Now the question is whether evolutionary science, or even science generally, does imply that human intelligence is somehow accidental or fortuitous. Most scientifically-oriented thinkers seem to answer the question in the affirmative. And this is where there is a collision between natural science and Western philosophy, in my view. Scientists seem to think that any idea of the pre-destination or inevitability of the emergence of human intelligence is a religious idea. Well - is it?

Now the question is whether evolutionary science, or even science generally, does imply that human intelligence is somehow accidental or fortuitous. Most scientifically-oriented thinkers seem to answer the question in the affirmative. And this is where there is a collision between natural science and Western philosophy, in my view. Scientists seem to think that any idea of the pre-destination or inevitability of the emergence of human intelligence is a religious idea. Well - is it?

Now, I think that this distinction is the proper one.

If evolution were not accidental then it would seem to be related in some sense to mind or idea for this would be the obvious meaning of non-accidental.

It was an accident, and I did not intend to do it. I may have been clumsy, but that does not have anything to do with whether I intended to do it. That is how the word "accident" is used in English. You must have exactly the same concept in Portugal.

All accidents are accidental. That is a tautology.

P.S. I tried to find a way of putting in the word, "Logos", so you would think you understood what I wrote, but I could not find a way of doing it. Sorry.

It was Pythagorean's question:



Now the question is whether evolutionary science, or even science generally, does imply that human intelligence is somehow accidental or fortuitous.

I'm not clear on how you're using the word "accident" here.

If you're using the most common sense of "accident", you seem to be presupposing that there is a being capable of lacking intention, and having mishaps.

What exactly do you mean when you say, "If evolution were not accidental"?

Can we say whether causality is a concept imposed by the human mind?

"Somehow accidental" how? In the sense that human intelligence is not the product of an some intention, I suppose. But not in the sense that human intelligence has no cause. Has any scientist suggested that? You have to distinguish between those two senses of "accidental", and not infer that because someone thinks that human intelligence is not a product of intention, that it is not a product of any cause. That, of course, would be fallacious. It commits the fallacy of equivocation.

Can we say whether causality is a concept imposed by the human mind?

I'm not clear on how you're using the word "accident" here.

If you're using the most common sense of "accident", you seem to be presupposing that there is a being capable of lacking intention, and having mishaps.

What exactly do you mean when you say, "If evolution were not accidental"?

What exactly do you mean when you say, "If evolution were not accidental"?

I imagine he means that evolution has no cause. Why he should think that I cannot say. There are two senses of "accidental". 1. Not intentional 2. Has no cause. He seems to think that if it is accidental in sense 1, it is accidental in sense, 2. But, of course, that is fallacious. It commits the fallacy of equivocation.

'Logic is logic, that's all I can say". Oliver Wendall Holmes.

In what sense would an accidental cause not be a cause? What is so difficult about the term "purely accidental"? If you can't understand the term "purely accidental" then it seems that it is your fault and not mine.

it also turns out from the mathematics of this theory that even the minutest change in some of these constants yields very different universes. In particular the cosmological constant.

This constant was assumed to be zero for many years. Recently however, it has been possible to measure it and it turns out to be a microscopically small number. Zero to the 119th decimal place. ie it varies from zero minutely. BUT in addition to that, latest calculations show that if the CC were not zero at the 119th decimal place, life would not be possible in such a universe. Moreover there seems to be no reason why it couldn't be, and therefore it si postulated that in fact there are far more universes without life than with life. A life holding universe looks incredibly rare under this theory. And the many worlds theory puts forward predictions that other theories do not at present.

However, there is a major problem with the many worlds theory, it postulates that for all but a very rare set of universes, any universe is moving away from the other universes at greater than the speed of light. ie the chances of two universes colliding is vanishingly small. The problem arises in that it would be impossible to test this many world theory without measuring the effects of two colliding universes, and in particular a collision with ours. We can only do science in our universe. So ......... the theory predicts that there is a vanishingly small probabilty that the many worlds theory itself can be fully and crucially tested!

This means that any rival scientific theory that also predicts all measurable behaviour within this universe. but does not propose the existence of other universes, cannot also be tested in its proposal that this universe is unique. This is an intellectual catastrophe for science that is waiting to happen.

The anthropomorthic principle is such a rival theory. This means that the special design or not of this universe very probably is not testable by science. ie we can only choose to believe one or the other ........ and science cannot challenge either belief.

In what sense would an accidental cause not be a cause? What is so difficult about the term "purely accidental"? If you can't understand the term "purely accidental" then it seems that it is your fault and not mine.

But why this is regarded as a scientific argument is completely beyond me.

jeeprs
On the other side, it appears that the only philosophical rebuttal is the 'many universes' theory, the idea that 'this' universe is only one among a possible infinite series of universes, nearly all of which are not suitable for life of any kind.

But why this is regarded as a scientific argument is completely beyond me.

If our senses aren't complete, and our measuring apparatus isn't complete then where does that leave us? It leaves us with yet another loss in various meanings of the word objective .... that is quite clearly unravelling at the seams.

If the word objective unravels, what possible use is the phrase 'objective reality'? What does it mean to the person who uses it, who also understands its historical arc? Does it not necessarily mean a kind of metaphysical faith under such circumstances?