|
Author
|
Topic: Teleology: bottom>up or top>down?
|
Doubting Thomas
Member
Member # 1214
|
posted 22. March 2004 11:35
From the banner above it would seem that 'purpose in nature' is the primary raison d'etre for this forum. 'Purpose' equates to teleology, defined in my dictionary as quote:
'1. the study of final causes 2. the fact or quality of being directed toward a definite end or having an ultimate purpose, esp. as attributed to natural processes 2. a.) a belief, as that of vitalism, that natural phenomena are determined not only by mechanical causes but by an overall design or purpose in nature b) the study of evidence for this belief 4. Ethics the evaluation of conduct, as in utilitarianism, in relation to the end or ends it serves.
In my analysis of teleology their are two ways of approaching the topic:
1. 'Bottom>up' - Based on hard determinism, the initial state of matter and energy in the Universe precisely defines the final state. The only laws that apply are the laws of physics and the physical constants that define them. The final purpose is then only the fulfilment or completion of the process of physical and biological evolution.
2. 'Top>down' - Some unknown force has dictated the initial state of the Universe and possibly has intervened periodically to 'move things along' in a supernatural (i.e., not governed by physical laws) manner. The final state (and purpose) of the Universe therefore remains unknowable (except to the 'unknown force') because the 'unknown force' has its 'finger on the scale.'
I have started this thread (hopefully) to encourage objective discussion on this topic.
[ 22. March 2004, 12:07: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 22. March 2004 12:16
Thomas,
In understanding what we might call ‘scientific teleology’, it is useful to differentiate between what you call ‘hard determinism’ and scientific determinism. You seem to be using the term hard determinism is to suggest the existence of a process which insures that the same effect will always be produced by the same cause. Scientific determinism, by contrast, is an assumption, supported by past experience, that the relationship between cause and effect observed in the past will be repeated in the future (or was repeated in the unobserved past).
Scientific determinism does not technically require the existence of a permanent and universal causal process. Scientific teleological causation is the observation that future effects or outputs can be reliably predicted by a set of causes which includes a goal or purpose variable (or technically an expected goal causal variable). There are many observable causal relationships which are useful in scientific analysis and which satisfy the scientific determinism criteria, but which do not satisfy the hard determinism -permanent and universal causal process requirement.
Teleology or teleological causation is concept which has been recognized by much of science at least since the time of the ancient Greeks. Your choice between bottoms up hard determinism and the mystical non-scientific form of teleology does not, IMO, realistically reflect the choices available.
IP: Logged
|
|
Doubting Thomas
Member
Member # 1214
|
posted 22. March 2004 14:39
Warren Bergerson wrote:
quote:
In understanding what we might call ‘scientific teleology’, it is useful to differentiate between what you call ‘hard determinism’ and scientific determinism. You seem to be using the term hard determinism is to suggest the existence of a process which insures that the same effect will always be produced by the same cause. Scientific determinism, by contrast, is an assumption, supported by past experience, that the relationship between cause and effect observed in the past will be repeated in the future (or was repeated in the unobserved past).
Scientific determinism does not technically require the existence of a permanent and universal causal process. Scientific teleological causation is the observation that future effects or outputs can be reliably predicted by a set of causes which includes a goal or purpose variable (or technically an expected goal causal variable). There are many observable causal relationships which are useful in scientific analysis and which satisfy the scientific determinism criteria, but which do not satisfy the hard determinism -permanent and universal causal process requirement.
As with all such discussions, we should put some definitions on the table so that we can both agree with what we're talking about. First, hard determinism:
quote:
Hard determinism: the view that there are no free actions—because all things that happen (or at least because all human actions) are causally determined.
a. Laplace’s demon. If the demon knows (i) how everything in the universe is arranged at one instant and (ii) all of the laws of nature, then if causal determinism is true, it will be able to know the whole history of the universe, infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future.
b. The basic hard determinist argument [176]:
1. Causal determinism is true.
2. If causal determinism is true, there are no free actions.
3. Therefore, there are no free actions.
Now, scientific determinism:
quote:
Physicists have sometimes used the term "determinism" in a special way that people such as Karl Popper and Stephen Hawking have called Scientific determinism.
In his book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking says that predictability is required for "scientific determinism" (start of chapter 4). He defines "scientific determinism" as meaning:
something that will happen in the future can be predicted.
Karl Popper's book The Open Universe: An Argument For Indeterminism argues that in its strongest version, scientific determinism makes a very strong assertion, that "all events are in principle predictable". The qualifier "in principle" can lead to persistent arguments.
Since many limitations on predictability are now known (for a partial list see: Quantum indeterminacy), most people who argue for determinism do not argue in favor of a strong version of scientific determinism. For example, a weaker type of determinism is one that only implies a unique, mechanical course for the universe with future events being caused by past events.
