material contingency

This thread is on material contingency. I do not exempt myself from the implications of contingency. I do not know necessarily; in other words, I do not have necessary knowledge. I know what I know not-necessarily. As contingent beings, we approach certainty through the exclusion process wherein doubt is removed by testing. The closest thing any of us have to proof positive is experimental repeatability. I do not seek to prove ideas; I seek to disprove them. What remains is what I am left to believe. Then that's tested, and so on, and so on. You are asking me for proof positive, which is something that neither of us have.

The reason that I dismiss the proposition that matter can spontaneously increase in functional complexity via random mutations is exactly because such a process is not repeatable. Whereas the opposite is readily observable constantly and quite literally everywhere.

 

I see, the principles devoid of design go into the design of the computer models.

I did not digress into matter's contingency; I returned to it. Basing a theory of material necessity upon the potential function of living organisms does not account for matters nature. Living organisms are defined by their changes. Anything subject to change is subject; it is contingent in its being. Macro-evolution is not only illogical, it is self-contradictory. It starts with the assumption of material necessity and then tries to carry that over to a functionality that is constantly disproved.

I understand the theory of evolution, but I'm going to go with 'my own lying eyes' on this one.

 

The models in question only mimic reality.

There are two arguments here, one of how there is anything and one how there is complexity. One certainly relies on the other, but each can be considered on it own.

 

This isn't proof or evidence. This is you restating your argument. Please provide proof for your claim.

 

No. Being can be considered apart from complexity, but complexity cannot be accurately considered apart from being.

 

You got it.

 

One of the evidences of our contingency is our inability to provide proof positive. The closest thing we will ever have to proof positive is experimental repeatability

It is exactly the absence of experimental repeatability that leaves macro evolution a theory. It is material contingency's experimental repeatability that leaves me to consider macro evolution disproved.

 

no, I got an assertion. I'm challenging you to provide proof or evidence. You've made several "material contingency" threads and you never get around to proving your claim. Please do so.

 

I assert that contingent beings do not have necessary knowledge. We do not have proof positive of anything. I assert that the closest thing we have to what you're asking for, namely proof positive, is experimental repeatability.
You got my "assertion".

 

I see no problem in doing so. It's true that complexity depends on being, but that doesn't mean that we cannot think about complexity on its own. If someone argued "apples are blue, and therefore strawberries are blue", you could counter argue "no, apples are not blue" and you could argue "apples being blue does not mean strawberries are blue", both are perfectly valid counter points, and it is quite possible to argue the entire line "apples being blue does not mean strawberries are blue" without discussing whether apples are blue (even if that too happens to be false).

 

and I challenged you to provide your evidence for your assertion. repeating the assertion isn't evidence.

 

Consideration of complexity apart from being can allow one to consider complexity apart from contingency. That is why one cannot accurately consider complexity apart from being. Not all being is alike.

 

Material contingency is empirical evidence necessary being.

 

All male dominator god religions are based upon subjugation and authoritarianism, humankind really went off the rails once it began to envision the creator in human form.

 

Most of us in this technological perception era of reality have been disconnected from the being part of being a human being. It was required to fuel the religious and capitalist mass consumption perception of reality; a spiritual perception of reality had to be replaced so that the human being would accept subjugation. By design. These authoritarian wealth extraction systems mine the being of the human to run the systems that extract and concentrate wealth for the power structure just as they mine coal, uranium, gold, mineral deposits, etc.

 

That's an interesting point of view. You must carry the paradigm with you everywhere.
From your point of view, are you more concerned with how little some people have or with how much more others have?

 

The power structure focuses on that, it is involved in another round of wealth redistribution even as we type.

 

I don't see why it is a problem to consider complexity apart from contingency. A complexity problem is a complexity problem. If it is truly a complexity problem, then it should be possible to consider without dragging in other concepts.

For instance, if you add one apple and one apple, you will have two apples. The addition is a higher order problem, the entire process depends heavily on the existence and nature of apples, but nothing is keeping us from considering the addition of apples as 1+1=2 without delving deeper into what and apple is and why it exists.

 

no it isn't. that is an assertion you have yet to support.

 

There are two forms of complexity: necessary and contingent. Apples are contingent in their being, including their complexity. Necessity and contingency are the first consideration. The complexity of a apple is contingent, not necessary. The implication is primary. It disproves all considerations to the contrary.

The quantity of apples is not a good parallel to their complexity.

 

I submit that matter is contingent in its being. Matter is subject to change. Anything subject to change is subject. It is not-sovereign; it is not-necessary. It is contingent in its being. That which is necessary is what it is necessarily. It is not subject to change. It is inviolate.

 

Well, two things:
1) This is all theory since it cannot be tested and proven.
2) You have a flaw in your necessary being. You say "that which is necessary is ...... not subject to change." Yet the god of the bible, although being merely another theory, is described as sometimes jealous, sometimes wrathful, and as sometimes dealing out punishment after watching and deciding. Those are cases of change.

But the bottom line is that it's all theory, ideas, and concepts about existence.

 

The example of quantity of apples is not a parallel to the complexity of apples, but of the complexity of a very simple system containing two of something. We can consider (for instance) additions and subtractions of apples, and our conclusions regarding basic arithmetic based on those considerations will be correct. The fact that we might not understand everything there is to know about apples and their existence does not mean we are unable to consider higher order systems using apples.

 

This is simply repeating your assertion.

 

I am not defending the God of the bible. I do not believe in necessary being because I found one in the bible. I am left to believe in the God of the bible because I can find in Him a necessary being.
The God of the bible is holy. Holy means inviolate. It may appear to us that He changes, but it also may appear to us that the sun moves across the sky also.