End of the World

So, if I have translated your text rightly, then you have answered my question 1) with “no”, so that 1b) remains: Does “genetic determinism” really produce “all organisms”, as you said, or is the genetic determinism itself also (just like all organisms are) a product of the physico-chemical nature? Your statement that “organic and inorganic are two interdependent sides of a single phenomenon” does not sufficiently answer that question, because interdepedence is not causation, and I was asking for the causation (a producer [cause] produces a product [effect]).

This is an intriguing derivation. There seems an inverse cause and effect between the development from inorganic to organic stayes.

Let me illustrate the complexity of this.

The tree is an organic substance . the tree dies and devolves into the ground becoming crystal.

Now, the inductive causitive of any derivational process involves the mind, which strictly speaking is some kind of absolute end point of development of structural change from elemental microorganism where the incentive change from molecular to a genetic material can only be inferred by the same mind, differentially and through inductive not deductive logic.

Does not nature anticipate the program by this reverse process ? The change into a crystal has this intrinsic character, whereas sub atomic particles can not be shown to have intelligence except by quantum analysis of random probable behavior which occurs in the two slit experiments on photons.

The irony of nature’s wisdom may become a hypothetical example.

How does monadology fit into this process? The monads represent closure within various systems built on the assumption which Saint James introduced by his forum on numerical analysis, vis. does .999999999999=1.00. Liebnitz maintains the identity, as if, such super imposition is a necessary functional anti-derivative, which then he had to maintain on faith. Saint James seems to imply, if I understand him correctly the idea that such faith in absolite closure is not necessary but contingent. I think I agree with his analysis.

The idea of absolute closure may not be necessary to retain faith, and there is no exclusive binary identifiable source to argue other than differentially, not integrally.

The outcome of this argument may correspond to certain mystics’ opinion, that crystals possess consciousness as well.

For prophesy believers.

The prophet Isaiah predicted the end of the world as commencing with the building of the third temple at Jerusalem. With all the other predictions having come through of the creation of the new European union, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the impending course of predicted events and their outcome is no longer merely a matter of contension.
The facts are beginning to show much more.

I wonder how much of the “body of thought” attributed to Leibniz stems from his study of the book “I-Ching”.

Presumably the influence was negative given the book’s atheistic source. :slight_smile:

It’s simply unthinkable that a ‘body of thought’ emerging from the minds of savages could be in any way superior to the intellect of the “Children of the Light” … Children of God" … simply unthinkable. :smiley:

Arminius,
If organic and inorganic matter are part of a cycle it becomes difficult to suggest which comes first or does one cause the other. It is probable, if the 1950s experiment to produce life is accurate, that life began on Earth with the coming of an atmosphere that could sustain it. The 50s experiment, in which chemicals supposed to comprise Earth’s early atmosphere were brought together, produced amino acids. What is important to me is how these chemicals “know” what to become. If their activities were simply automatic. i.e., it is what is does, this makes a reasonable case for the Anthropic Principle.

Irrellus, ill take up the slack here, not with standing , just to add a formal ingredient into this mix.

The question of knowledge may not only suggest an equally nebulous concept of consciousness, but entropy, decay may be the progenitors of the minutest elements of what such concepts may become from a potential formative basis.

Consciousness and knowledge too, may be understood in continual conjunctive relation, but as such they may be overlapping processes , where the more overlap the more signification.

There is no insignificant knowledge , and that is why we are calling conscious knowing a qualification to it. But that may imply that automatic action reaction type inorganic behavior we-differentiate, the difference between the built in automatic and willful .

In fact there is no contradiction , only a narrowly defined band in a spectrum of larger bands, if the analogy is appropriate.

In this scheme there is no difference between a thing defined by what it does , or one that is what it is by virtue of how it does it, and more likely is the evolution of attributing increasing inner causation to previous outer ones.

When this last frontier between inner and outer melts away, then the picture becomes clearer.

If evolution is goal oriented, decay and entropy may amount to necessary shedding of no longer necessary parts of a given program. Of course this assumes a lot. It assumes that there is a goal that extends beyond the facts of individual organisms or a larger teleology than that which determines the growth and development of individual organisms, which puts us in the realm of the religions that claim there can be eternal life.
It seems that we humans are constructed to adapt to certain environments and that there is no inner need that is without an outer source of supply. I think about this condition when I contemplate God. We were made to survive. Something out there wants us to.

I often think to myself humanity is destined to destroy itself and there is nothing that is going to stop this even a fictional contrived God won’t. ^^^

But a real God might intervene.

The world would be better off without science??
Without science we would still be living in caves, struggling to survive like wild animals…
I agree that religion has caused many problems.

Homo sapiens will become extinct sooner or later.
Even if we collonise other space-masses, life as we know it will become impossible with the heat-death of the universe…

Why would it if such a thing we’re real? So far we have 2800+years of absence and non-intervention to match from this entity you believe exists.

It’s a bit pointless to speculate about the end if you are unaware of the cause of continuance.

The only thing equally delusional or destructive to religion is the belief in scientific progress and innovation. In my mind we were better off as primitive animalistic savages living off the ignorant bliss and bounty of nature.

Yes, our extinction is an inevitability and no matter of prayer, self determination, or science is going to change any of that. This is the realization that most refuse to accept, the natural inevitability of total annihilation to everything.

???

What precisely do you believe has been causing the continuation of homosapian?

I don’t understand your question.

Certainly you believe that everything has a cause (else you would have no reason to believe that an end would be immanent). Whatever it is that has been causing homosapian to continue existing would have to be removed or defeated in order for homosapian to stop continuing. To speculate that homosapian is going to soon end implies that you see the cause of his continuance going away or being defeated.

So what is it that is causing homosapian to continuing existing in the first place?

You can’t just look at the fact that people keep pulling water out of the well and presume that soon the well must be empty. You have to also look into what is filling the well from deep below the surface. It is the balance between those that determines if and when the well goes dry.

I believe civilization will destroy itself, what is so complicated in understanding any of that?

The verdict is still out on whether that will create a human extinction level event or not.

Some fill the well here with God, others with science.

But no one is able to connect the dots down through time such that they are able to arrive at an explanation [encompassed empirically] for the existence of existence.

An explanation that accounts for, among other things, dark matter, dark energy, and all that the human mind cannot yet even fully grasp about the “parts” before the Big Bang. The part, for example, where everything that now exists in a universe vast beyond comprehending came into existence out of nothing at all.

Stuff like this: iflscience.com/physics/top-1 … s-science/

Or just google “mysteries of science”: google.com/search?q=mysteri … ce&ie=&oe=

The stuff that more or less revolves around… “But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

And that’s before we get to the part about teleology.

Some however are able to “think” an explanation into existence.

They concoct out of words a world that is wholly understood merely by “analyzing” it into existence. A “theory of everything” nestled “intellectually” in their head.

And the more certain they are of it, the more certain you can be that they will never back down.

And this of course takes us to the mysteries embedded in human psychology itself. Mindful matter in and of itself is something of a miracle.

So, use that in imagining the existence of God.

Besides, as some suggest, what have you got to lose?