RE: Evolution and natural selection ARE the gods of this world!
June 14, 2015 at 11:17 am
(This post was last modified: June 14, 2015 at 11:18 am by comet.)
(June 14, 2015 at 10:30 am)Aoi Magi Wrote:(June 14, 2015 at 9:29 am)comet Wrote: The key word is minimum. And we understand we really don't have to base a "non belief in A" because somebody else has a Belief in A". "fact" ... The universe is one giant data processor.
so, a minimum "human reason". Based on only what we know. Which is not a lot. Evolution seems to be a process that passes on information so that an organism can just "live as is" or adapt to conditional changes in its surroundings in order to, lmao, this will sound funny, to pass on information. The net effect (of the biosphere) is to make a more complex organism that will to be able to better react to the system around it.
then to evaluate the validity of such a claim we can try the commonsense sense check. What seems more reasonable with the information we have today? "no-nothing at all" goal or a minimum goal of passing on information?
As far as I know, no, evolution isn't exactly passing on information to aid adaptability as you mentioned. Natural selection would be closer to that as it is the process which preserves the "information" that has adapted and discards the rest. Evolution is just a series of random changes and it causes both the changes which survive and those that get discarded, so I don't think we can assume it has the "reason" that you mentioned.
You are correct. reproduction does that. "evolution" is really not even 'one theory". It is a unifying theory like plate tectonics. So when I talk about it I leave a bunch out because I feel that if people are commenting or suggesting what it is or is not they understand what going on. in the end, it's all about minimizing the amount of energy being transferred through the system. Sometimes it is slow and long, like entropy of photons increasing over time. other times its really fast entropy increase. There are a few ways to come up with a "reason". Literal religious people take it too far, but claiming "no reason" just doesn't match observation. And we don't know enough to call it even an "illusion of purpose". What we have, is all that we have.
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity