/lit/ - Literature

>>12774230
>It entered randomly, then it led to reproduction, so it exists now

You are accusing people of being pedantic when you are being pedantic. Genes randomly mutate, sure. Then outside of that there is a selection mechanism that selects out animals that are maladapted, sure. However, the very fact that there is a selection mechanism that is impartial in the distribution of variety implies a cybernetic controller. From there the natural induction is also some teleology that governs how genetic variety is to eventually develop.

Scientific Naturalists lack critical thinking, so they fail to see that they are indeed reconstructing a new religion in their analysis of evolution. We can observe through fossils that there is a tendency for animals to be increasingly more complex. Indeed, the biosphere is a self-organizing system that actively maximizes its entropy. This also points to us that the process is on some level intelligent:

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/46

>>12727112
>>12728073

I've seen this division even information theoretic metaphysics like the CTMU and Datalogic. Of course with the CTMU it gives precedence to unbound selection from a realm of zero-constraint. Langan critiques the notion via an explanation that simply doesn't make sense to me.

"One might at first be tempted to object that there is no reason to believe that the universe does not simply "exist", and thus that self-selection is unnecessary. However, this is not a valid position. First, it involves a more or less subtle appeal to something external to the universe, namely a prior/external informational medium or "syntax" of existence; if such a syntax were sufficiently relevant to this reality, i.e. sufficiently real, to support its existence, then it would be analytically included in reality (as defined up to perceptual relevance). Second, active self-selection is indeed necessary, for existence is not merely a state but a process; the universe must internally distinguish that which it is from that which it is not, and passivity is ruled out because it would again imply the involvement of a complementary active principle of external origin."

My confusion lies in why he thinks the distinction between what is real and what isn't needs syntax. On the flip side you have datalogic in which everything already exists and time is merely an abstraction (which is very close to the Parminedean notion), but ofc it isn't very intuitive. Actually my larger qualms is that is doesn't actually explain anything at all, just that reality is. It feels lazy.

Can we ever explain why things need to be actualized or why things can just be? I'm also curious into a serious inquiry of what being is in the first place.

I have a friend that says that most philosophers fall into the trap of 'language', i.e. the bias of assuming the world is a representation of form as opposed to merely form itself.