Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Easier b/c it's in line with the global use of the term -> People using the word God (with capital G) are talking about an entity that at the least ordered the primordial chaos to make the universe, though people disagree about the existence of this being's current status.

I'm not. I use a large 'G' simply to distinguish it from the small 'g'. I don't hold any of the attached connotations stated here. My concept is not limited to or hemmed in by human descriptions which tend to outline something rather trivial from my perspective.

When people talk about gods like Athena or Thoth, using the lower case "g", they see them as entities in plural with dominion over different domains (Knowledge, War, Death, etc).

In  my view, the small 'g' variety are for the most part simply deceased human beings, their stories enhanced or embroidered over time, possibly breaking the connection with the actual being in the process.

I'm not. I use a large 'G' simply to distinguish it from the small 'g'. I don't hold any of the attached connotations stated here. My concept is not limited to or hemmed in by human descriptions which tend to outline something rather trivial from my perspective.

Could you say more about your concept?

I’m going to stick my head above the parapet and say it’s all big G God!!! 

Run away, Run away...

Could you say more about your concept?

I'm not sure. It's something which is remarkably hard to describe, not because it is complicated, but only because it somehow feels so natural to me that I rarely attempt to describe it. Perhaps my view is very similar to that which others have expressed, but I do tend to find myself struggling to align myself with any specific tradition. Perhaps I've been caught out too often before (in this life or others) by choosing a view, only to find it inadequate, which leaves me preferring to be vague on the matter. The only thing I can say is what it is not, I resist terms which to me seem to reflect places where I've already been on this journey. Perhaps the best I can say is that I don't feel separate from whatever it is.

Does Darwinism conflict with the foundations, the metaphysics, of mathematics even though Darwinism depends on mathematics for its legitimacy as science?

From https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/:

"Mathematical Platonism: 

Mathematical platonism is any metaphysical account of mathematics that implies mathematical entities exist, that they are abstract, and that they are independent of all our rational activities. For example, a platonist might assert that the number pi exists outside of space and time and has the characteristics it does regardless of any mental or physical activities of human beings. Mathematical platonists are often called "realists," although, strictly speaking, there can be realists who are not platonists because they do not accept the platonist requirement that mathematical entities be abstract.

Mathematical platonism enjoys widespread support and is frequently considered the default metaphysical position with respect to mathematics. This is unsurprising given its extremely natural interpretation of mathematical practice. In particular, mathematical platonism takes at face-value such well known truths as that "there exist" an infinite number of prime numbers, and it provides straightforward explanations of mathematical objectivity and of the differences between mathematical and spatio-temporal entities. Thus arguments for mathematical platonism typically assert that in order for mathematical theories to be true their logical structure must refer to some mathematical entities, that many mathematical theories are indeed objectively true, and that mathematical entities are real but not constituents of the spatio-temporal realm."

The reductive materialism that Darwinian evolution is based on denies the existence of anything beyond the material realm.

Materialism is the view that all existence is matter, that only matter is real, and so that the world is just physical. It simply describes a view on the nature of the universe.

There simply is no place for the immaterial realm of mathematics (that surely exists at least in the view of most mathematicians and many philosophers) to find grounding for its reality in the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought. 

Therefore Darwinism conflicts with not only a mountain of empirical evidence, it also conflicts with the dominant philosophy, the default metaphysics, of mathematics. This is the mathematics that every rigorous theory of science requires verification from (along with experimentation), in order to be considered scientific in the first place. 

To put it another way, Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory actually is falsified by mathematics because Darwinism fundamentally denies the very reality of the one thing it most needs (i.e. mathematics) to be considered to be legitimate science.

Does Darwinism conflict with the foundations, the metaphysics, of mathematics even though Darwinism depends on mathematics for its legitimacy as science?

From https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/:

The reductive materialism that Darwinian evolution is based on denies the existence of anything beyond the material realm.

Materialism is the view that all existence is matter, that only matter is real, and so that the world is just physical. It simply describes a view on the nature of the universe.

There simply is no place for the immaterial realm of mathematics (that surely exists at least in the view of most mathematicians and many philosophers) to find grounding for its reality in the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought. 

Therefore Darwinism conflicts with not only a mountain of empirical evidence, it also conflicts with the dominant philosophy, the default metaphysics, of mathematics. This is the mathematics that every rigorous theory of science requires verification from (along with experimentation), in order to be considered scientific in the first place. 

To put it another way, Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory actually is falsified by mathematics because Darwinism fundamentally denies the very reality of the one thing it most needs (i.e. mathematics) to be considered to be legitimate science.

I'm not sure about this. Platonism with respect to mathematics, is making a very strong assertion about where the mathematical entities are - namely in another realm.

However the Math Forms could be interwoven with our reality, in which case Darwinian Evolution would simply be following the essence or formal cause that helps ground this reality. 

Finally despite being a Platonist re: Math myself, and believing it's one of the most convincing arguments for the God of Philosophers, not really sure it's the default position among mathematicians?

Does Darwinism conflict with the foundations, the metaphysics, of mathematics even though Darwinism depends on mathematics for its legitimacy as science?

From https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/:


The reductive materialism that Darwinian evolution is based on denies the existence of anything beyond the material realm.

Materialism is the view that all existence is matter, that only matter is real, and so that the world is just physical. It simply describes a view on the nature of the universe.

There simply is no place for the immaterial realm of mathematics (that surely exists at least in the view of most mathematicians and many philosophers) to find grounding for its reality in the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought. 

Therefore Darwinism conflicts with not only a mountain of empirical evidence, it also conflicts with the dominant philosophy, the default metaphysics, of mathematics. This is the mathematics that every rigorous theory of science requires verification from (along with experimentation), in order to be considered scientific in the first place. 

To put it another way, Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory actually is falsified by mathematics because Darwinism fundamentally denies the very reality of the one thing it most needs (i.e. mathematics) to be considered to be legitimate science.

Heh. And some folk ask me what I mean by "pseudoprofundity".

Heh. And some folk ask me what I mean by "pseudoprofundity".

There would have been more content if you had posted one of the 69 insult sounds at https://www.soundsnap.com/tags/insult.

Heh. And some folk ask me what I mean by "pseudoprofundity".

Would it have helped if he, in lieu of any model or proof, just talked about the mysteries and magic that might lie within consciousness-less matter?

Re: Mathematical Realism and Darwinism, I think it depends on the question of whether Darwinism has to be materialist.

One might even have a kind of dualism, where there are still extant Platonic entities for mathematics but they end up accessible via the luck of natural selection. Or rather, in a largely ordered universe without evolution-beneficial Psi, it pays to evolve toward grasping of the Mathematical Objects.

Is this ultimately defensible as a thesis? If so, then Mathematical Realism and Darwinism would seem to be compatible?