Henderson, who is either a solipsist or a teleologist: "The biologist ... may now rightly regard the universe in its very essence as biocentric."

[GB: My attack on ND starts with Henderson because he clearly shows how myopic some neo-Darwinists can be. Being indeterminists at the base, solipsism, teleology, and even the belief in freewill is not past them.]

BW: ... but you echo his sentiment:

TSW: "The universe inevitably and periodically contains within it matter that contemplates itself. The concepts of progress, change, and evolution grow along with thinking beings as they evolve from nonthinking matter."

BW: This statement is teleological: the end result is the cause of all prior effects. That's mysticism, not causality or determinism. Yes, consciousness is an invaluable tool of biologic survival in some environments, but 99% of the universe apparently *forbids* such a development. So, consciousness was "inevitable" only in the sense that it DID happen, not that the universe "wants" it to happen, nor requires it. If we're going to anthropomorphize nature, it apparently "likes" almost everything to be dead; it doesn't "care" whether humans exist or not.

[GB: Boy, did you get that mixed up! That statement was simply an observation. The universe per se has no consciousness. The fact that portions of the universe can produce microcosms that contemplate the rest of the universe has nothing to do with teleology, purpose, mysticism, or anything that a sensible person could construe as the “universe wanting something to happen.” I totally agree that the universe “doesn't "care" whether humans exist or not.” There is plenty of evidence for that: the Holocaust, Crusades, Inquisition, 911, and topped off with brain tumors for infants.]

TSW: "Lamarck attempted to boost his case by claiming that acquired traits could be inherited within the first generation."

BW: I don't know why you would even mention a failed pseudo-scientist who was fundamentally an eugenicist and arguably the "father" of Fascism.

[GB: Almost every discussion of ND includes reference to Lamarck, who was one of the foremost biologists of his time. He was the first to doubt the immutability of species, invented the word “invertebrate” and, according to Stephen J. Gould, he was the "primary evolutionary theorist."[1] He recognized the importance of fossils as evidence for evolution before Cuvier, the anti-materialistic paleontologist who collected them. Remember that he wrote in 1800—a half century before Darwin. We are a bit unfair in hanging the “acquired traits” rubric on him, as he was much more than that.]

TSW: "... natural selection saw the object of concern at the mercy of its surroundings."

BW: Some biologic changes foster survival in an environment, others don't. Nature isn't "unmerciful", it just does what it does. Some specie variants conform with natural changes, others don't.

TSW: "Natural selection still begged questions. Why was there anything to select from in the first place?"

BW: Your formulation doesn't answer the biogenesis question any better, it just says it was a messy process. Remember that natural selection is only *half* of Darwinism; the prior half is changes in the organism. It's only a third of NeoDarwinism, which adds genetic changes.

[GB: Remember that ND only includes genes and environment. That is why it is not a suitable mechanism for biopoesis, which is the evolution of living organisms from inorganic chemicals, which, of course, do not have genes. Your comment that it is “messy” only implies that you do not understand it.]

BW: I won't offer my view of biogenesis, since you don't discuss it further.

TSW: "Anyone who rigidly believes that genes are absolutely necessary for evolution is unlikely to believe that all things evolve."

BW: That's silly. All sane bioevolutionists also believe in the generic evolution of everything in the universe. Because they have a particular interest in the proximate natural environment of particular organisms doesn't mean that they deny other animate and inanimate changes in the universe.

[GB: Remember that the key word here is “rigidly” and I do not think the biologists who deny group selection are necessarily silly or insane. They simply believe that the individual is the microcosm of selection because that is the only way genes can be transmitted. Jerry Coyne, a prominent biologist, along with many others, believes exactly that. In other words: no genes = no evolution.]

TSW: "... increasingly obvious that evolution is not confined to biology. We know that stars evolve. Do stars have genes?"

BW: More silliness, as a consequence of your failure to define generic terms and their application to specific kinds of investigation. Granted, the term "evolution" has acquired a normative reference to bioevolution, but no sane scientist would deny that everything - animate or inanimate - evolves.

[GB: Well Bill, I guess that I must have been insane even after becoming an atheist and getting the Ph.D. I came from an indeterministic background in which “everything” was a product of one-time creation 6,000 years ago. Of course, the awakening from that began with ND, and later, Laplace. Nonetheless, it was a surprise to me each time I discovered that yet another non-genetic portion of the universe was subject to evolution. Another surprise involved the fact that specialists had studied the evolution of particular microcosms in minute detail. The final realization that all portions of the universe evolve was not an easy transformation. Certainly, I had not been taught that there was a universal mechanism for it.

Silly or not, ND does not get us a universal mechanism of evolution. I do not know what you mean by the “failure to define generic terms.” I clearly defined ND as genes + environment, which makes it inapplicable for evolution not involving genes. The step from ND to UD is a big, all-inclusive generalization that eschews the myopism of traditional specialization. The cry for generic definitions seems like a simple rejection of UD.]

TSW: "This new mechanism, Univironmental Determinism, simply states that the evolution of a microcosm is dependent on the motions of matter within and without."

BW: Nothing new here, except your use of the subjective "microcosmic" terminology. Rocks erode when exposed to sunlight and waterfall - that's evolution. The degree of erosion is dependent on the atomic composition of the rock (within) and the energy of erosive factors (without). This is not a revelation.

[GB: That’s funny, I have read a lot, and was never able to find out what the universal mechanism of evolution was. In hindsight, univironmental determinism seems obvious, even trivial, as you imply. What could be simpler than the interaction between the within and the without? Nonetheless, it was quite the revelation to me. Perhaps this was because, as mainstream scientists we were expected to eschew philosophical mechanism even as we searched for mechanisms in everything we did. To contemplate the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion) was a big deal for one who had once not known what time was or considered energy to be matterless motion. To contemplate the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) was a big deal for one who had once thought that the universe was finite. Except for a few lucky ones, such as yourself, this becomes a revelation to those of us who finally realize that the universe only consists of matter in motion, and nothing more. The indeterministic resistance to materialism and its most extreme form, mechanism, remains strong, endlessly muddying the philosophical and scientific waters. The determinism-indeterminism struggle at present involves only biological evolution versus creationism. As that becomes moot, attention will turn from ND to UD.

On the other hand, some things involving UD do seem to be new to you. Apparently, you have yet to learn that microcosms are actual, real things, xyz portions of the universe. There is nothing “subjective” about them, just as there is nothing subjective about the “systems” of systems philosophy. Whether it is considered a solar system or a solar microcosm, does not change its objectivity one whit. It seems to be a shock to you that, to do scientific studies, we are forced to draw imaginary boundaries around portions of the universe. Only an absolutist or non-scientist could assume that they would naturally draw themselves.]

TSW: "... This evolution, this motion of the microcosm, is in all cases in only one direction, toward univironmental equilibrium."

BW: Of course. That's just causality and Newton's Law: things only change when they're changed. If there's no interaction causing a change, no change happens. You can call that "a tendency toward equilibrium", but it doesn't explain anything more than causation does. However, "equilibrium" implies something that isn't always true. A nugget of pure gold in a container of liquid water will never reach "equilibrium" with its environment, even though they are in constant contact. In most cases, specific measures of entropy apply, which has always been considered "unidirectional".

[GB: Another way of stating the direction of evolution from the viewpoint of the microcosm is the tendency for “least action.” The Newtonian microcosm travelling through empty space does not all of a sudden increase its motion all by itself. As mechanists, we see the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a reiteration of Newton’s First Law of Motion, a simple description of divergence. Temporary “equilibrium” is attained when the macrocosm provides the “convergence” to reverse the process via Newton’s Second Law of Motion. You are correct that “equilibrium” is never really attained in nature. That is because all portions of the universe are constantly in motion.]

TSW: "No two necks are identical..."

BW: ... but all necks are necks. Your exposition on Samotherium adds nothing novel, but ignores something critical: the genetic changes are the only thing that made it possible for Samotherium - as a species - to adapt to a changing environment. You bounce between changes in the individual (calcium consumption) and the species (eating leaves) with no regard for the effects of successful reproduction, which determines which genetic changes succeed in any particular environment.

[GB: In other words, you are a strict neo-Darwinist, reducing the biological microcosm to genes. There will be no group selection for you. This myopic view does not even make sense in the case of biological groups containing members that are non-breeding. For you, worker bees contribute nothing to biological evolution. The absolutism involved is beyond fantastic. It is almost as if my arms and legs, though intimately related to my body, had no contribution to the success of my reproduction. The point made by the Samotherium example was that, to understand evolution, whether biological or non-biological, one must include all the submicrocosms and supermicrocosms within that particular univironment at all times. Evolution is not exclusive to the act of breeding. Think of it instead, as the act of surviving for one more microsecond.]

Next: Univironmental Determinism, Part 2 of 2

cotsw 034

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck

20140716

Freedom from Loyalty

Blog 20140716

The evolutionary purpose of religion is to instill and enforce loyalty. The security of a family, tribe, state, country, or species is based on it. Belonging to a group provides protection from the macrocosm—generally other groups desperate to survive in the face of temporary scarcity. Each group has friend signs, such as dress style, uniforms, and jewelry, etc., that indicate membership. Each group has rules, such as those in bylaws, religious tomes, and verbal diatribes. Religion and the loyalty it commands obviously is very important, with probably 80% of Earth’s inhabitants adhering to one superstition or another.

A scientific paradigm, such as the Big Bang Theory, is similar in that it also commands loyalty for sustenance. Although generally not as geographically centered as most religions, scientific paradigms tend to develop infrastructure that helps them resist the tendency for less convinced adherents to stray. As in religions and other groups, the reins of power are held by “true believers,” who must benefit financially lest the group wither through lack of effort.

The upshot is that, without loyalty, society could not exist; with it, society could not evolve. The tension between what is and what will be is universal and eternal. When the macrocosm is in rapid flux, adaptation requires the opposite of loyalty: freedom. The paradigm, like the ice cube in your drink, dissolves from the outside, not the inside. The freedom from loyalty is as essential to paradigmatic change as it is to the melting of ice. Traditionalists, of course, have a tendency to “hate our freedoms.” Being entirely convinced of a particular creed, the conservative dogmatist tends to take loyalty for granted, considering freedom lovers as traitors or dismissing them as if they did not exist.

Below I reprint a poignant letter from an anonymous student from a small town in Missouri. It concerns an incident at a public high school where the principal triggered a nation-wide outrage simply by praying and mentioning his belief in a supreme being at a public graduation ceremony. Taken literally, this is strictly illegal whenever public institutions are involved. The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom from religion.

The letter is from Jerry Coyne’s blog ( http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/yet-another-lebanon-student-writes-in/ ). It describes the subtle and not-so-subtle ways in which group behavior suppresses those who seek freedom from loyalty. It is not so different from what many of us experienced while trying to make logical sense of the myths we were supposed to live by. We need to realize that the survivability of a group or paradigm is not based on logical sense or truthfulness. It is based instead on how well those particular microcosms are suited to their macrocosms. It is no accident that the situation described happened in a small town with no parochial high schools to relieve educational pressures. It is no accident that the Big Bang Theory came of age in a world filled mostly with indeterminists. It is also no accident that this student is already too educated and too intelligent to remain in such a stifling environment.

“Dear Professor Coyne,

I was a graduating student at the Lebanon High School 2014 commencement ceremony in Lebanon, Missouri. I have been a Lebanon student my whole life.

I grew up in a secular home where I was neither encouraged nor discouraged in participation of religious activities. This immediately separated me from most of my peers who would often talk about or discuss church. I never thought much about it until I started attending Lebanon High School.

The school was definitely primarily religious. With clubs such as Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Bible Club, I simply got used to religion being a driving force at the school. I never attempted to impede on the rights of others to get together and pray, often personally opting out of prayer circles in preparation for tests before classes. Prayers were also held before sports events, talent shows, assemblies, and other school events that I also did not participate in. These things didn’t bother me too much, as it was student led.

What bothers me is the school's [tendency] to dissolve other groups that promote tolerance of differences. My sister, a graduate of Lebanon High School, helped found the Youth for Tolerance club. This club was met with great controversy, but was a safe place for non-Christians and LGBT youth to convene and promote tolerance. This club never received a teacher sponsor, with teachers admitting to be afraid to lose their job in just hosting the club. When I became an LHS student, this club was no longer in existence.

My absence in these prayers was noted. Christian students often dismissed my opinions in class discussions about whether non-Christian sources were credible. Political discussions in Social Studies classes were quite one-sided. In response to my stances, people would frequently say to me, “I’ll pray for you,” knowing that I was non-religious. To put the cherry on top, my yearbook is full of messages encouraging me to find god for my mortal soul.

What Mr. Lowery did at the 2014 graduation ceremony is hardly the first time that he danced around the Separation of Church and State for prayer. At the previous graduation ceremony, he said that he is not allowed to say a prayer, but if he could say a prayer, this is what he would say. He added that he would encourage everyone to bow their heads. And if this was not ambiguous enough, he added an “amen” to conclude his statements.

