|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 10. October 2005 22:14
quote:
if such a bootstrap mechanism could be demonstrated, I would abandon the PEH instantly
John, I wonder why you say this? Surely if this "bootstrapping - non-linear self organizational" process took place on a very short time-scale (geologically) and if it were able to instantiate the kind of information we see on the DNA we would have no way of distinguishing it from the direct insertion of information from the Designer's Mind into nature? I guess your fear is that this type of process would be operational not in a sudden way - but if it existed by virtue of the nature of natural law itself it should operate gradually through time; and thus represent a replacement (or substitute) to the flawed Darwinian mechanism?
Phil, I think I would argue against "non-linear self organizational" differently.
[1] Bill Dembski, building on the earlier work of people like Medawar and Weisskopf, has demonstrated that natural law (which we can only simulate via deterministic and stochastic equations) cannot produce the level of functional information (CSI) that we find in biotic systems. Natural law can only reduce CSI not increase it - This is the basis of the 4th law of thermodynamics (see that thread). However, it could still be argued perhaps that natural law in the form of chaotic style behavior of non-linear systems is an exception to Dembski's theorizing. But if this is so it needs to be demonstrated - and the position where Dembki's theorizing fails pointed out for non-linear systems. At the present the only evidence we have - for example the Cambrian explosion - is that biotic information can only decrease with time (supporting 4th law).
[2] Self organization I believe can produce some information but far below the level required for biotic function. Admittedly this is a belief but it is based on those self organized systems that we know of - namely things like Bernard Cells - that are regular and organized but contain very little information - and certainly not the type of information that can peform any function in the same way that biotic CSI does. I wonder whether the " "gliders", "glider guns", "spaceships", " that you speak of can peform any function?
[3] The evolution of living systems seems to take place in sudden "quantum" jumps -origin of life - origin of multicellular life (Cambrian explosion) - origin of mammalian life - origin of human life. If things really occured via some mechanism of self organization - why is it that we see such suddeness and why do jumps not occur more uniformly (regularly) in time (since the mechanism is presumably there at all times)?
I don't mean to be critical but this is a question of major importance that seems to need more questioning and discussion. Chris
[ 10. October 2005, 22:26: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. October 2005 22:16
Chris
There is no reason to assume that a species disappears when it hs produced a new one. That smacks of Darwinian gradualism for which there is no evidence anyway. Every evolutionary event, like every other genetic event, was instantaneous, unambiguous and obvious. There is nothing in the taxonomic system that can ever be reconciled with the mutation/selection cornerstone of the Darwinian myth. We see the antithesis of gradualism, unmistakable identity, no intergrades and the sort of obvious separation that allows us to use simple common names in identifying every living thing we encounter. I will address your second point in a second post.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. October 2005 22:52
I regard the 4th thermodynamic law as myth. Sorry but that is my position. I also see no need for intervention along the evolutionary pathway. That would be pure mysticism amd I am not a mystic. What we must seek and hopefully find is a mechanism which can take a large initial potential source of information and permit it to search from within its potential toward a goal. That is exactly how ontogeny has come to operate. We start with a single cell and a single diploid nucleus which dispenses its contained information independently of the environment and produces a finished product capable of reproducing that sequence. Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny and I am confident that as we come to understand how it operates so will we come to understand phylogeny.
Each evolutionary failure has served to provide the stimulus for a new attempt from the fish to amphibian, to reptile, to bird and mammal. It was a goal directed process exactly as we now see in ontogeny. Both are self terminating. The experimental phase for both has now finished. What we observe now are the refined products of phenomenona no longer being progressively improved. Quite the contrary, they are now both in a state of degeneration as is proved by the horendous rate of extinction and the accumulation of developmental defects in civilized society due to the relaxation of natural selection. I realize this is not a particularly optimistic view of our future but it does represent my current evaluation of the situation. It is insane to expect a monoculture of 7 billion large mammals to survive in a finite environment such as this planet. It also does not surprise me that a similar population of about 7 billion chickens might prove to be our mortal enemies.
