Physical idealism

[bennyboy]

I'm not sure what the word belief is doing there in reference to the big bang, nor do I see why the things you listed follow from a belief or acceptance of the big bang.

The idea is to separate an eternal universe, in which you can never really say the chicken comes before the egg, to establish a beginning. If there's a beginning, then none of the structures (like DNA) existed, but the formative principles allowing for DNA did.

Meh, then we don't agree, and you don't accept the explanations we have for the number of digits we have on our limbs, which is more than just dna but still just a collection of materialist propositions- but it's difficult to see why.

In this case an explanation is an idea about causality. Does DNA cause a human to exist? Yes, kind of, but ultimately, it's just part of an organic process. Does evolution itself even exist, or is it just a description of a state in which chaotic systems lead to un-chaotic structures?

My take on it is that given a sufficiently "pure" chaotic environment, there's a kind of determinism. Lurking behind all that grey goo is the inevitability that certain forms will eventually arise. Clearly, there's no such thing as a fish in that context, but it seems to me that fish are inevitable-- maybe not in the sense of Earth-bound species with specific DNA, but in the sense that where there is a planet of a particular gravity, chemical makeup, etc. something which is propelled by fins, and which takes in nutrients through a mouth and expresses it through an anus, is inevitable-- because that's how life in water works.

[quote]
Liquid water is a material substance (as are bio-chemical pathways, fins...and scales).  Here again the material is being referenced, not an idea or immaterial principle.

I'm talking about physical idealism, which is the relationship of material and supervenient forms, with certain templates or formative factors being called "ideas." So I'm fine with what you just said.

You are -absolutely- disputing the mechanisms we currently point to when you talk about features driving evolution rather than environment and genetics.  In any case, genetic code, like water above, is a material substance..so I don't see where idealism comes in except after materialism is done doing all the explaining.  DNA -is- thought of as a carrier of information..of material interactions and histories.  Just as before, it's senseless to point to necessarily materialistic propositions and then dispute the material, or claim that they somehow affirm the immaterial.   Stolen....concepts.  Good luck figuring something out about idealism or a world in which the material is an expression of an idea by pointing to an endless litany of material interactions and substances.

You aren't arguing against my ideas. Either I haven't exlained them clearly enough yet, or you are weighed down with assumptions from our previous conversations.
The "material interactions and histories" are what I've called "statistical moments."

And please stop saying "stolen concepts" all the time. Let's just assume that whatever I say, about anything at all, you'll drop those words in there somewhere, and get down to talking about what I've actually said than whatever it is you are arguing about.