Coping with Determinism

PSI Blog 20180425 Coping with Determinism

From Jesse Witwer:

Glenn,

I think it has become pretty clear to me, both from my own reaction and from that of others that I have observed is that the root cause of rejection of the full assumptions of science is the rejection of Determinism.

A full adoption of the assumptions of science logically removes the concept of "Free Will". This was an absolutely terrifying moment for me. You know that feeling when you are dropping in a ride (free fall). This is exactly what I felt. But you have to conclude it.

The default assumption even of people immersed in logic and deterministic ventures is still Specific Determinism. For example, Stefan Molyneau who has done great amounts of research into statistical cause and effects of child raising methods and outcomes still clings dearly at the last moment to "Free Will".

Everybody's ego forces them to believe that they have "Free Will", but in fact, that is an illusion. We are all products of the macrocosm. We are given eyes that can detect vibrations in the Aether. We are given ears that can detect vibrations in Baryonic matter. We are given brains that store information from all of our senses and that grow and create synapses that facilitate our responses to other phenomena.

We literally do not have "Free Will". Information coming from the macrocosm can influence us and change the structures of our brain that will in the future make us react differently (learning) but we still are subject to reacting to the macrocosm in a manner defined by our previous interactions with it.

I still struggle with it greatly. It's easier not to think about it. It is very disquieting.

[GB: Jesse:

Welcome to determinism and its foundational assumption that there are physical causes for all effects. I went through the same logical process back in 1977. As you say, that realization is quite a shock. It is like the epiphany that agnostics go through when they are “born again” as christians. For me, the next step was a sense of fatalism (overemphasis on the macrocosm).That tended to remove any remaining remnants of solipsism that I might have had (overemphasis on the microcosm). My geologist friend's comment that "We are all just glorified coke machines." was instrumental. I began to think of the commuters going to work in the City as though they were ants or puppets driven by their environment. Of course, univironmental determinism (the universal mechanism of evolution in which what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without) makes us an integral part of the Infinite Universe. Like everything else, we are infinitely complicated, though completely subject to univironmental determinism (UD). Good thing too, because with UD, we can make some decent predictions about the universe that incidentally might be useful for continuing our existence and possibly making us happier for a few extra microseconds.

Your epiphany indicates that you really understand UD. My own fatalism lasted beyond 1978 when I was entertaining "environmental determinism" and still a believer in the Big Bang Theory. Somehow, the overemphasis on the “environmental” part of that concept did not sit well with me despite my infatuation with B.F. Skinner’s “behaviorism.” I was beginning to draw away from my initial fatalism. It didn't go away completely until my friend Elizabeth and I came up with a word for what I thought was really happening: "univironmental." This realization that all occurrences were the interactions between the insides and outsides of things eventually put the kibosh on the Big Bang Theory. Nothing, including the imagined finite universe of the Big Bang could possibly exist without its environment or its “macrocosm,” as I was later to call it. So what if this way of looking at things meant that everything was natural? So what if there was no freewill? The final solution was to suck it up and get back to work changing the world.] 

Round Earth and Millennials

PSI Blog 20180418 Round Earth and Millennials

Lately I have been holding out hope that the younger generation would be more receptive to Infinite Universe Theory than the old-timers who grew up with the propaganda spread by the likes of Hawking and deGrasse. Now I am not so sure.

Millennials (those between 18 and 24) have been in the news lately, and not always in a good way. Here are the results from a survey asking the question: “Is the Earth round?” Only 66% got it right, while 94% of those over 55 got it right. Correct answers were a function of age. Agnosticism and flat-Earth belief decreased with age. Thanks be to Jerry Coyne for this heads up:

http://go.glennborchardt.com/roundEarthby66

Much of the skepticism was associated with religious miseducation. It looks like we have a long way to go, what with the deplorable state of education in the USA. I guess if you accept religion without question and believe Earth is flat, you also can believe the entire universe exploded out of nothing.

On the other hand...

Look what group on Facebook has our biggest fans:

Now, if we only could get young women to be as curious about the universe as the young men...

