Design vs Evolution, is there a solution?

[owl of Minerva]

In 1802 William Paley in his book ‘Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity’ used the watchmaker analogy as evidence of a designer. For Hume, who had died 26 years prior, existence of an intelligent designer would require explanation, every bit as much as the existence of the world and unlike the watch there were no witnesses. His argument focuses on sense experience as opposed to internal logic and rationality. For Richard Dawkins in 1986 the watchmaker was blind and his design was unconscious and automatic, without foresight or purpose. Pilo 220 B.C. had raised the problem of animal and human suffering allowed by an infinite power when only what it wills is executed.

The conflict lies between that which can be comprehended by sense experience, or by internal logic and rationality, and what is beyond the province of either. Between finite intelligence and infinite intelligence, if it exists, there is a gap that some claim can be bridged. The Rishis; sages, who when enlightened, supposedly realized supreme truth and eternal knowledge and is thought to have consequently made it out of the plane of TIME, thus achieving what Gilgamesh did not; immortality. Human intelligence used pi to calculate the duration of the universe based on its multiples. Short of immortality a lot can be achieved by humans.

The Sumerians were advanced enough to have composed the Gilgamesh Epic in the 2nd millennium B.C. which is interpreted as just a story; a myth. If it is a parable, then the wild man, the snake and all involved were intended to be aspects of Gilgamesh’s own psyche. Although his psychic evolution redeemed, humanized him, it fell short of his desire for immortality.

The watch has evolved since 1802 from mechanical to A.I. with the ability to change automatically in sync with different time zones. It may, or it may not, have reached the apex of watch evolution. Even A.I. evolves.

If like Gilgamesh humans evolve to uniting animal, human and god they may find redemption if not immortality. If as the Rishis they become enlightened they could, unlike Gilgamesh, achieve immortality and the Design versus Evolution argument would be a non-issue. Other than that resolution it is likely to continue.

[RCSaunders]

The conflict lies between that which can be comprehended by sense experience, or by internal logic and rationality, and what is beyond the province of either.

If the faculties of consciousness and rationality are unable to be aware of anything more, what faculty suggests there is anything more than consciousness and reason are able to be aware of and understand. There is absolutely no reason to suppose there is anything that is beyond them.

[owl of Minerva]

The conflict lies between that which can be comprehended by sense experience, or by internal logic and rationality, and what is beyond the province of either.

If the faculties of consciousness and rationality are unable to be aware of anything more, what faculty suggests there is anything more than consciousness and reason are able to be aware of and understand. There is absolutely no reason to suppose there is anything that is beyond them.

Infinity, other than as a concept, is beyond the limitations of sensory perception and reason; of rational thought. In the Gilgamesh epic there was an expansion of intelligence and empathy from that of the prior state. Which indicates that an expansion of consciousness beyond prior states or limits is possible. Little is known about consciousness and what, if any, its limits are. As expansion is possible, to what extent is it possible; if there is a limit.

[RCSaunders]

Infinity, other than as a concept, is beyond the limitations of sensory perception and reason; of rational thought.

A concept is either meaningless (and therefore just an empty symbol) or has cogent referent, something one can actually identify. Infinity identifies all those cases in which a measurement has no limit. It is not a, "thing," or, "entity," and does not exist independently of human reason.

Sans human reason, there is no such thing as infinity. "Infinity," only exists as a concept and only in individual human minds.

[owl of Minerva]

Infinity, other than as a concept, is beyond the limitations of sensory perception and reason; of rational thought.

A concept is either meaningless (and therefore just an empty symbol) or has cogent referent, something one can actually identify. Infinity identifies all those cases in which a measurement has no limit. It is not a, "thing," or, "entity," and does not exist independently of human reason.

Sans human reason, there is no such thing as infinity. "Infinity," only exists as a concept and only in individual human minds.

In a dual system we cannot say that only part of the equation is valid; the rational is valid, the non-rational; what is currently not accessible or comprehensible to human reason, is not. If what is valid is determined by human reason; a function of the mind, reality is limited to what human reason determines it to be.

Infinity has been a topic for both philosophy and mathematics. Aristotle defined it in all its aspects. In mathematics it is approached as infinities within the system; infinite sets and other concepts. They are not dismissive of what is not easily accessible to reason. Pi is a non-rational number and its importance is not undervalued. George Cantor discovered infinite sets and introduced the concept of transfinite numbers, working with irrational numbers. Irrationals are uncountable, integers are and must be conceived as finite.

Per Aristotle if motion does not end it cannot be finite, it is a potential infinite. When motion does end only the finite ends, as when the waves dissolve in the sea and their motion ceases the sea is unchanged, not affected by their motion or by the absence of their motion. That would be a way to think of infinity, as the absence of motion; not requiring motion for its existence.

[RCSaunders]

Per Aristotle if motion does not end it cannot be finite, it is a potential infinite. When motion does end only the finite ends, as when the waves dissolve in the sea and their motion ceases the sea is unchanged, not affected by their motion or by the absence of their motion. That would be a way to think of infinity, as the absence of motion; not requiring motion for its existence.