In short, it is my conviction that evolution is finished and has been for a very long time, a conclusion I share with Robert Broom and, of all people, the author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis," Julian Huxley.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. October 2005 23:14
Chris
The definition of a species, and it is a good one, was provided by a Darwinian, Theodosius Dobzhansky. If two forms produce a hybrid which proves to be fertile they are the same species. If the hybrid proves to be completely or partially sterile, they are separate species. This is why the donkey and the horse are separate species as are the tiger and the lion. There is no reason why a present species could not have produced another and some may actually have done so. My point is simply that it could not have been done through sexual (Mendelian) means. The accumulation of micromutations does not result in new species, only varieties, the vast majority of which are inferior to the original wild type.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. October 2005 07:08
I accept Dobzhansky's definition of species because it is a physiological definition and as such is unambiguous. I believe that all evolution events occurred as relatively rare single events occurring in single female organisms. The preoccupation of the Darwinians with population genetics has little to do with evolution beyond subspeciation. Many life forms cannot even manage that. We have to abandon every aspect of Darwinism in order to proceed. I have spelled out the reasons for this in my unpublished "An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change" available here in the Archives. It presents the evidence which led to both the Semi-meiotic and more recently the Prescribed Evolutionary hypotheses which are two aspects of the same basic proposal. The chromosome is the seat of the prescribed information and everything we are now learning supports just that. If the chromosome undergoes a structural change so does the phenotype and the genotype. It is interesting that Richard B. Goldschmidt, a preminent geneticist of his day, should be the one to claim that the gene had very little to do with evolution. All living things are remarkably similar at the gene level. What makes us different is the way in which the same genes are able to produce such drastically different products. To put it in oversimplified form, evolution has been very largely a manifestation of "position effect."
It might prove useful to review the "Manifesto" and the responses it elicited from those who were participating here when it was introduced for discussion. I did my best to defend it then as I always have with all my papers. I only wish the professionals would acknowledge in hard copy my papers as well as the contributions of the several great minds which made them possible. As I have said many times - we critics of Darwinism simply do not exist. We must not exist because if we are allowed to exist Darwinism will become but a footnote right next to the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics. Fortunately, Darwinism is in its death throes in any event.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for neoDarwinism.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406.
IP: Logged
|
|
Phillip L. Engle
Member
Member # 447
|
posted 11. October 2005 11:59
This is a somewhat belated reply to Christopher Beling's most-recent post.
[1] I agree that if we define natural law to be limited to deterministic and stochastic equations (as in neo-Darwinism) then we can't produce the level of functional information (CSI) we find in nature. However, if we use equations for nonlinear systems of a type I call "tychistic" (similar to "chaotic" except that order dominates over chance rather than the reverse), I believe that sufficiently complex functional information CAN be generated through the interaction of a variety of hierarchical levels. I have no PROOF of this however, but I refer you to my book FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM for speculations along this line. It seems to me that biotic information has been INCREASING over time as taxons diversify, but it all depends on what one means by "information".
[2] Bernard cells are interesting examples of nonlinear self-organization, but are obviously far too simple to directly model biological entities. Nevertheless biological entities share the following with such simple "dissipative stuctures" (Ilya Prigogine's term) as Bernard cells: They both require a constant input of energy and they both dissipate entropy to their environment. The main difference between them may be that biological entities have complex, nonlinear interactions between many levels of self-organization. (BTW, "glider guns" have one clear, somewhat "advanced" function: They continually shoot out "gliders"! Also Conway, the inventor of Life, has some kind of proof that "intelligent" life could evolve on a Life plane.)
[3] Irregular suddenness of change is a characteristic of nonlinear self-organizing systems. The Bernard cells you mention are first created and later destroyed suddenly as heat is gradually increased on the lower plate. The growth of embryos is characterized by relatively long periods of smooth, continuous growth, punctuated by sudden morphological change as groups of cells suddenly specialize. (Robert F. DeHaan has suggested that the evolution of the biosphere is analogous to the evolution of the embryo and that the Cambrian animals could be called "stem animals" -- hence his use of the word "macrodevelopment" for John Davison's phrase "prescribed evolutionary hypothesis".) Nonlinear structures are also characterized by "internal conditional equifinality" -- that is, they can suddenly go one way or the other based on an INTERNAL chance event (e.g., an embryo becoming male or female). (I believe that such internal chance events are analogous to "decisions" from a teleological point of view.)
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. October 2005 16:00
Interesting stuff Phil
I am inclined to see evolution as the progressive loss of potential until now there are no more choices to be made. This also is in accord with the ontogeny model. Phylogeny, like ontogeny, is also irreversible with contemporary forms comparable with the adult condition of the development of the individual and, like that adult, doomed to extinction, the evolutionary equivalent of death. I realize this is not a very optimistic view but I think it is in accord with what we really know. A rather simple model for evolution is offered by the binary key that invariably results in positive identification of all the forms for which that key was designed. That is one of the reasons I favor several independent origins of life as I find it very hard to imagine a single binary key for all of the living groups. There are no real transitional forms for any of the taxonomic categories which is what makes the Linnaean system possible. We do know that our relationship with our fellow higher primates can be accounted for entirely by rearrangements of existing predetermined information and required no input from the environment. When one encounters large differences in chromosome morphology and DNA content per cell, it becomes more and more difficult to accept a monophyletic origin. I keep an open mind on the matter. Currently I am inclined to agree with Leo Berg:
"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms. i.e, polyphyletically.
Nomogenesis, page 406
It is unfortunate that such a departure from Darwinian monophyleticism resulted in this great biologist being so tragically ignored. He was Dobzhansky's mentor before Dobzhansky left for the New World. I think if Dobzhansky had remained in Russia we would now probably be discussing Bergian rather than Darwinian evolution. I predict we will anyway in the not too distant future.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. October 2005 22:27
It seems as though the PEH here as elsewhere will die on the vine. I thought some might be interested in an extension I am now making of the PEH just to keep this thread active. I now present it.
I believe that not only has organic evolution been completed but I also believe that man's cultural history has also undergone a similar sequence which apparently is at least peaking and perhaps is about to end.
Let me explain. The Arts provide some interesting parallels to both ontogeny and phylogeny. Music struggled until Bach invented the tempered scale and then went through a series of remarkable transitions, the baroque giving rise to the classical to the romantic to modern music which in my opinion flowered long ago and is now in a state of profound decay. The last great operas were those of Puccini and Verdi, the last truly great musicals those of Jerome Kern, Rogers and Hammerstein and terminated in my opinion with the genius of Leonard Bernstein. The Broadway musical stage is a thing of the past. Our popular music has become a travesty and an insult both to our ears and our ethical sense.
The same could be said of dance which had its golden age as well with the ballets of Tchaikovsky and Delibes. Even literature has undergone a decay. Where is the great prose of the past?
It is at this point that my thesis becomes really interesting. I now propose that these cultural periods were also prescribed and were not as many might say subjective. Is it not possible that Mozart was able to tune in on a prescribed musical scenario which, like Bateson's view of evolution, was there all along and simply unfolded for Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Mendelsohn and the other great composers of the past?
Godfrey Hardy insisted that all of mathemtics was prescribed and was only discovered. Isn't it possible that these other matters were also always there and that some souls have been able to discover and reveal them to the rest of us who were not so fortunate as to be given that gift?
Otto Schindewold, probably the greatest paleontologist of all time, suggested that evolutionary lineages could be broken into three phases. The first he called typogenesis when the new group first appeared, the next typostasis, during which the sequence flourished and finally typolysis, during which the line underwent morphological and reproductive decay, ending with extinction.
I have simply suggested in this brief essay that a similar scenario may have operated in our cultural history.
We are now in the technological age and the general opinion would seem to be that there is no limit to our progress. I do not believe that to be true. As we approach, as we have, molecular dimensions we are approaching limits to that progress.
I would like to publish these notions somewhere but have no idea what would be a suitable organ for that purpose. Anyway, forgive me for my fantasies as it comes with the advancing years.
Once again I turn to Einstein:
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
Perhaps Mozart was one of those chosen to hear that music of the spheres. He was Einstein's favorite composer and mine as well.
"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
I have come to agree with Einstein.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. October 2005 22:31
Erratum
Schindewolf not Schindewold.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 13. October 2005 02:37
Hi John,
In respect to your last posting I think you will find the following paper by Richard Cowen interesting and very much supporting your view. Empirical Evidence for a Law of Information Growth
In this paper Cowen not just includes major events in biological evolution but also includes events in human evolution. The mathematics in the paper looks like a convincing explanation - or at least a partial explanation. I am skeptical of it though - and feel it is largely coincidental. However, the fact that the logistic equation applies to major evolutionary events of both biological and human varieties I believe is real and easily understood in terms of finite resources. For example when it comes to discovering new elements - there are only so many elements for man to discover. The same holds true in the music case that you give. This is a simple reason why one always sees saturations of information expression in any evolutionary event.
I do not agree with all the chosen events of Cohen, neither do I agree on all the datings of the events that he has chosen. However, if I choose my own set of "major events" I get a graph very similar to his - that shows a general speeding up of evolutionary event onsets. I have not seen this discussed from an ID perspective and would be interested in your interpretation of this "speeding up" phenomenon.
- Chris
[ 13. October 2005, 02:46: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. October 2005 06:29
Chris
Thank you very much for the Coren piece. It is always gratifying to discover that others have reached similar conlcusions independently. That is one of the primary reasons I have been so impressed with the evolutionary conclusions of Goldschmidt and Schindewolf, Bateson, Punnett and Berg, Broom and Huxley, just to mention three examples of those who have reached identical conclusions even coming from drastically separate backgrounds.
I have printed out the Coren piece and will give it more serious consideration in future. However I take serious exception with one statement and its implications.
"It must be understood tht this Trajectory is not an indication of a directed process but is merely an indication of the direction of progress."
Are we to believe that this increase in information "just happened?" So it would seem.
I believe the information has always been there and has only been progressively discovered just as Hardy felt about mathematics. That which has been discovered must have been placed there prior to discovery. In that sense there has been no increase in fundamental information, only in its revelation. Coren also apparently sees no limits to these cyclic events. I do. I see a very dismal future and it is not because of pessimism but because of hard headed realities.
The issues invariably resolve into the mechanism or mechanisms for evolution. I cannot, with Leo Berg, accept any role for chance and Lamarckian devices are not presently demonstrable. It seems to me that the only conceivable explanation is the one I have proposed.
I also see no evidence for intervention having played a role in either the organic or cultural sequences and I am sure Coren would agree. These were predetermined at the outset or more likely outsets of each created lineage of which I believe there must have been several.
We owe the logistic equation to Gauss who of course discovered it. He didn't create it any more than Galileo created the Law of Falling Bodies. It is interesting that his parents were ordinary peasants. Apparently it was his prescribed providence to be given the opportunity to do so. I remain, with Einstein a convinced determinist. When Einstein said
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control," We should remember that what IS determined must HAVE BEEN determined.
My prescribed role has been to resurrect some of the finest minds of the past from the oblivion to which the materialist Darwinians have relegated them and to extend their common conclusions in the form of the PEH. It has been a great and rewarding experience.
"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 14. October 2005 02:12
John, I'm glad you appreciated Cohen's paper.
quote:
Are we to believe that this increase in information "just happened?" So it would seem.
I guess no one would believe this. I am not sure Coren does - but the fact that he gives some maths which looks convincing makes it look as if there is some underlying mechanism - yet to be discovered. Often science does work that way - i.e. find first an empirical law - assume some causal explanation - then set out to find it? We might for example look at Kepler's planetary laws - which Newton was able to latter give some theoretical explantion for.
quote:
The issues invariably resolve into the mechanism or mechanisms for evolution. I cannot, with Leo Berg, accept any role for chance and Lamarckian devices are not presently demonstrable.
Well, I think we are all of a common mind with regard to the deletion of neo-Darwinism and Larmarkianism on this thread at least. I follow and accept the mathematical analysis of Bill Dembski that chance alone is quite incapable with the probabilistic resources available in our universe as a means of discovering new function - without which selection does not kick in. The mathematics of Fred Holye concurred, but Fred did believe in chance because he believed in a Kantian style universe that had always existed (i.e. no Big Bang) and thus he had eternity to play with and the potential of life forming in space! So it is that we have to take it that the neo-Darwinian hypothesis (NDH) is indeed a deleted hypothesis (unless we are talking only about sub-species variation) and not listen to those who say otherwise. I can sense you are very tense on this issue - and I know this is because you have suffered at the hands of inertial pro-Darwinian biologists - and perhaps you suffer from a sense of not being able to rescue biology; but I think we have to be positive and to move forward by coming up with such convincing evidence for the PEH so that more will listen. As you have said:
quote:
It is the responsibility of the scientist to expose failed hypotheses, but it is equally his responsibility to offer a replacement for them.
quote:
It seems to me that the only conceivable explanation is the one I have proposed.
Well this would be true if it were not for Phil's "self organizational non-linear hypothesis" (SONLH). Personally I do not believe in self organization as a cause by which the digital DNA code came into being, but I think it only fair to leave it as an open hypothesis until someone comes along with a good way of deleting it - i.e. in the same way that the NDH has been deleted - both by appropriate use of maths and evidences. This has philosophical merit too. Incidentally I have ordered a library copy of Phil's book "Far from Equilibrium". I look foward to reading it as many things in Phil's recent post seem persuading.
quote:
I see a very dismal future and it is not because of pessimism but because of hard headed realities
Now if you are really a follower after Spinoza and Einstein - adhering to some kind of bi-modal pantheism - then surely things are just fully determined by the ratiocinations of the eternal substance:
quote:
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control,"
This is where the idea of Stoicism came from - putting on a cheerful face in face of pantheistic determinism. If all is predetermined then why are we wasting time and energy trying to get folk to see the error of the NDH? In a truly determined universe there is really no free choice for humans. Moreover, in saying that we are facing a "dismal" future may be to report on a feeling (perception) you are getting but it would have no real meaning because the future is already determined. I believe that Spinoza and Einstein wrestled with this aspect of their metaphysic as perhaps you do.
SPINOZA: 1672 - Spinoza looks out his window and sees a mob attacking two friends - he wants to rush out and help them, but other friends lock him in his room - most likely saving his life. But according to his metaphysic Spinoza's emotion reaction was not appropriate because "everything happens as it does because it is determined to happen".
EINSTEIN: 1939 - Einstein writes his famous letter to President Roosevelt warning him of a possible threat of a German initiative to make an atom bomb - hoping to persuade him towards starting a US initiative. If all was determined why did Einstein do this? Einstein also reflected "My greatest desire is to know if God had any freedom in making the universe"
Both men were rationalists and strongly held to a human ethic - believing that the highest moral of human beings was to control their emotions using their rational faculty - but deep down there is a deep metaphysical inconsistency. Perhaps to be fair I should add that I am a theist of the normative variety so I do believe in an inherent faculty of free-will both in God and in man. To me this allows the possibility of divine intervention in nature but I do not think this happens often. Is my position more "mystic" than Einstein or Spinoza?
