Hi Platt and all,
I seem to have selfishly dragged this discussion over to something that
I've become rather obsessed with. The question of cause vs. tendency has
come to dominate my scientific outlook and my outlook on life in
general, and I've devoted many, many hours of thought to it. I have
Robert M. Pirsig to thank for starting me on this journey. If the MoQ
conference ever comes about, this is the subject I would like to speak
about. Maybe one day I'll even set things out as a book!!
Meanwhile, I am flattered that Platt is interested enough to pursue the
issue. It now appears that I have been partly successful and partly
unsuccessful in explaining things. I hope that I can improve on this.
JONATHAN (previosuly):
This may all be red herring and tautology. If it is in the nature of a
meme or any other pattern to perpetuate, then it tends to
perpetuate. . . .
PLATT:
The question remains, "Why does a pattern have a tendency to
perpetuate?" . . .
Platt, you are asking that question about patterns that have already
"perpetuated". Patterns that don't perpetuate don't stay around to have
that question asked about them.
PLATT:
<<<As you pointed out in your "The End of Causality" essay, you can
view "cause" objectively or subjectively. In the objective sense,
cause means "the driving force behind some process of change."
Viewed subjectively, cause indicates "an aspiration or a quest
towards which people may work." You summed up, "Causality in
science relates to the objective definition."
Unless I misunderstand, the objective view describes how
science looks for mechanisms (driving forces) to explain
phenomena. If it can't find a mechanism, it ignores the question.>>>
Sometimes we suddenly find we don't need a new mechanism - the
phenomenon is something that derives naturally from other phenomena we
already "know". Aristotle assumed that a force was necessary to keep an
arrow flying forward, but he couldn't really identify or explain that
force. Newton said that no such force was necessary - the arrow would
keep moving forward at constant velocity in the ABSENCE of any force.
Newton's view is simpler and more elegant. Thus, by the rule of Occam's
Razor, Newton's mechanics is preferred over Aristotle's.
IMO, the same applies to Darwnian evolution. From everything I know
about physics and chemistry, I believe that evolution along Darwinian
lines is an inevitable consequence. We don't need any new rules or
mechanisms to explain evolution. To put it even more strongly, I
consider that a scientists who rejects evolution is obliged to come up
with a new physics and a new chemistry that do *not* lead to inevitable
evolution.
PIRSIG:
The reality science explains is that "reality" which follows
mechanisms and programs. That other worthless stuff which
doesn't follow mechanisms and programs we don't pay any
attention to. See how this works? A thing doesn't exist because we
have never observed it. The reason we have never observed it is
because we have never looked for it. And the reason we have
never looked for it is that it is unimportant, it has no value and we
have other better things to do. (Lila, Chap. 11)
---Actually, Pirsig here is giving us a pretty good description of his "TOUGH" category. The things that don't follow mechanisms are interesting curiosities. It's all the repetitions of known stuff that ends up on the trash heap. Researchers tend to seek out the curiosities to work on - that's how we find new patterns.
JONATHAN: ...evolution AWAY vs. evolution TOWARDS is essentially Darwin vs. Lemarck.
PLATT: I think the MOQ encompasses both views--AWAY from mechanisms TOWARDS freedom, i.e., greater awareness. ...
It rather depends on where you stand;-) I might add (for what seems like the upteenth time) that the trend towards more (degrees of) freedom is a statement of the second law of thermodynamics.
PIRSIG: Good! The "undefined fittest" they are defending is identical to Dynamic Quality. Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work. There is no quarrel whatsoever between the Metaphysics of Quality and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Neither is there a quarrel between the Metaphysics of Quality and the "teleological" theories which insist that life has some purpose. What the Metaphysics of Quality has done is unite these opposed doctrines within a larger metaphysical structure that accommodates both of them without contradiction. (Lila, Chap. 11) ---
I agree with Pirsig, but don't think that he has done enough to test his conclusion. He seems to have left that to us. Thus Platt, I very much appreciate your side of the discussion - we are now getting down to the bedrock of the issue.
PLATT: I agree that most scientists such as yourself have better things to do than ponder unprovable (in a scientific sense) "why" questions. But, even among scientists there seems to be two schools of thought on this. ...
I know [Jonathan is] serious in questioning my questions (though I hope not too deadly :-). Your position is solid among the scientific community and I respect that. Still, there are few dissenters to your stance, among them Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal. In an article in the current issue of "Discover" (available on www.discover.com), Rees points to the improbability of life in the universe because each of six numbers underlying the physical properties of the universe had to be precisely what they are, an improbability described as "the possibility of a Boeing 747 aircraft being completely assembled as a results of a tornado striking a junkyard." But here's what's most relevant to our discussion: ----
I'm not going to read up on Rees, because I have seen similar arguments by other eminent scientists, and I consider them highly fallacious. They ignore the fact that we are not external observers to the universe we are observing. Essentially, the question is "why are we here?" and the answer is that we are always "here". That is the definition of "here". Rees is looking at a dice that came up three and asking why it came up three and not six. The universe we know evolved as a single dice throw. There may be an infinity of other ways that the dice could have rolled, but no reason whatsoever to assume that any particular alternative is more likely than the world we ended up with.
PLATT quoted: The simplest is the so-called brute fact argument. "A person can just say: 'That's the way the numbers are. If they were not that way, we would not be here to wonder about it,' " says Rees. "Many scientists are satisfied with that." ...
PLATT: Am I correct that such "brute fact" arguments reflect your approach to "why" questions?
I suppose you are correct (though isn't Rees's "brute fact" argument just defamatory name for empiricism?). Us brutes wave Occams Razor at people like Rees. They are the ones who want to add extra mechanisms where the brutes think none are necessary, and it is up to Rees and his ilk to provide them.
>From the same article, PLATT quotes: Rees objects, drawing from an analogy given by philosopher John Leslie. "Suppose you are in front of a firing squad, and they all miss. You could say, 'Well, if they hadn't all missed, I wouldn't be here to worry about it.' But it is still something surprising, something that can't be easily explained. I think there is something there that needs explaining." PLATT: It's no mystery that I side with Rees and Leslie. I'll leave it up to the readers to decide where Pirsig stands. ---
Leslie at first looks like another brute saying roughly what I say, but he then spoils it. His example forgets that mankind has experience of (too) many firing squads and knows the usual results. OTOH, we have experience of only one universe!
PLATT Since I see no grounds on which to settle our opposing views, Jonathan, I guess we will, as the cliche goes, "agree to disagree." ---
Agreement is for gentlemen, not brutes! Platt, I thank you for one of the best discussions ever. I'd like somehow to progress beyond our gentlemanly agreement, though personally I'm ready for a time out (et tu Brute?).
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:48 BST