27 February 2006
Ontological Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics governs matter in the physical realm. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be arranged in more or less useful sequences. Without an external factor, however, these arrangements to progress towards less and less useful forms. However, with an external input of energy, these forms can progress toward more and more useful sequences. An example would be an airplane. On a disaggregated atomic level, there is no real difference between an aircraft engine and a pile of rocks rich in various metallic ores. However, an engine is a far more useful sequencing of these elements. This comes about due to an influx of energy in the form of creativity, a force transcendent to matter, and hence capable of shaping matter. Without such an influx of energy to create or maintain, this sequence of matter would decay into less and less useful forms, breaking and rusting. It will not spontaneously improve. Given that the Author of matter is the Author of ideas, the same dynamics should hold.
1) First Law of Thermodynamics: Enthalpy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Ontological Enthalpy: Ideas are neither created nor destroyed. Predicate: Matter/Ideas came from somewhere, if they are here now. Imperative: All ideas have their origin in the mind of God. 'There is nothing new under the sun.' We cannot construct an idea that does not derive its origin from the mind of God. An idea can be corrupted, and lose parts of that essence, but at the point that it loses all of that essence, it ceases to meaningfully exist. 'Sin leads to death.' All the building blocks of concepts, all the atoms of ideas, can neither be created nor destroyed, as they came into meaningful existence (for us) at the point of creation, and before that existed in the mind of God.
2) Second law of thermodynamics: entropy. Energy flows from more useful forms to less useful forms, unless there is an influx of energy from outside the system. (Note: In terms of physics, what else would transcendence mean, if not 'from outside the system?') Idea form: Ideas flow from a more useful arrangement to a less useful arrangement, unless an external influx of energy exists. Predicate: More and less useful arrangements of ideas/matter exist. Therefore, the creation of 'new' ideas is more the arrangement of more useful sequences of ideas. Given that the growth of knowledge is a function of expanding relationships between pieces of data, the growth of these relational networks leads to an expansion of knowledge (see discovery.) Similarly to physical entropy, the creation of more useful sequences of ideas is a function of a transcendent influx. Without such an influx, these sequences of ideas will degenerate over time, but with external energy, these ideas will build into more and more useful forms, establishing progress.
Example: Rule of Law is a combination of the ideas of government, objectivity and truth, all of which can be found in the mind of God. It is a more useful combination when applied to politics than the original ideas alone (just as a jet engine is much more useful for aviation propulsion than ore-laden rocks, but not necessarily more useful for grinding wheat.) Eugenics is a particularly un-useful (and virulent) combination of the ideas of optimization and diversity, where the base concepts can be found in the mind of God, even if the combination flawed form cannot.
Corrolary: In a fallen, post-entropic world, a cycle of death and rebirth is necessary to prevent stagnation. Angular sinusoidal motion and cycles are the only ways to present eternal dynamic tension. It must, in effect, cascade to be within time.
See Chesterton: What is wrong with this world is Christian morals run amok without any grounding. (Orcs are bad elves.)
22:25 Posted in Boring Theories (Humanities) | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
23 February 2006
Concordance Argument
From nothing, nothing comes. Expressed in physics with matter, in philosophy with causality, and in Biology with life, ex nihilo arguments point toward a beginning and hence beginner. The causality, existence and life aspects of this are often used toward this end, but other things exist that do not have to and hence require explanation, things that exist and recreate themselves yet never spontaneously generate, in the same way that life does. These things can be used similarly in arguing for a Creator. Furthermore, these things can allow us to explore aspects of that Creator, as if they have their origin in Him, they must also be aspects of Him.
1) Relationship- Relationship exists, but there is no reason for it to have to. Reality could be unitary, or atomistic. Relationship seems to arise as a consequence of relationship, whether in human families, in environmental interaction, in mathematics, or in the scientific pursuit of knowledge. And like life, the domain/span of relationship continues to grow (esp. in the fields of human knowledge). There must, then be an original relationship. Yet, the Creator was before all other things with which to have relationship. Therefore, he exists in relationship to Himself. This explains the creative impulse, as it is act to extend relationship. Relationships grow, like life. Discovery, then, is a human derivative of creation, as it also grows out of a desire to expand the span of relationship (by expanding to fill creation, rather than by the production of creation.) Relationship is then expanded vertically through creation (not necessarily temporally) in the relationship between God and creation, and horizontally through discovery in the relationships within creation. This expansion points back to an origin of relationship unexplainable by naturalism.
2) Consciousness- Self-consciousness also has no reason to exist. ('For beings without purpose, we seem to very preoccupied with questions of purpose') There is no reason that increasing our ability to externally optimize would cause us to look back inwards. Consciousness only comes from consciousness. It can be ended by non-consciousness, but can never be started by non-consciousness. Therefore, there must be a conscious origin for consciousness. This follows a similar pattern as the relationship argument. Naturalism has no explanation for consciousness.
3) Elegance- Nature is never clumsy. It never seems to use 'best fit' solutions, but rather solutions seem to enhance overall systems. There is art in the laws. Solutions are simple, yet complex. The most complex systems arise from simple laws. Human designs arise as a function of compromise. Solutions involve tradeoffs and rarely increase efficiency beyond solving the problem they are intended for. This is because our solutions do not usually take into account the overall intent of the design. Randomness, having no grasp of the overall design at all, would exhibit this clumsiness even more so. Omniscience, however, would have a total grasp of the overall design, and hence all of their solutions would be elegant. A naturalistic counterargument would involve infinite optimization with optimal time, but human optimization tends to get clunkier with time (design by committee), as best fits are incorporated into a design and become convention. It is only destruction of the framework that restores elegance in the creation of a new framework. (A mature aircraft design is usually less elegant (aerodynamically efficient) than the initial design, even if more capable: avionics backbone on A-4, CFTs on F-15E, etc.) Naturalism might rely on such a dialectic destructive process, but without directing dynamics, this would result almost solely in destruction, thereby hurting the original argument with a clunky solution to a problem (once again showing the results of inelegance.)
4) Transcendence- We grapple with concepts beyond the visible boundaries of the physical world. Yet we are incapable of forming a non-existent concept, except through the combination of extant concepts (which is the relational development of concepts.) Our desire for higher-level knowledge is definitionally a desire for transcendence. Human beings desire to be (and are) transcendent from their environment, even when still in it. Transcendence definitionally must flow from transcendence. God must then be the first transcendence, the 'I AM.' Stated simply, if God doesn't exist, a vast majority of humanity has wasted a vast amount of time trying to figure Him out. One might ascribe 'God-talk's origin to a desire for perfect government, but ordinally and temporally the concept of God is over the concept of government. (Government is a derivative of God's dominion, as 'the government shall be on His shoulder.') Furthermore, if the idea of God is the integral of a perfect government, one must ask why? If this is the case, it becomes an argument for His existence, rather than against it.
5) Cognizance- Humans desire more knowledge, to know and be known by those around them and their environment. They seek to expand their knowledge, and knowledge is a function of relations, so they seek to expand their relationships (see 1.) The desire to know and be known must come from somewhere, the Creator must seek to know and be known. Humans can recognize beauty in predatory animals (such as in zoos or in the wild.) There is no naturalistic explanation for this, for all threats must be countered under the law of 'kill or be killed.' Yet we seek to understand that which can hurt us (arguably too much,) even without countering it. Naturalism cannot explain the desire to know and be known, for animals desire survival, optimization, but not dominion. We desire dominion, and hence must come from Dominion.
22:25 Posted in Boring Theories (Humanities) | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this