I was surprised. I tried to discuss this with like-minded classmates who informed me that he often prayed before school sponsored sports events. This was of course allowed due to the majority of Lebanon being religious—a population around 15,000 and a church on every corner.

But he is a school official. His actions as principal seem to represent that of a Christian private school. Lebanon High School is not a private school. The students felt safe to bully me and my non-Christian peers, as they were the majority. And the principal seemed inclined to protect them.

At my graduation, I was prepared for him to say a prayer. I did not expect a speech about America essentially being a Christian nation. It was arrogant, aggressive. I felt shamed for being a non-believer. It was not a simple prayer. It was an outcry of how he didn’t care about the minority. I had already felt as though he had a personal distaste for me as he knew I was not religious. His actions at the graduation were a slap in the face.

Let it be known that I am hardly a bad student. I graduated as an honor student, received generous scholarships for college, and participated in a plethora of extra-curricular activities. I attended classes, made good grades, and treated my classmates with respect. As I was seated in my cap and gown, I was happy to be celebrating this accomplishment with the peers I had grown up with. At that point, we were one. We were united as the LHS Class of 2014. We were the Lebanon High School Yellow Jackets.

What Lowery did, however, stole that from me. It was no longer about my education. It was about religion. So as my peers around me clapped and cheered for his prayer, I realized. This is not for me. I am not welcome here. I have never been. Lowery is not proud of me or for my various accomplishments, no matter what my class ranking was. I was not a Lebanon Yellow Jacket. I was an unwelcome non-Christian. Before Principal Lowery’s speech, I felt welcome. I felt safe. But after the cheers, the hollers… I was anxious. I wanted to leave. I will only have one high school graduation, and I will forever remember that feeling.

The public outcry from this is disappointingly not surprising. I was aware that even though logic would state that this was unconstitutional, people would support him anyways. They do not care about the minority, because they are the majority. They protect each other, and collectively shame me. No one cares if I leave the community or not, because my opinions are not welcome. And Lowery further illustrates that they never will be.

Several teachers have voiced their displeasure with Lowery’s statements, but have admitted to being afraid for their jobs to do anything that was anti-Christian. Even Christian teachers are upset by his comments. Though take one tour through the Lebanon town Facebook pages, and you’ll see why.

I lived 18 years of my life surrounded by hateful people. Principal Lowery’s speech endorsed it all. He is no better than my school peers who bullied me for my non-belief. I sincerely hope that he reads this and reflects on his actions.

Thank you for your attention to this issue. Those of us within the community are too afraid to have a voice, as you have unfortunately learned. But there are those of us who find comfort in knowing that others have empathy for our situations.”

Will these groups survive a changing world?

20140709

Evidence and Faith

Blog 20140709

A common trope among scientists is the conviction that science relies on evidence, but that religion relies on faith. Readers of this Blog, however, know that both science and religion are founded on faith, manifested as subconscious presuppositions or overt assumptions. The only real difference is that the foundational assumptions of science and religion are opposites. Thus, one believes either that “there are material causes for all effects” or one does not. Because the universe is infinite, we cannot prove that this deterministic assumption is true without discovering the material causes for all effects, which is impossible. As with all "Ten Assumptions of Science," all we can do is make that assumption and go about our work.

Our use of deterministic assumptions is no guarantee that we are right about anything, but the use of their indeterministic opposites nearly always guarantees that we are wrong.

Stephen Crothers wrote:

6:10 AM (4 hours ago)

“There are two things that a scientific theory must fundamentally satisfy:

(a) Correspondence with the empirical evidence.

(b) Logical consistency.

Violation of either invalidates the theory. However, it is possible, and has occurred many times in the history of science, that a false theory has actually satisfied aspects of empirical evidence, only to be later found to be defective.”

Over the last half century, I have often been appalled by pronouncements of the scientific as well as the religious that appear to me as inconsistent with evidence or logic. Being especially curious about that, I have been interested in how those folks think. The answer is largely found in "The Ten Assumptions of Science," but it goes farther than that. It turns out that how we reason is dependent on our age and the state of our personal evolutionary development. We are all born as little indeterministic suckers, with evidence lying all about us. We need deterministic assumptions to make sense of any of it. That is what learning is.

But what we are capable of learning depends on our developmental stage. Solipsistic, self-centered toddlers think that they can make the entire world go away by simply putting a blanket over their heads. This experiment, defined as the manipulation of the outside world, provides “evidence” that they are right. Their conclusion is a perfectly logical train of thought founded on the indeterministic assumption of immaterialism. Other infants wave their arms around, performing little experiments that help them find out that their surroundings contain what seems to be matter and what does not seem to be matter. The ultimate conclusion that the universe contains nothing but matter may never be realized. Because the universe is infinite and matter has infinitely variable characteristics, a full-blown faith in materialism requires sophisticated knowledge that takes decades of experimentation and observation.

According to Piaget, object permanence, which is the child’s first significant brush with materialism, does not appear until about eight months. He found this out by putting his child’s toy under a blanket while the child watched. Not until the child could form an image of the toy in his mind, would he try to find the toy by removing the blanket.[1] Before that, it was clear that the child thought that little piece of matter had simply disappeared into thin air. Obviously, “evidence” is not enough for making correct predictions. Some kind of preconceived notion is needed as well.

Here is an amusing story told by my niece about her almost 3-yr old son:

"We took Silas fishing again and he has gone enough times to see the process so I asked him to explain how to go fishing.

Silas: You dig the worms then you put the worm on your fishing pool then you put the pool in the water and the worm turns into a fish.

Me: No Si, the worm doesn't turn into a fish.

Silas: Only the bobber do?"

Again, plenty of “evidence,” but an insufficiently developed “faith” for the proper analysis. Someday, after he takes enough chemistry, Silas might have the “faith” expressed by the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). At his age, its indeterministic opposite, creation, is just as logical for him, although even there he has already advanced to the stage where he believes things continue to exist but can be miraculously changed into other things. He probably would develop a still more advanced faith in conservation a bit sooner if he fished in water clear enough to see the fish. Note the natural, near-sighted tendency here to make microcosmic mistakes (e.g., to overemphasize the microcosm over the macrocosm). As soon as Silas learns more about the macrocosm, he will be able to include more of it in his analysis. Hopefully, his development eventually will surpass that of the Big Bangers who still believe in creation and never did get beyond systems philosophy.

By the time he reaches seven years, Silas will be able to conserve liquid. That is, he will believe that the quantity of liquid does not change when poured from a short fat glass into a tall skinny one. This is the Concrete Operational Stage of development. “Five-year-old children would think that there was a different amount because the appearance has changed.”[2] The child starts to become logical, but only with concrete objects. Abstract and hypothetical thinking comes later—much, much later.

I once challenged our much older daughter on her ability to analogize. Now, the only pet we had in the house was our cat. I mistakenly asked her if she had fed the dog. She said, “But dad, we don’t have a dog.” She was right, of course, but she also was demonstrating another indeterministic assumption, absolutism. In this case, that particular faith saved her from an obligation she would just as soon postpone. This was an early sign. She never was very good at abstraction and hypothetical thinking, judging by her difficulty with geology. She has become wonderfully successful in her occupation, but she does not aspire to be a theoretician. Realize that everyone thinks differently.

Indeterminist Who Hung the Jury

I once was on a jury in a case in which one of our 12 members voted “not guilty” in spite of plentiful evidence for guilt. Sorry to say, the judge made two serious errors. First, he failed to reject our problem juror despite her statement in answer to the question about whether she could convict the defendant if he was guilty. She clearly stated: “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Second, he admitted evidence that was outside the “chain of custody.”

The “he said/she said” testimony came down to whether the gun used in the crime was made of plastic or metal. The defendant brought his little brother’s plastic gun to court as evidence indicating that the incident only involved a plastic gun. The accuser said that it was cold and that it was metallic. Our hung juror said that this meant he was telling the truth, she was lying, and therefore he was innocent. We were shocked. There was no changing her mind. She had only wasted a couple weeks for all. The second jury convicted the defendant, 12-0.

I am finally getting my head around the “logic” used by the judge and by this woman. The judge maybe thought that the introduction of the plastic gun was harmless. He must have forgotten that he had a juror who stated that she could not convict without risking her place at the pearly gates. Despite its irrelevance to the case, the plastic gun gave her the excuse she needed to handle the cognitive dissonance. A possible lesson here is that folks will grasp at anything, even outright lies, to support their faith or the actions they wish to take. Another lesson is that not everyone is very good at thinking abstractly or macrocosmically. This juror apparently could not imagine much beyond her immediate environs and the chain of causality. She faced two witnesses and a plastic gun as evidence. Reducing the situation to that 3-part system, the solution was obvious to her: not guilty. The significance of macrocosmic events involving causality and the “chain of custody” apparently was beyond her imagination.

Evidence and its Interpretation

Of course, our juror was not a scientist and this little incident argues for an improvement in scientific education in our schools—for judges as well as jurors. It shows that “evidence” alone does not assure correct answers. It shows how assumptions affect the interpretation of evidence. Evidence is never absolute and the interpretations of evidence not as obvious as absolutists like to think.

As scientists, we are trained to handle evidence and observations with great care. That is what controlled experiments and double-blind clinical tests are all about. That is why I have a standard request when someone promotes a particular remedy for this or that ailment: “Show me the table.” That means, of course, that I want to see the with and without data for a carefully designed test. Most of the time, those claims are what we call “anecdotal,” just a story about the times that the remedy worked. The salesperson conveniently forgets about the times when it did not.

Here I bring up what I call an “Einsteinism,” which is a prediction that is correct for the wrong reason. The classic is Einstein’s prediction that gravity was the result of curved spacetime and that light was a corpuscle affected by gravitation. Light from distant stars thus would bend as it passed by the Sun. In 1919, Arthur Eddington (an indeterminist of the first rank), took numerous measurements during an eclipse, which purported to show such bending. The report made headlines and anointed Einstein as the world’s greatest genius overnight. Only one problem: The result was simply due to refraction in the Sun’s atmosphere. The bending was no more unusual than the bending we see when we put one end of a pole in water. It certainly did not prove that perfectly empty space is curved or that light is a particle. As with other Einsteinisms, this one is still used by some gullible physics teachers as “evidence” for General Relativity Theory.

Folks enamored of a particular bit of evidence frequently forget about the assumptions that led to focus on that portion of the universe. Our soon to be published paper on the Milankovitch Theory is an example.[3] For over seven decades, changes in Earth’s precession (wobble of the axis), obliquity (angle of the axis), and eccentricity (circularity of orbit) were cited as the causes of the glacial cycle. Our thorough analysis demonstrated that raw data provided no evidence for the theory. There were two main reasons it was so well accepted for so long: 1) it seemed reasonable and 2) the theory itself was used to manipulate the data before interpretation.

In conclusion, evidence is nothing without faith, the underlying, unprovable assumptions that we need to make interpretations in an infinite universe. A microcosm that you consider to be evidence may not be so considered by an indeterminist who does not have faith in causality, or chooses to use that belief only sporadically.

[1] McLeod, S. A. (2010). Sensorimotor Stage. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/sensorimotor.html

[2]Ibid. http://www.simplypsychology.org/concrete-operational.html

[3] Puetz, Stephen J., Prokoph, Andreas, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2014, An alternative to the Milankovitch Theory (submitted).

20140702

Critique of TSW Part 15b Neomechanics

Blog 20140702

Bill continues to have difficulty accepting "The Ten Assumptions of Science" as he boosts systems philosophy in his review of Chapter 5 on “Neomechanics: The Reduction.”

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

Neomechanics: The Reduction

TSW: "The submicrocosms are speeded up, and we say that the microcosm has gained internal 'energy' (or enthalpy, H, in the lexicon of thermodynamics). This increased internal motion is measured as an increase in mass."

BW: It's still just a transfer of motion from one object to another, but I'm baffled by your apparent endorsement of the notion that motion itself produces an increase in mass. That's a Special Relativity concept, which is badly mistaken.

[GB: You are wrong. The equation E=mc² is correct, as has been proven experimentally many times. Although it’s common indeterministic interpretation as the conversion of matter into energy is false, as I explained in the Blog on how the transfer of motion pertains to E=mc². You are correct that the equation makes no sense without aether.]

TSW: "... a hot teakettle has more internal motion and weighs more than a cold one."

BW: It does have more energy, but that's an increase in *motion*, not mass. One object may absorb the energetic particles inducing an increase in motion, but the increase in motion becomes a feature of the object itself, whether or not the incident energetic particle mass is absorbed.

[GB: Sorry Bill, but that is incorrect, as I explained in the Blog mentioned above and in this one. The upshot: Mass is resistance to acceleration. When a submicrocosm absorbs motion across the microcosmic boundary, its momentum increases. Measurements of mass must confront this increased momentum, registering an increase in mass. The actual amount of matter never changes. This is well known, as explained in the reference on thermodynamics that I cited in the sentence just before the one you quoted. Mass dependence on temperature is the reason that standard weights and measures must be carefully controlled for temperature.]

BW: The "compounding" of object mass, by the addition of mass from contact with energetic particles, is particularly evident in linear accelerators, only because the mass inherent in magnetic energy mass "consolidates" with the original particle undergoing acceleration. It isn't the velocity *per se* that causes increased mass, only the acceleration induced by contact, which results in an accumulation of the magnetic "field" mass into the particle.

[GB: We agree: “It isn't the velocity *per se* that causes increased mass, only the acceleration induced by contact”!]

TSW: "... as Newton observed but stated in a different form, the microcosm and macrocosm undergo equal and opposite reactions."

BW: It isn't a different form, it's totally inconsistent with Newton's Law. He never saw any distinction between "micro" and "macro" contexts: the laws applied to every object. His Second Law stipulated "equal and opposite reactions" to a collision between two distinct, solid objects ("bodies"), not to any composition of objects ... which he addressed in elasticity, viscosity, and kinetic waves. He would never say that the collision of those composites had an equal effect on both, since his formulas clearly distinguish the mass density and relative velocity of each composite set.

[GB: Huh? By now you should have understood that Newton’s “object” was just an abstraction of what I call a “microcosm.” I redefine the “macrocosm” as everything outside of a particular microcosm. You seem to be especially hung up on size. The only stipulation here is that the macrocosm is the environment of the microcosm and must always be larger than the particular microcosm of concern. Thus, the observable universe is a microcosm within a macrocosm that is infinite in size. In any case, we only consider the most important features of the microcosm and its macrocosm in predicting the future. Thus, the bat may be considered the macrocosm of the microcosm of the baseball, or vice versa. We can never consider all the features of either the microcosm or the macrocosm, because they are infinite.

You are correct that Newton considered his two microcosms to be “solid objects” or “bodies” having ideal equal and opposite reactions. Even though such things never existed, the equations worked anyway, providing suitable approximations for centuries. The fact that classical mechanics actually was working with composites and not “solid bodies” eventually yielded to relativity, which Einstein interpreted in an indeterministic way. E=mc² only works on composites, microcosms containing submicrocosms, as I have explained many times. I imagine that your resistance to that equation stems from the fact that it could not apply to the solid, finite particles (Unimids) of your Finite Particle Theory.]

TSW: "Without the differences in the motions of matter on either side of the univironmental boundary, we could not discern a microcosm at all."

BW: I don't recall you mentioning the "univironmental boundary" between micro and macro. You don't define any boundary conditions that would allow us to distinguish the micro from the macro. As far as I can tell, the boundary is purely subjective, usually anthropogenic. You seem to recognize different "levels", but I see no reason why one couldn't designate the "sub-sub-submicro" as a *macrocosm*, relative to the tinier "sub-sub-sub-submicrocosm".

[GB: The “univironmental boundary” of univironmental determinism is identical to the “system boundary” of systems philosophy. In both cases, those boundaries are chosen by the investigator. They are indeed clearly imaginary, because infinity really does not allow for finite boundaries. Your last sentence is correct. In science, we can change our focus at the drop of a hat. Today I might be studying a piece of granite, while tomorrow I might be studying a piece of biotite within that piece of granite. I can switch from the microcosm or system “granite” to the submicrocosm “biotite,” whereupon the biotite now becomes the microcosm or system. The choice of microcosm, system, or focus is dependent the aims of a particular research project, which inevitably must be prompted by the particular question to be answered.]

TSW: "All microcosms at all times are increasing or decreasing in mass, velocity, density, volume, entropy, and apparent order."

BW: There are certainly *many* portions of reality that are in flux, but you haven't provided an argument supporting the idea that *every* characteristic of *all* objects in reality are constantly in flux. Granted, any object composed of atoms is constantly in a state of internal motion, but that doesn't affect any of the characteristics that you list.

[GB: Bill, by now you should know that is merely an assumption: Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). As an indeterminist, you would never believe that no matter how much evidence I provided. Some of your previous comments have indicated as much. I provided a short section providing the evidence for inseparability, but I don’t think that 1,000 pages would ever convince someone who still believes that a particular portion of the universe is without motion.]

TSW: "... the microcosm pulsates with the macrocosm, expanding and contracting. The space-time position of the univironmental boundary is determined neither by the microcosm nor by the macrocosm, but by both in a reciprocal relationship."

BW: Again, you haven't said how we could determine whether this is true or false, because you haven't said what constitutes a "boundary" between micro and macro. How could we tell whether the boundary "pulsates" or not?

[GB: Remember, we have already assumed inseparability, so there can be no boundary, whether imagined or real that is not in motion. This also is elucidated by the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). And as I have stated over and over, none of these fundamental assumptions are completely provable because the universe is infinite. Only a believer in finity would dare to ask for such a thing.

I am quite familiar with the difficulties folks have with boundaries. In earth science, we used to come across this all the time when dealing with young engineers, who normally deal with quite precise boundaries in doing math, preparing drawings, and building structures. It was hard to convince some of them that earthquake faults do not follow perfectly straight lines or that the boundaries between geological and soil units could be tens of meters wide. A desk-bound mathematician would never get it.]

TSW: "The microcosm moves through the macrocosm under its own inertial motion, but it does so only to the degree that the macrocosm does not resist this motion."

BW: There could be no such thing as "inertial motion" if "all microcosms at all times" have fluctuating velocity. You can't have it both ways. Either the object has inertial motion, which may encounter "resistance" from the macrocosm, or it never has inertial motion. You've asserted two statements that are logically incoherent.

[GB: That is the problem with idealism. No part of the universe is an all or none thing. The object hypothesized in Newton’s First Law of Motion travelled through absolute (perfectly empty) space under its own inertia. Just because space did not turn out that way does not mean that inertial motion is impossible. If the macrocosm consists of huge trees, then inertial motion might be limited to a few seconds; if filled only with tiny aether particles, any delay probably would be insignificant. The point of the statement was to emphasize that what happens to a microcosm is not dependent only on the microcosm or only on the macrocosm, but on both together acting as a univironment.]

TSW: "Univironmental equilibrium, thus, is the 'goal' toward which all behavior is directed."

BW: Sounds an awful lot like teleology, which you condemned earlier in the book.

[GB: That is why I put quotes around “goal.” Teleology is the business of ascribing human desires to inanimate things. A rock falling off a cliff has no teleological “goal” to be at rest on the ground; the ground has no teleological “goal” to provide the resting place. Nonetheless, univironmental equilibrium (i.e., least motion) will be the result. This will become clear later in the book, where we will see that the “goal” of animate behavior amounts to the same thing.]

TSW: "... the univironment contains an infinite number of things in constant motion and most are not involved in any particular interaction."

BW: A contradiction of your earlier assertion that all things are always interacting.

[GB: How is that a contradiction? Do you still think this means that all things in the universe are interacting with all other things at the same time?]

TSW: "Admittedly, neomechanics is a mere cartoon of reality."

BW: It's hard to tell whether this is self-deprecating humor or a generic rejection of all abstract principles.

[GB: It is neither. Remember the title of this chapter is: “Neomechanics: The Reduction.” We have already assumed that all microcosms are infinitely complex. Neither classical mechanics nor neomechanics could include all these qualities in their deliberations. As such, we can only include a few of them. This amounts to an abstraction or reduction. Whatever we come up with will be an unavoidable “cartoon” of reality. It is important for us to remember this at all times. We need to avoid the hubris of some classical mechanics who, imbued with finity, proclaimed themselves able to produce complete descriptions of that which is actually infinite.]

TSW: "Motion is a relation between the microcosm and the macrocosm."

BW: Contrary to your previous statement that "each portion of the universe continually changes position relative to all other portions of the universe," which says that motion is a relation between "portions", or microcosms.

[GB: Bill, I hope you get the point that the macrocosm also contains microcosms, which for clarification I generally designate as “supermicrocosms” because they are outside the microcosm of concern.]

BW: I think this is the primary problem I'm having with your proposition: definitions are vague and frequently contradictory from one paragraph to another.

[GB: Hopefully, your difficulties with this will diminish in future chapters as you get used to the deterministic assumptions. Of course, any indeterministic assumption you use will automatically produce what you believe to be a contradiction. It takes a while to come to terms with this. A real indeterminist never does.]

Next: Univironmental Determinism: The Expansion

cotsw 033