-1- wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:05 pm
I believe that some parts of the biological world (temporal world? You are assuming too much) is hierarchical, and some parts of it are not. Socially arranged animals live mostly in hierarchical societies, but not all animals. Mollusks, amoeba, trees, shrubs, skunks, and tigers don't live and operate in a social setting, so they are not hierarchical.
Furthermore, some animals that live and hunt together, or make a living together, don't form socially hierarchical societies. Pigeons don't, wading birds don't, fish which swim together in HUGE numbers in unison don't form hierarchies; sharks don't, etc. etc. So you can't see this as a pervasive quality of the "temporal" world.
- 1 -
If you don't mind, "Number One", I'll, respond (here) to your recent reply to my post by dealing first with your beliefs( above) respecting the presence of hierarchical organisation in the biological world, and then , with you view that of a divine Providence (i.e; the Biblical God) does not exist and, moreover, could hardly be argued to exist using the notion of universal hierarchy.
First of all, the relevant mainstream bioscience typically refers to living organisms like the: molluscs; amoeba; trees; schrubs; and tigers you mention as "biological systems". Likewise, rose bushes, bacteria, earth worms, fungi, insects, parasites (like hook worms) dachshund dogs; goldfish; birds and reptiles like snakes are also "biological systems." And I'm sorry to tell you that there is empirical evidence published in the reputable , mainstream scientific literature which supports the conclusion that "the hierarchical organisation of all the Earth's "biological systems" is an innate property of nature." (cf:
Bioengineered. 2014 , Mar 1; 5(2):73-79. This is an eminently accessible paper for the non-expert).
OK, so now lets deal with the abiotic phenomena/physical objects you refer to. You say that:
"...atoms are nor organised in human type organisations; nor is the weather, gravity, nanodilators in maximum flow of large molecules suspended in aqueous solution, etc; not even wardrobe chests or pebbles on the beach."
All of these, any many other abiotic entities are all components of the universe, right "Number One"? (Because the universe, or cosmos, is, by definition, all that exists. So, briefly, the universe does exhibit an hierarchical structure. The large - scale structure of the universe is hierarchical bin that it is comprised of "voids" and "filaments", and these can be progressively broken down into:"superclusters"; "clusters"; "galaxy groups; and then into galaxies. At a relatively smaller scale, galaxies are known to be made up of stars and their constituents, our own solar system being one of them. It is by understanding ther ordered, hierarchical structure of things, that we are able to gain a clearer visualisation of the roles each individual component plays and how they fit into the larger picture. For instance, if we go down to the world of the very small we know, for instance, that water molecules in an aqueous solution can be chopped down into atoms (of hydrogen and oxygen), then these atom can be broken down into the neutron, proton and electrons that they are composed of. Then these neutrons, protons and electrons can be split into the smaller entities, like quarks that make them up, and so on.
Before I conclude, I'd like to deal a couple of technical issues regarding hierarchies, one is taxonomic, the other definitional. So here we go...(1) It's important to bear in mind that hierarchies can be classified into different types based on various criteria. For example, in terms of their contents and dimensions, we may have spatial vs non - spatial hierarchies, structural vs functional hierarchies, living vs non - living hierarchies, as well as political,moral, aesthetic, social, religious, economic and physical hierarchies. (2) How should we define the term "hierarchy?" I thought that consulting a reputable modern dictionary would probably be the best way to find out, so I consult the "Merriam - Webster" on-line dictionary and here is what it said...the term hierarchy is defined as:
(A) a division of Angels; (Bi) a ruling body of clergy organised into orders or ranks each subordinate to the one above it; especially: the bishops of a province or nation; (Bii) church government by a hierarchy; (C) a body of persons in authority; (D) the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic or professional standing; (E) a graded or ranked series< a hierarchy of values >
Not how these definitions indicate that hierarchy originated in a religious context, and that its connotations are mostly human - centred, with a marked sense of authority/competence/dominance/ power ( of some type or another. None of the definitions adequately captures the breadth of the modern- day term. The later, which I have used a number of times in this post, is a rather "mechanistic" defintion of hierarchy that describes it a system that is structured in layers or levels that have asymmetric relations. For example, I said (above) that all living organisms are referred to by bioscientists as "biological systems", and "biological systems" are accepted as being innately hierarchic in nature. I'll try to explain what "hierarchical connotes in this context as follows...
To begin with, all "biological systems" (i.e; living organisms are formed by subsystems of various orders and are parts of suprasystems of a higher order. The hierarchy of a given "biological system" is formed, in turn, by subsystems of various orders depending on the physical state of the specific system. For instance, the system called "human being" is constituted by first order subsystems such as the: endocrine:; the nerve; the circulatory; the respiratory; the digestive; the renal excretory; the thermal dissipater; the sensorial; the motor, etc. These subsystems are, in turn, formed by second order subsystems: organ and tissues, which, in turn, are formed by third order subsystems: cells. Cells, in turn, are formed by fourth order subsystems, organelles. This also works the other way around: systems form suprasystems of first (families), second (societies) and then higher orders. Obviously, if one decides to study a particular ecological system, the individuals would be subsystems of a given order of the original system. Independent of the chosen hierarchy, the fundamental subsystem is the nucleosome (formed by a DNA segment associated to a protein nucleus) and the higher suprasystem found all the way to Gaia, the set of all living organisms. So, to illustrate...If we consider a human being as our base system, represented by S[0], some of the subsystems can be:
* the nervous system S {-1}
*the brain S {-2}
*the neurons S {-3}
* the nucleosome S {-4}
Whereas some of the suprasystems are:
* the family S {+1}
* the society S {+2}
* the species S {+3}
* GAIA S {+4}
If we represent with
< the set inclusion (namely all the elements of the left set are part of the right hand one), then we can write the following hierarchy relation, which establishes the order of the "biological system"...
S {-4}
< S {-3}
< S {-2]
< S {-1}
< S {0}
< S {+1}
< S {+2}
< S {+3}
< S { +4}
To conclude. With respect to justifying why I think that the concept of hierarchy can be used to provide a compelling argument for the existence of divine Providence (the Biblical God, (which will be business of my next post) I will chiefly be focusing on the notions on human political, moral and aesthetic hierarchies, and authority/ dominance/power, though I will also be focusing, where appropriate, on how the physical/mechanical type of hierarchy I have just described plays a key role in my argument as well.
Kindest Regards
Dachshund