No motion is infinite. Motion is not an entity and does not exist independently as an existent. Only entities have independent existence. Everything else, attributes of entities, all events (the behavior of entities) and all relationships (between entities) only exist as the attributes of, behavior of, and relationships between entities and do not otherwise exist at all independent of entities. Motion only exists as the behavior of entities. No entity endures forever, therefore there can be no infinite motion. Any motion ends whenever the moving entity ceases to exist.

Of course, every motion ends (or changes into a different one) whenever there is acceleration. Acceleration is, "change in motion," either it's velocity or it's direction. Nothing can move in the same direction at the same rate perpetually.

You and Aristotle share that ignorance of physics.

[Impenitent]

to say nothing of the necessity of the observer...

-Imp

[Age]

The conflict lies between that which can be comprehended by sense experience, or by internal logic and rationality, and what is beyond the province of either.

If the faculties of consciousness and rationality are unable to be aware of anything more, what faculty suggests there is anything more than consciousness and reason are able to be aware of and understand. There is absolutely no reason to suppose there is anything that is beyond them.

Infinity, other than as a concept, is beyond the limitations of sensory perception and reason; of rational thought. In the Gilgamesh epic there was an expansion of intelligence and empathy from that of the prior state. Which indicates that an expansion of consciousness beyond prior states or limits is possible. Little is known about consciousness and what, if any, its limits are. As expansion is possible, to what extent is it possible; if there is a limit.

Why assume that there is a limit?

Could it be assuming itself, which is what is creating a limit to what is actually possible?

[Age]

Infinity, other than as a concept, is beyond the limitations of sensory perception and reason; of rational thought.

A concept is either meaningless (and therefore just an empty symbol) or has cogent referent, something one can actually identify. Infinity identifies all those cases in which a measurement has no limit. It is not a, "thing," or, "entity," and does not exist independently of human reason.

Just like 'time'.

Sans human reason, there is no such thing as infinity. "Infinity," only exists as a concept and only in individual human minds.

And, just like 'time' and 'infinity' the 'human mind' is not a 'thing', nor 'entity', and does not exist independently of human reason.

[Eodnhoj7]

In 1802 William Paley in his book ‘Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity’ used the watchmaker analogy as evidence of a designer. For Hume, who had died 26 years prior, existence of an intelligent designer would require explanation, every bit as much as the existence of the world and unlike the watch there were no witnesses. His argument focuses on sense experience as opposed to internal logic and rationality. For Richard Dawkins in 1986 the watchmaker was blind and his design was unconscious and automatic, without foresight or purpose. Pilo 220 B.C. had raised the problem of animal and human suffering allowed by an infinite power when only what it wills is executed.

The conflict lies between that which can be comprehended by sense experience, or by internal logic and rationality, and what is beyond the province of either. Between finite intelligence and infinite intelligence, if it exists, there is a gap that some claim can be bridged. The Rishis; sages, who when enlightened, supposedly realized supreme truth and eternal knowledge and is thought to have consequently made it out of the plane of TIME, thus achieving what Gilgamesh did not; immortality. Human intelligence used pi to calculate the duration of the universe based on its multiples. Short of immortality a lot can be achieved by humans.

The Sumerians were advanced enough to have composed the Gilgamesh Epic in the 2nd millennium B.C. which is interpreted as just a story; a myth. If it is a parable, then the wild man, the snake and all involved were intended to be aspects of Gilgamesh’s own psyche. Although his psychic evolution redeemed, humanized him, it fell short of his desire for immortality.

The watch has evolved since 1802 from mechanical to A.I. with the ability to change automatically in sync with different time zones. It may, or it may not, have reached the apex of watch evolution. Even A.I. evolves.

If like Gilgamesh humans evolve to uniting animal, human and god they may find redemption if not immortality. If as the Rishis they become enlightened they could, unlike Gilgamesh, achieve immortality and the Design versus Evolution argument would be a non-issue. Other than that resolution it is likely to continue.

Evolution is design as evolution is the reformulation of x within a new form; the reformulation of x is the same thing as design.

[Age]

Infinity, other than as a concept, is beyond the limitations of sensory perception and reason; of rational thought.

A concept is either meaningless (and therefore just an empty symbol) or has cogent referent, something one can actually identify. Infinity identifies all those cases in which a measurement has no limit. It is not a, "thing," or, "entity," and does not exist independently of human reason.

Sans human reason, there is no such thing as infinity. "Infinity," only exists as a concept and only in individual human minds.

In a dual system we cannot say that only part of the equation is valid; the rational is valid, the non-rational; what is currently not accessible or comprehensible to human reason, is not. If what is valid is determined by human reason; a function of the mind, reality is limited to what human reason determines it to be.

Infinity has been a topic for both philosophy and mathematics. Aristotle defined it in all its aspects. In mathematics it is approached as infinities within the system; infinite sets and other concepts. They are not dismissive of what is not easily accessible to reason. Pi is a non-rational number and its importance is not undervalued. George Cantor discovered infinite sets and introduced the concept of transfinite numbers, working with irrational numbers. Irrationals are uncountable, integers are and must be conceived as finite.