Hope you dont mind me straying into metaphysics in this way - indeed my main focus in doing so is to be able to address certain issues surrounding the PEH [and perhaps SONLH]. I remind you that Einstein also once said:
quote:
Science without religion is lame; Religion without science is blind
I do believe this to be the case as I see different evolutionary scientists choosing their respective hypothesis with regard to evolution according to their metaphysical assumptions. I think as scientists we must be aware of our own metaphysical bias. Perhaps I could say more about this latter especially in regard to how I see things relating to the PEH, but I have already said too much in this post. I have many other points on the science side of the PEH I would like to address sometime on this thread. - Chris
[ 14. October 2005, 06:51: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. October 2005 07:48
Chris
That is a very long and intersting post so I will not try to respond to all your points. But I have to say that I do not believe in a free will any more because if that were so there would not be a Darwinian in the whole scientific universe. These people (I don't know how else to describe them) are congenitally incapable of recognizing that there WAS a purpose in the design of the universe. They are homozygous at a locus that renders such a perspective quite impossible. That is why I, right along with my several distinguished predecessors are not allowed to exist.
For a long time I felt that Richard Dawkins was not sincere. I even thought that maybe he had been molested by an Anglican priest or worse. I have now realized that Mayr, Dawkins, Gould and Provine were prescribed to be what they are. We all are. We are victims. The whole notion of free will is an assumption which has been accepted because it makes such good sense. That is also the same reason that Darwinism was accepted. So much for both as far as I am concerned. You must realize that I am a bench scientist who is not really interested in weighty intellectual matters. I have always followed my nose and it has not let me down yet.
I have published only one paper which has been criticized in the professional peer reviewed literature. My 1984 paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology was critcized in a letter to the editor to which I later responded. As nearly as I can determine (I haven't checked Citation Index lately) the only references to any of my several evolution papers were made by John A. Davison. I could say the same thing about references to Berg, Broom, Schindewolf, Bateson, Grasse and many others on whom I have so heavily depended. We collectively simply do not exist in the evolutionary literature and haven't for a very long time. In a way this becomes the most revealing feature of the Darwinian mythology. We have also been shunned by the Intelligent Design people to large extent and I think I know why. None of us ever found it necessary to invoke a personal God. Neither did Einstein. I am certain that the laws that in the past governed evolution and presently govern ontogeny will all prove to have a material reality. That does not mean that those laws were not enacted by a vastly superior intelligence, far beyond our own limted capacity to even imagine.
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
"If God created the world, his primary concern was certainly not to make its understanding easy for us."
Albert Einstein
IP: Logged
|
|
Phillip L. Engle
Member
Member # 447
|
posted 14. October 2005 11:23
Here's a mercifully brief (and overgeneralized) comment on the whole "free will vs. determinism" thing:
In my book FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM I suggest that "free will vs. determinism" in the teleological view of the world has an analogy in the physical view of the world. In particular, the individual choice involved in an act of "free will" is analogous to a moment of "immanent objective chance" in the physical world. Such a moment of "immanent objective chance" is only "objective" from the point-of-view of an immanent being who can perceive, measure, and act only out to a FINITE number of decimal places. By contrast, from the point-of-view of a transcendent, perfect being who can perceive, measure, and act out to an INFINITE number of decimal places, chance objectively doesn't exist and everything is determined. So, (as they say), it all depends on your point of view.
(There, that should settle this "free will vs. determinism" thing once and for all!)
(The physical part of the above speculations derive from the work of Ilya Prigogine. See especially his book "The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature.")
[ 14. October 2005, 11:42: Message edited by: Phillip L. Engle ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. October 2005 14:46
Dear Phil
You have always been my strongest ally but honestly I don't understand what you are saying. I am hideously incapable of understanding anything philosophical or metaphysical. So apparently was Einstein:
"Isn't ALL of philosophy like writing in honey? It looks wonderful at first sight, but when you look again it is all gone. Only the smear is left." (my emphasis)
and
"Upon reading books on philosophy, I learned that I stood there like a blind man in front of a painting...the works of speculative philosophy are beyond my reach."
I sometimes wish I could find something by Einstein with which I could disagree. So far the only thing I can come up with is his use of the present tense when he wrote:
"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control." If he had used the past tense, was, it would all be in perfect accord with the PEH. Of course this is a minor matter since if everything is determined it certainly must have been don't you know?
Whether or not we agree on free will is of little consequence in any event.
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
