Who drives Evolution?

A foundational reasoning flaw exists in assigning the attribute of "randomness" to the mechanics of the universe we observe and experience. Our universe is not "random" by any measure - even to think of incorporating "random" in absolute sense into the concept of "measure" entails an irresolvable conundrum, a functional oxymoron. Our universe, as we observe and experience it, is the natural result - as so are we - of the chaos from which it and the laws which govern it emerged; chaos is a very different thing from "random".

Not "Who", but "What" drives evolution, and the "What" is chaos. That which - given appropriate circumstances - is condusive to order progresses inevitably toward increasing order, that and nothing more, less, or else. The fact we are here to observe and experience our universe as we do confirms circumstances condusive to our evolution exist within the universe we observe and experience.

Its simple physics and chemistry which make us - and all we observe and experience - as we observe and experience ourselves and all else to be.

Timber

You are of course right. "What" drives evolution. I said who just to make the bus-analogy work.

Cyracuz
where is it reasonable to draw the line between one wave and the next? It is easy to spot the next Tsunami when it appears. Waves are distinct at their peeks but similar in the sense that they are made of the same body of water. We all can be connected at essence but are distinct in manifestation. Hence any one approach (dualism or non-dualism) seems like unnecessary approximation.

And if science/evolution deals more with the manifestation (than the intangible/immeasurable connection) then it is more so important to not undermine the influence of a dominant species on its environment. That is also the argument for our being mindful of the environment.

Yes, it is easy to spot a tsunami. But it didn't occur all by itself. Something made it happen.

And since our domination, as you put it, has been enabled by the environment we evolved out of, we could say that we're not doing anything else than performing our function, whatever that may be.

There is really no domination. We can do what we chose to do, but if we make it so that the environment can no longer sustain us we are in big trouble. So there is a relationship, and we need to respect that in order to continue our existence. We cannot do what we want regardless of our surroundings. No matter how much we learn and control our environment, we are forever subjected to the rule of causality.

Cyracuz,
So lets so if I understand the rules of the game. I provide detailed information based on ideas of the best minds in the subject rigorously tested by other experts and determined sound. Their applications so obvious and ubiquitous in everyday life that we wouldn't even have computers and networks if they were wrong. And then you make a pronouncement based on your opinion. And your response would be viewed by you as either an equal or superior response than mine. Is that pretty much how the game is played?

Why don't you expand your horizons and try a new game. You just take a good long look into the following:

Recent Perspectives in Random Matrix Theory and Number Theory (London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series) by F. Mezzadri and N. C. Snaith

Uniform Random Numbers: Theory and Practice (The International Series in Engineering and Computer Science)

Number Theory in Science and Communication: With Applications in Cryptography, Physics, Digital Information, Computing, and Self-Similarity (Springer Series in Information Sciences) by M.R. Schroeder

Random Number Generation and Monte Carlo Methods (Statistics and Computing) by James E. Gentle

Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applications (Universitext) by Bernt Oksendal

Introduction to Stochastic Processes by Paul Gerhard Hoel, Sidney C. Port, and Charles J. Stone

It's the same thing that my responses to you would have been but infinitely more organized and better explained. Then you just point out any little SPECIFIC issues that you see in the formalism. Then if you would be so good as to show where the axioms are incorrect, there is logical inconsistency, and/or the math was in error. I could then better determine what exactly where you feel the current orthodoxy is in error. I feel I would then be much better prepared to discuss the "scientific" response to your own inestimable opinion and such statements as:
"Random process. This statement bears witness of human pride."

How about it spaceman, give it a go?

I do not question your information, just it's application in this context.


Philosophically speaking, I don't see how it is possible that a natural balance could be upheld if any aspects of it were random. Nothing within this universe is exempt from the workings of causality. Therefore, there is no such thing as random.


On a personal note, I would advise you to moderate your tone. Just a piece of advise; it can make your dealings with people on this forum a whole lot easier for yourself.

I also think that determinism is probably true, but I also think that determinism cannot be proven. The truth-value of determinism depends on the uniformity of causality, that is it depends on whether or not causality is always true. This would lead back to the problem of induction. How do we know that everything, anywhere, anytime is causal?

Ray
We cammot know that. But we can know that everything we percieve, everywhere, everytime is subjected to causality.

No we can't know that everything is subjected to causality. It might seem intuitive and you can assume it based on your limited knowledge. You can't prove it or disprove it.

We can assume that you can accelerate past the speed of light based on the the simple principles of acceleration. But then we get to relativity which changes everything from our simple perceptions. There is no way to know if the same exists with causality. If we assume all actions are caused by something we are left with the question of what caused the first action. It is a question that can't be answered and disproves your causality theory.

That is a notion brought on by human perception, and of course, so is causality. So in a way I agree that causality is false. But when we are speaking along the lines of dualism, it becomes a way to relate to the fact that everything changes.
In absolute reality there is only one action. Human perception leads us to conclude that there is a chain of actions, but that is only true from our subjective point of view.

Existence is indivisible. It is only understanding that can be fractured and divided into this and that, then and now.

Parodos wrote

"It is a question that can't be answered and disproves your causality theory."

My understanding of Causality Theory is that the question will be answered one day, it may take some time but you'll have to be a bit patient.

Have a nice cup of tea.

Are you suggesting that there might come a point where a chain of events stops building on the last link? From a philosophical standpoint I'd say that such a thing is impossible, unless of course, you believe in a god that can intervene. But even then the action would be caused by something; the intervention.

An interesting idea Cyracuz, it leads to a circular concept of causality. The universe is the result of the first act in the universe and the last act must cause the first act of the universe.

Here's one for you Cyracuz. We know that a single outcome can have more than one cause. What if a single cause can have more than one outcome and there is no way to predict which outcome will result?

Can one single outcome have more than one cause?

I agree that a certain points in the chain of events many "outcomes" may appear similar even though what caused them were vastly different circumstances. But are you saying that if we were to resume the chain of events, that these two "outcomes" would change equally?

I suspect that the scenario you suggest is a case of unknown variables. But if you have any examples to clarify you proposition I am interested in hearing them.

I don't think I'm being stubborn you see. If anything, I'm just dense..

Interesting discussion, cyracuz.

There is much to talk about if you discuss "causality" and "randomness" as abstract concepts. Evolutionary biologists, however, are more specific in how they use these terms. There is randomness in mutations but not in which mutations are passed on to future generations. A mutation that helps an organism survive is more likely to be passed on.

Evolution also takes place within ecosystems. There can be specific natural explanations of why evolution occurs in a certain way. The study of ecosystems, of course, is ongoing and new information is being discovered everyday.

My problem is that randomness implies chaos. How can chaos and symmetry coexist side by side without one negating the other?

Can symmetry emerge out of chaos?

If so, then wasn't it always symmetry, no matter how chaotic it appeared to us observers?

You placed your question in the philosophy forum for a reason, cyracuz.

Speaking for myself only, I get lost when trying to discuss philosophy.

Bertrand Russell once wrote that metaphysics deals with questions that have not yet been answered by science.

Your problem, Cyracuz, seems to be that your notions of chaos, symmetry and randomness are tangled up and stuck in 18th Century Newtonian Deterministics. It would appear your concept of "Chaos" is at odds with current thinking on the issue in physics and mathematics. As Einstein expanded and clarified Newton, so have Poincaré and Lorenz expanded and clarified Newton.

See: CHAOS and Chaos and Fractals: A Search for Order

See Also: 2006 "BREAKTHROUGH OF THE YEAR": The Poincaré Conjecture--Proved

timber

It seems you are right. Seems I have to update my software

Ginnungagap.

I've alwsy assumed chaos meant disorder. I see that it doesn't. Seems I have some reading to do...


wandel

I can understand that. Philosophy isn't easy to discuss. So many opinions and references to old thinkers. More than once I've lost my original position in a debate because of the assault of information, ending with me just feeling confused. But then I emerge out of confusion with a clearer head and hopefully a few assumptions left behind.

ah, but it's not the order that appears chaotic, it's the chaos that appears ordered. the human mind always likes to see order in things even if there is none. that's why we catagorise animals, materials, ways of life. our mind puts everything into a catagory so that our surroundings appear ordered and easier to comprehend.