Per Aristotle if motion does not end it cannot be finite, it is a potential infinite. When motion does end only the finite ends, as when the waves dissolve in the sea and their motion ceases the sea is unchanged, not affected by their motion or by the absence of their motion. That would be a way to think of infinity, as the absence of motion; not requiring motion for its existence.

You write: "Design vs Evolution, is there a solution?

But, if you really want to find if there is A 'solution', then you just have to propose THE 'problem', first.

See, there is NO 'problem' at all in just saying; "Design vs Evolution".


In fact, there is NO actual case of 'one' OR 'the other', as BOTH exist.

[Age]

Per Aristotle if motion does not end it cannot be finite, it is a potential infinite. When motion does end only the finite ends, as when the waves dissolve in the sea and their motion ceases the sea is unchanged, not affected by their motion or by the absence of their motion. That would be a way to think of infinity, as the absence of motion; not requiring motion for its existence.

No motion is infinite. Motion is not an entity and does not exist independently as an existent. Only entities have independent existence. Everything else, attributes of entities, all events (the behavior of entities) and all relationships (between entities) only exist as the attributes of, behavior of, and relationships between entities and do not otherwise exist at all independent of entities. Motion only exists as the behavior of entities. No entity endures forever, therefore there can be no infinite motion.

To you, is the Universe, Itself, an entity?

If no, then why not?

Any motion ends whenever the moving entity ceases to exist.

If the Universe, Itself, is an entity, to you, then could this Entity always exist?

If no, then why not?

Of course, every motion ends (or changes into a different one) whenever there is acceleration. Acceleration is, "change in motion," either it's velocity or it's direction. Nothing can move in the same direction at the same rate perpetually.

That all depends.

You and Aristotle share that ignorance of physics.

Could it actually be the case that it is 'you' who could be ignorant here?

[RCSaunders]

Of course, every motion ends (or changes into a different one) whenever there is acceleration. Acceleration is, "change in motion," either it's velocity or it's direction. Nothing can move in the same direction at the same rate perpetually.

That all depends.

You and Aristotle share that ignorance of physics.

Could it actually be the case that it is 'you' who could be ignorant here?

No. The reason Aristotle was ignorant is because he thought reason alone, without evidence, could sometimes establish what is true. That's why he thought something had to force something to continue to move (he didn't understand momentum) and why he thought Mrs. Aristotle had fewer teeth then he did (because he didn't bother to ask Mrs. Aristotle to open her mouth so he could count her teeth.) You make the same mistake when you say there is anything that is infinite. Correctly understood, the word, "infinite," only pertains to what can be known about something, not to the something itself. A thing is called infinite when some limit or dimension about something cannot be known. The thing itself cannnot have the attribute, "infinite."

[owl of Minerva]

Per Aristotle if motion does not end it cannot be finite, it is a potential infinite. When motion does end only the finite ends, as when the waves dissolve in the sea and their motion ceases the sea is unchanged, not affected by their motion or by the absence of their motion. That would be a way to think of infinity, as the absence of motion; not requiring motion for its existence.

No motion is infinite. Motion is not an entity and does not exist independently as an existent. Only entities have independent existence. Everything else, attributes of entities, all events (the behavior of entities) and all relationships (between entities) only exist as the attributes of, behavior of, and relationships between entities and do not otherwise exist at all independent of entities. Motion only exists as the behavior of entities. No entity endures forever, therefore there can be no infinite motion. Any motion ends whenever the moving entity ceases to exist.

Of course, every motion ends (or changes into a different one) whenever there is acceleration. Acceleration is, "change in motion," either it's velocity or it's direction. Nothing can move in the same direction at the same rate perpetually.

You and Aristotle share that ignorance of physics.

No motion can be infinite as infinite implies the absence of motion. Once there is motion there is time, space, the atom, and entities. We can view an entity in two ways with qualities or without. Anything with qualities comes after events. For there to be an event there would have to be motion. Entities with qualities are finite, coming into existence, lasting for a time, and dissolving. Their motion has nothing to do with motion as an entity as their end is not the end of motion. Otherwise there would be no more entities.

Motion can change, accelerate, slow down according to the forces acting upon it. Force and motion are fundamental to all matter with force affecting the state of motion. Preceding is sound and vibrational motion of waves, underlying it is energy which is conserved.

[owl of Minerva]

If the faculties of consciousness and rationality are unable to be aware of anything more, what faculty suggests there is anything more than consciousness and reason are able to be aware of and understand. There is absolutely no reason to suppose there is anything that is beyond them.

Infinity, other than as a concept, is beyond the limitations of sensory perception and reason; of rational thought. In the Gilgamesh epic there was an expansion of intelligence and empathy from that of the prior state. Which indicates that an expansion of consciousness beyond prior states or limits is possible. Little is known about consciousness and what, if any, its limits are. As expansion is possible, to what extent is it possible; if there is a limit.

Why assume that there is a limit?

Could it be assuming itself, which is what is creating a limit to what is actually possible?

“ As expansion is possible, to what extent is it possible; if there is a limit” was not meant to imply there is a limit. Just expressing what is not known about consciousness at the present time. Consciousness could be infinite, without boundaries, for all we know.