heusdens

An often heard argument to reason against how life could have evolved from non living matter is that it is way too improbable. At least their argument is not that life is impossible. The point is however that even in a lottery with a very improbable change of winning the lottery, there is a winner. Second, how do they calculate the measure of improbability? For instance, if inflationary cosmology is true, there is not one single universe (in the observable universe there are already billions of galaxies and each with billions of stars, and theoretically the whole universe is incredibly much larger, what we see is just some tiny dot), but in fact infinitely many of them. All that is needed then for the occurence of life is a change for the right conditions for life to occur not equal to zero. That is what we DO know. Life has a probability which is certainy bigger as zero. Life is therefore inevitable.

This is the "old" Creation vs. Evolution controversy and the only "new" element in it is that instead of calling it a creator, it is now more fashionable to call it "Intelligent Design". In fact one should take in mind that there is realy not much to debate in reality, since whatever the "creationist" or "Intelligent Design" movement claim, they do not present us any facts, but just pose a metaphysical different position, without any scientific proof. However they somehow manage to present their ideas in such a manner that it looks like we can talk about two competing ideas, which are both open to scientific inquiry and observation. Since from the side of the Creationist/Intelligent Design movement there is in fact no theory (only the metaphysical assumption that there was some Creator/Designer, which is as we know, something impossible), there is in fact nothing to discuss in the first place. Not only because the idea of such a creator/designer is metaphysical impossible, and also because they don't even try to propose a plausible way of how that creator/designer might have operated. They just only exclaim and portray things like: "See how immensely complex such a simple cell is with multiple interdependend functions which can not exist on their own, it must have been designed". The error in their logic is that in order to explain complexity they base themselves on something even more complex (a creator/designer), but then at the same time forget to bring forward an explenation for that complexity, which, in their own line of thought, would have needed an even more complex creator/designer, and so on. So instead of reaching a goal (understanding and explaing compexity of life), we only get further and further away from it if we follow their line of reasoning. Which, for good reasons, no serious scientist involved in this field, will ever follow. You can not explain complexity based on more complexity, to understand complexity you need to explain it in terms of less complex elements and components. We CAN explain life in terms of less complex things. The human organism can be explained in terms of it's organs (brain, heart, lung, liver, bones, blood system, etc) and the organs can be explained at the basis of cells, and the cells in turn can be explained in terms of complex molecules and complex molecules can be explained on the basis of atoms and atoms can be explained at the basis of quantum mechanics. A large part of how our body and mind works we can understand, since it has been thoroughly investigated in past centuries. So there is overwhelming evidence for explaining life at the basis of simpler components. This is not to claim that there isn't anything left to investigate, since for sure some parts are not known extensively and in full (for example consciousness is only in part understood). A partial understanding and partial proof, and based on a solid metaphysical assumption is however already much better then a position which has no proof at all. In fact their only position is to point out the "gaps" in knowledge. At this moment in time the question of how the first life form evolved (wether that was some single cell bacteria, a kind of virus or some other primitive life form) is not known. There are some scientific ideas, but not a solid theory, and for understandable reasons, the investigation of that question is quite difficult. It might be we never be able to work out a full theory of how from known chemical interactions and processes that happened on early earth (the age of earth is assumed to be some 4.5 billion years; the first life forms we know of are some 3.1 billion years old) life emerged. It is not impossible that materials from outer space could also have played a (more or less) significant role, at least such can not be excluded by definition, at least we DO know that complex chemical molecules do exist in outer space (amino acids etc). Other assumptions which are sometimes proposed, like the idea that life on earth was seeded here by an alien species, although such can not be disproved, are not very satisfactory, because they do not explain how life originally evolved, but postpone this issue futher back in time and which is not open to investigation. Same is true for the idea of panspermia, which merely proclaims that life did not originate on earth and in fact propose that life has no origin, which is to say that it's origins are to be taken back to the Big Bang (or beyond that) and originated with matter itself (matter however neither has an origin, although it can be stated that atoms and subatomic particles came into being as a result of the Big bang from previous material forms). The whole puzzle of the origin and explenation of life can be explained in two different ways: - First we have already a good idea how an organism can be explained at the basis of less complex components, since we have quite a good idea and proof of how the metabolism and other life functions of living organisms works and have some idea how the brain functions. - Second we have already for a large part of the material history an explenation how material complexity evolved from less complex material forms. Let us start from the Big Bang (we need to start somewhere, but as a reminder, this is not the "begin" of matter itself, since before that was - as most cosmologists agree on - the epoch of cosmic inflation, in which matter existed in the form of one or more scalar fields). From the Big Bang (in which matter was existent in a totally different form, in which even the distinction between matter and vacuum is absent) we know how subatomic particles and later atoms formed, mainly Hydrogen and some Helium and Lithium, and later on how due to gravitation these material assembled into early galaxies (quasars) and super heavy stars, we know how stars and galaxies evolve and form the explenation for all the chemical elements up to and above iron, we have some ideas how material ejected into space by supernovae explosions form the elements for star and planetary systems, and we have some idea how earth formed how the crust formed and which chemical interactions could take place, up to at least the basic ingredients of life (amino acids, and so forth). Between this and the first life form, there still is a gap and there is as of yet not a very elaborated theory that can explain how the formation of the first living cell and DNA happened, but after the first DNA based life form formed, the theory of evolution explains how all other life forms evolved from that based on (beneficial) mutations and selection, and how eventually complex living organism and at last homo sapiens sapiens has evolved. If we picture this material evolution on a grand scale we already see how complexity of matter on all levels built up from less complex material forms, and from that we might interpolate that between the step of complex chemical molecules and the first life forms, the same building up of complexity occured. Not that we know HOW it exactly happened, but the least to say is that this - in the context of the whole material history - seems to be probably the case, as this would fit into the general line of development of more complex material structures.

On the environemental issue in general. First we need to understand that the human condition and prosperity is dependent on how we deal and interact with nature, since ultimately, we are dependent on nature. If we destroy nature we can ultimately destroy our own means of survival. So it is only in our own benefit that we should interact with nature in a considerate and thoughtfull way, in order to protect human subsistence. We live on a small planet, and the population is still growing significantly and also due to economic development of countries with large populations, we will face increasing damage to nature. To protect nature against too much damage is not a goal in itself, but only as a means of protecting our own subsistence as a species. Currently the staggering growth of countries like China face them with enormous environemental damage. However, the Chinese government takes these issues more serious nowadays and tries to implement efficient remedies to prevent such environemental damage.

Hello to all, I am relatively "new" to Objectivism as a Philosophy, although I understand the basic concepts of it. Two points worth crediting Objectivism for is that it: a. Is a rational Philosophy. b. Takes the right philosophical position in what is Primary. The only point I think I have some different opinion on is that in Objectivism that what is primary is denoted as "existence" (which denotes both material/objective existence and the conscious form of existence ie. human thought) while I am used to denote that (that which is primary) as matter. That what exists primary is matter in motion, which is both uncreatable and indestructable, but can be transformed from one form into other forms (like mass into energy and vice versa). Space and time denote the "mode of existence" of matter. Consciousness is only a secondary feature of matter in a specific arrangement, in the form of the human organism and the material brain as a product of billions of years of evolution. [ And by the way matter is historical, there is what one can call material evolution. The clearest way of determining this is by considering that most of the contents of the current observable universe consisted primarily in the form of Hydrogen and in lesser extend Helium and Lithium, and that all other chemical elements were formed in the interior of stars. ] So the position that Objectivism takes, which claims that existence is primary and consciousness is secondary is somewhat obfuscating since existence denotes both the objective/material form of existence and the conscious form of existence. So which form of existence is primary? Matter or consciousness? I don't know why these axioms are worded exactly this way, since a more proper way to express it is to say that matter (all that which exists independent, outside and apart from consciousness) is primary. That is the only right way to express the position in this philosophical issue. And worth noting, it can be argued that there are basically only two metaphysical positions: Materialism (primacy of matter) or Idealism (primacy of conscioussness). (see also this article that explains this: http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/poe.html) By wording this as Primacy of Existence (while existence itself is both material/objective and the consciouss form) it doesn't make it any clearer imho. Basically, the outlook of Objectivism on these philosophical issue is the same as Materialism. Both argue for the meta-physical position that the objective material world (in whatever form it existed) was there before consciousness, and that matter itself is not dependent on consciousness. So matter is primary. It is at least more precise to say that matter is primary, since we know that before there was humanity and before there were even life forms, there was a material reality. However, Objectivism itself claims to be NOT in one of either camps (Materialism vs. Idealism) but to be in it's own camp. Which is quite puzzling because Objectivist claim there are only two camps! And if there are only two camps, and Objectivism is not in the Idealist camp, then Objectivism is in the camp of Materialism. Perhaps anyone can explain why that is or not is the case? Historical or political reasons perhaps? So this explains one aspect of Objectivism, that it is somewhat unclear on it's philosophical position. The second point of consideration is about the axiom of existence and the axiom (or law) of identity. They are what one calls tautological truths. For the materialist position, it is expressed not only that matter exists, but also that motion (or change) exist, and that matter is in motion always. Wherever one sees matter there is motion and vice versa. Although matter itself is eternal and infinite, all existence forms of matter are in motion always. Anything, everywhere and anytime. If we were to apply the law of identity on the real world of matter in motion however, it would mean that everything would always be equal to itself, and consequently everything would be motionless. Nothing would change whatsoever! So the reality of the world of matter in motion means in fact that there is no possible way in which the law of identity can be true! If and since all things do change, it means that something is at some point in time not equal to itself, since if it were, at all time all places and all circumstances, it would not change. This is however not to say that the law of identity is useless or without application. The law of identity is a usefull tool, but is limited to the world of abstract thought and reasoning only!

Actually spacetime is the gravitational field, which is caused by matter. The presence of matter causes spacetime to become distorted (curved) which is why objects fall down to earth and why planets orbit the sun. Actually the first one to conclude from the Einstein's equation that the universe was expanding was the russian scientist Alexander Friedman. Lemaitre, the Belgian priest, found the same results some year later independently.

You might think that is correct, but it can be shown quite easily that your conclusion is not correct. As a matter of definition let me assume here (as I think that is what you also assumed) that universe in this sense means "all of existence". [ Just to be sure I add this, since acc. to some cosmological theories, there might be not just one, but an infinite number of different universes which for a multiverse. In such a case "universe" is then just this multiverse ]. Ok, now your conclusion you state here is that the universe does exist. I take that you mean to say that the universe does not just exist as a concept of mind (in more-or-less the same way as that one can have a concept of God in one's mind) but exists in reality, so in the objective sense. But what does it mean for something to exist in the objective sense? Let us first explore that, and see in what way for instance an apple can be said to exist: I have an apple. The apple to me is not just an apple in thought, but a real apple, that is an object which exist apart and independend of my mind, which I can know through my senses. The apple is an object to me, and I am an object to the apple. I am a different reality as the apple, and the apple is a different reality as me. Me and the apple are objectively related, the apple and myself are existing objectively. Now let us explore the case for the universe: For the universe (in the strict sense of all that exists) there are no object outside and apart of it. The universe has no objective relations with anything strictly outside, apart and independent of it. The universe has no reality outside of itself, and neither is there a reality that has the universe as a reality outside of itself. Neither has the universe an object outside and apart of itself, nor is there an object outside and apart of the universe that has the universe as an object. So in fact there are no objective relations for the universe. The universe therefore is just a creation of our mind. A concept. A usefull concept, without doubt, but not something that has objective existence, that is based on (possible) objective relations. Remarkable, maybe, and counter-intuitive, maybe, but still true. However, we must note that this hasn't any consequence on how we perceive reality, and how reality itself is objectively based, because of the fact that objective relations in fact DO exist, and of which we can be aware of and test for. People exist, other planets exist, other stars exist, other galaxies exist, and so forth. We do not have to doubt any of this. I guess that most people miss this fact and somehow insists on the idea that the universe (as "all of existence") must exist in the objective sense, while such can not possibly be the case. The inference on which this most often is assumed is that it is assumed that if parts of the whole exist, also the whole must exist. This is normally indeed always the case, except for the whole universe. This just means that any reasoning which makes use of this concept of universe, like reasoning about "where does the universe come from" etc. all make assumptions about an objective existing universe which in reality (in the objective sense) is not even there. In fact, if we DO insists on an objective existing universe, we can not do so with reason, but ONLY by postulating it as an absolute. But such is rather dangerous, since if one allows that there are things in existence (outside the mind itself) which are not objectively based, then all kind of things would have to assumed also to exist, of which none of them is objectively based. The invisible elf in my backyard would then also exist.