Hawking admits that even the uncertainty principle does not absolutely rule-out a kind of determinism "in principle", and says that quantum mechanics may very well allow the universe to be deterministic. He wrote:
"These quantum theories are deterministic in the sense that they give laws for the evolution of the wave with time. Thus if one knows the wave at one time, one can calculate it at any other time. The unpredictable, random element comes in only when we try to interpret the wave in terms of the positions and velocities of particles. But maybe this is our mistake: maybe there are no positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability." (conclusions section of A Brief History Of Time)
The two positions don't sound significantly different to me. The scientific view sounds like 'hard but maybe not that hard but still hard anyway.' But they both support determinism in the physical world,
quote:
Teleology or teleological causation is concept which has been recognized by much of science at least since the time of the ancient Greeks. Your choice between bottoms up hard determinism and the mystical non-scientific form of teleology does not, IMO, realistically reflect the choices available.
Certainly my 'top>down' model is much harder to justify because we have to invoke supernatural interference with or suspension of natural laws, which can't be demonstrated. Behe and others can only 'infer' such. The 'bottom>up' model, on the other hand, is in agreement with our current perception of the Universe and invokes no extranatural interference.
Please expand on your concluding paragraph. And please provide some examples of the following:
quote:
There are many observable causal relationships which are useful in scientific analysis and which satisfy the scientific determinism criteria, but which do not satisfy the hard determinism -permanent and universal causal process requirement.
Thanks!
[ 22. March 2004, 14:42: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 22. March 2004 19:05
DT,
I certainly don't see these two options as exhausting the possibilities of teleological explanation.
For example, one could view natural intrinsic function as having the same ontological status as the physical particles. You've got a nature with intrinsic teleology (not extrinsic teleology).
I think you've got to keep in mind this distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic purpose. If teleology is intrinsic to natural things, then one need not appeal to the supernatural (though one could, if one wanted).
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 23. March 2004 11:05
DT,
Based on the definitions you provided, you seem to be framing the teleology question in very broad ‘control of the entire universe’ concepts. My comments were framed in terms of the much narrower ‘extrapolating a set of observed ‘cause and effect’ or ‘input output’ relationships. In the much narrower framework I use, teleological causation is essentially a mathematical transformation of the standard ‘permanent and universal’ form of causation. Within the framework I use, causation is limited to observable measurable cause and effect variables. Purpose, goals or goal expectations, in this framework are observable causal variables. The actions of deities are not considered observable variables.
I wouldn’t know how to go about addressing the issue of teleology from the framework you have defined.
IP: Logged
|
|
Doubting Thomas
Member
Member # 1214
|
posted 23. March 2004 15:44
Micah wrote:
quote:
DT,
I certainly don't see these two options as exhausting the possibilities of teleological explanation.
For example, one could view natural intrinsic function as having the same ontological status as the physical particles. You've got a nature with intrinsic teleology (not extrinsic teleology).{/QUOTE]
Causal history is an extrinsic function. See
[URL=http://--individual.utoronto.ca/mtlin/Teleology.pdf][/URL] If this doesn't work do a Google search on extrinsic teleology. It should be the second or so hit, dealing with Spinoza.
[QUOTE]I think you've got to keep in mind this distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic purpose. If teleology is intrinsic to natural things, then one need not appeal to the supernatural (though one could, if one wanted).
I think we may have our terms mixed up here. My bottom>up model is causal, which is extrinsic teleology. My top>down model is intrinsic teleology, which invokes a supernatural power providing each particle in the Universe with intrinsic causality. Comments?
[ 23. March 2004, 15:45: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]
IP: Logged
|
|
jasonyoung
Member
Member # 432
|
posted 23. March 2004 22:07
Invoking a supernatural benefactor of causal freedom isn't necessary. The particles could provide themselves with their own freedom, thus obviating the presence of an extrinsic designer in our explanatory models. This has all been covered on this very forum, so further discussion seems somewhat unnecessary. All I can do, Thomas, is provide you with a link and hope you're willing to hunker down for some reading: www.ctmu.net. Teleology is covered with greater depth in Langan's essay than, well, anywhere else on the net. Have fun.
[ 23. March 2004, 22:13: Message edited by: jasonyoung ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 23. March 2004 22:23
DT,
We can imagine that, along with the physical particles/physical laws, there are also teleological principles that are just as fundamental. Thus, there is no need for either a top->down or bottom->up approach. Instead, there could be a scenario in which physical particles and teleological principles are both brute facts about the universe.
There is no need to assume that teleological principles have their root in either 1. the supernatural or 2. emergence
Teleology could be fundamental...just like some suppose that consciousness might be fundamental.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic