• Rich
    2.1k
    Survival of the Fittest model.MikeL

    The feeling of wanting to survive is a trait of life, not of a soup of chemicals. Survival works against entropy. Materialists have no explanation of how such a trait magically, miraculously springs from some soup of chemicals, in such a way that the chemicals start fighting among each other for survival. They hope that no one notices how outlandish is this story (which is why the indoctrination begins at a very young age, when children cannot question), and if someone should notice, the answer is "It's very complicated and it takes a long time". Is such an answer and more scientific than God did it? There is literally zero evidence for any of this.

    A more concrete answer it's that the mind, life, works against entropy in order to create. When one thinks about it, the metaphorical description in the Bible is probably a better description of life and far less miraculous in nature than the story that Evolutionists concocted, i.e. the famous "selfish gene".
  • MikeL
    638
    A more concrete answer it's that the mind, life, works against entropy in order to create.Rich

    There's could be a problem of restraint here Rich. Creativity by definition is working against rigidity - against restraint, and yet you've defined it as a restraint on entropy. However without restraint it is entropic in nature.

    Even talking with Apokrisis yesterday, I needed to invoke a restraint on the DNA and have only sections of high recombination for it to work. Otherwise we end up with a puddle of goo, which is entropic.
  • BlueBanana
    366
    Quite the opposite, I'd say: irreductionist is only describing the situation by generalizations and taking a look at the bigger picture. The reductionist is the one explaining. This is all assuming the reductionist is correct of course, in that there's no supernatural force affecting the situation.
  • Mariner
    200
    Quite the opposite, I'd say: irreductionist is only describing the situation by generalizations and taking a look at the bigger picture. The reductionist is the one explaining. This is all assuming the reductionist is correct of course, in that there's no supernatural force affecting the situation.BlueBanana

    According to your interpretation, none of them is explaining anything. A full description of all the details involved in an event is not an explanation. "Explain the murder to me, please" cannot be answered by, "well, when he pulled the trigger, it started this specific chemical reaction in the gunpowder and then some gases expanded quickly, pushing the bullet...."
  • StreetlightX
    1.4k
    And of course we don't need 'mind' and 'life' to work against entropy because entropy already works against itself (in the form of mind and life, among other things) - the production of local negentropy accelerating and advancing the production of global entropy.
  • Rich
    2.1k
    There's could be a problem of restraint here Rich. Creativity by definition is working against rigidity - against restraint, and yet you've defined it as a restraint on entropy. However without restraint it is entropic in nature.MikeL

    Choice is constrained. Life is self-organizing.
  • MikeL
    638
    It's a bit of a prickly paradox. It needs the order to allow the disorder. It can't be All Creative. It is the order part of the creative 'package' that is resisting entropy.
  • Rich
    2.1k
    Yes, this is an interesting aspect. Bergson writes that the disorder (decay) is the waste of life. In other words spent Elan vital.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.