Neo-Darwinian Evolution in Doubt

PSI Blog 20180411 Neo-Darwinian Evolution in Doubt

Here is an excellent Blog by PSI member Fred Frees:

On March 18, 2018, an article by Jeremy Sherman appeared on Alternet.org with the heading “Science Still Can't Explain This Biological Mystery, But Scientists Like to Pretend Otherwise. We still have no scientific explanation for organisms.”

The headline is provocative, and would lead one to think that no explanation exists or is forthcoming. But, such is not the case. Sherman eventually does provide an explanation (just not a univironmental one).

He begins by saying, “Evolution doesn’t start organisms. Organisms start evolution and we still have no explanation for what they are and how they emerge by chance from chemistry.”

He further states: “Unlike inanimate things, organisms engage in functional, fitted effort.”

He explains: “Effort is purposeful work, an organism trying to achieve what is functional – of value to it, fitted or representative of its circumstances. Effort value and representation only make sense with respect to organisms. Organisms try to benefit themselves given their environment. Inanimate things don’t. In the physical sciences, there’s simply no room for explanation from functionally fitted behavior. Any physical scientist who claimed that subatomic, atomic, molecular, geological or galactic phenomena as trying to benefit itself given its circumstances would be drummed out of the physical sciences. A physicist knows better than to say the moon tries to lift the tides for the moon or the tide’s benefit.” 

Sherman’s assertions are based on the theories of Terrence Deacon.

The thrust of Deacon’s (and, thus Sherman’s) argument is living beings need to “try” vs. inanimate objects lack of such need. Living beings “try” to stay alive and reproduce. Inanimate objects don’t. Living beings engage in “Self-regeneration” (i.e., Self protection, self repair, self-reproduction).  All this in the face of the 2^nd law of thermodynamics, which Sherman reiterates as all things deteriorating.  Sherman regards “trying” as the distinguishing factor in the beginning of life, and asks how did it start. Deacon’s theory is based on “constraints,” or the “channeling of energy into work.”  In the “non-living” universe (prior to the emergence of life), constraints eventually led to “self-organization.”  The first form of self-organization he calls “autocatalysis” (a chemical chain-reaction that creates more catalysts).  But, it alone is not self-regenerating.    What is needed is crystal-formation into organized solids similar to seeds (called “capsids”). But, both processes separately don’t last and there are still no “selves.”  But, combined, these processes create self-regeneration by means of “autogens” (chemically combining capsids and catalysts that open and close in a contained reproductive manner). The process contains the requisite self protection, self repair, and self-reproduction.

I’m not going to critique the particulars of Deacon’s thesis. There may, indeed, be “autogens” and “catalysts” that are engaged in the formation of organisms.  But, all this theory does is try to explain how life forms began, and not why.

What can be criticized about Deacon (and Sherman’s) theory is that there is no context in which to explain why these processes take place.  This is a prime example of systems philosophy, focusing only on the microcosm, while ignoring the macrocosm.  How did the “autogens” come to be in the first place?  Where did the capsids and catalysts come from?

We can agree on one thing. The “theory of evolution” doesn’t explain it.  Neither does “accident” or “chance” explain it.

The process by which life originated from inanimate matter is called “biopoesis.” (Borchardt-TSW-p. 211)  Why does this occur? “To the systems theorist, life may be the result of ‘accident’ or of ‘self-assembly,’ but to the univironmental determinist it is, like cancer, the only possible response to certain conditions.” (Borchardt-TSW-p. 216)

Are Deacon and Sherman indeterminists?  Their repeated usage of the terms “self-regeneration,”  “self-protection,” “ self-repair,” and “ self-reproduction” confirms it.

The fact that the only reference to evolution is the “theory of evolution” (which only pertains to biology) is a second confirmation of their indeterminism.  Their theory completely ignores the macrocosm, in which evolution within the infinite universe gives ultimate rise to life, given the right conditions.

And, thirdly, they regard the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics only as a law of departure, without acknowledging the complementary law of arrival.

At least they don’t credit a supernatural force for creating life. And, to say that science has yet to explain why life occurs is actually correct, since mainstream science is not univironmentally based and is still entrenched in the quagmire of indeterminism, which Deacon and Sherman have yet to dig themselves out of, either.