|
Author
|
Topic: Evolution by Natural Law
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 13. June 2006 11:56
I have been reading Michael Denton's "Nature's Destiny". Denton seems to suggest that neither chance nor agency is primarily responsible for biodiversity, but that natural law is. He seems to be suggesting that biologists think more like physiscists, and begin looking for laws of nature which obligate the forms that exist. In truth, his view does not sound very different from Dr. Davison's PEH.
Gentlemen, I would love your comments, pro and con, on Denton's hypothesis. Further, if possible, I would like any hypothesizing about the specific nature of any such law, and how such would be established.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 13. June 2006 13:33
Good topic. I would start at the most fundamental level of mathematics and physics. Nature is ultimately physics and in turn mathematics. The essence of nature or matter is the quantum. But quantum has no natural existence without an observer. An inseperable partner of the quantum is the observer. Quantum mechanics demands that nature is built or created by quantum and its observer. So if there is any natural law of nature, an observer must be an essential element of that law. The law will allow matter/nature to follow its inherent course but will also allow input from the observer. The observer created nature by employing a law that allows both inherent movements of matter and her effects on nature. The question for human is to ask what is the natural law empolyed by the observer to create nature. That law must be expressible by mathematics since all fundametal laws of nature are like that.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 13. June 2006 14:02
Shi, "That law must be expressible by mathematics since all fundametal laws of nature are like that."
I believe that this statement must be correct. All laws of physics which have been established are expressable by mathematics. If there is a set of natural laws that establish biodiversity, those laws are likely to be expressable with mathematics.
I question your other premise, however, that the laws must be quantum. I do not believe that this is a universal reality of physics -- that the laws of physics are unexpressable without an understanding of quantum mechanics. If some of the laws of physics are expressable without any understanding of quantum mechanics, then I see no obligation for the laws determining biodiversity to be quantum.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 13. June 2006 18:53
Newton mechanics works independent of quantum. But Newton cannot explain gravity or why his law works. Science or the search for knowledge is about going from limited laws to more universal and comprehensive laws. Today, the most comprehensive law is called the Principle of Least Action. It provides a simple but powerful framework for unifying Newtonian mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics. read more at the website: http://www.eftaylor.com/leastaction.html
here is what Max Planck said about this principle:
"As long as there exists physical science, its highest desirable goal had been the solution of the problem to integrate all natural phenomena observed and still to be observed into a single simple principle which permits to calculate all past and, in particular, all future processes from the present ones. It is natural that this goal has not been reached to date, nor ever will it be reached entirely. It is well possible, however, to approach it more and more, and the history of theoretical physics demonstrates that on this way a rich number of important successes could already be gained; which clearly indicates that this ideal problem is not merely utopical, but eminently fertile … Among the more or less general laws which manifest the achievements of physical science in the course of the last centuries, the Principle of Least Action is probably the one which, as regards form and content, may claim to come nearest to that final ideal goal of theoretical research."
He further said that The Principle of Least action "arouses the impression as if nature be governed by a rational and purposful will".
I agree with Planck fully. The 'will' is the supernatural observer and one of her laws in creating nature is the The Principle of Least action.
The final goal of research is to find a law that will be even more unifying and fundamental than the Principle of Least Action. Since Nature is evolution, that law must be a law of evolution. Since evolution is nothing without creation of novel things over time, that a law of evolution is essentially a law of creation. This law should explain the creation of atoms before the existance/evolvement of molecules. It should explain the creation of stars/planets before the evolvement of life. That same law must also explain the creation of life and species. We are talking about a universal evolution/creation law which a supernatural quantum observer employs to create Nature or to allow Nature to unfold/evolve.
The harmony and smooth flow of Nature suggests that there must be a single universal law of evolution or creation. That law must be expressible by mathematics. This does not mean that the mathematics has to be complex that few could comprehend. Truth is simplicity and beauty. The deepest truth is often the simplest. Beauty is the unity of simplicity and depth. The holy grail of mathematics is the prime numbers which embodies the beauty of unity of maximum simplicity and maximum depth and mystery. The ultimate law of cration must have the beauth of maximum simplicity and maximum depth. The Principle of Least Action has such characteristics.
By the way, along this line of reason, NDE cannot be a fundamental truth of nature because it is not expressible by numbers.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic