Can Mathematics Predict Higher Levels of Complexity?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?

Define purpose.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
Define purpose.

This is a good point. What is "purpose"?

I would define purpose as a human concept for describing the usefullness of some entity for humans. It can be generalized however to other beings, besides humans. Trees and forest have a purpose to the animals that live in the forest, and need it for their survival, for instance.

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1869" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by particlehead
Exactly, mentat. In a sense, choosing the skin (a permeable membrane) as the defining line between inside and outside is totally arbitrary. It makes sense from a biological and perceptual view, but really the very idea of it is completely relative.

If you wish to "meld" with your environment that's entirely up to you, but without the ability to make distinctions (between forms), there would be no point to getting out of bed in the morning and getting dressed. I think the fact that we have a form suggests a sense of purpose to go along with it. For example take a hammer. The pupose of a hammer is to drive nails.

The human body itself cannot be said to be "a thing." It is a collection of systems, interacting and interdependent. From the macro to the micro, the material world is built from systems of interaction, not blobs of "stuff."

And yet this has very little to do with our conscious awareness, which is primarily driven by what we acknowledge, "through form."

Typically, as given in the example of the hammer, "purpose" coincides with the "utilities of form."

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Moetasim
Well I think someone already discussed one thing that there were cats before existence of human and if it is then I repeat that Q with amendment that
" What was purpose of cats before human then?"

I agree here with Mentat, who said that talking about the purpose of things outside of human context is a rather meta-physical debate.

But to answer this, what is the purpose of any existing animal? I would think that animals fulfill by their existence, which is a struggle with nature for survival and reproduction, their own purpose.
To exist fulfills a purpose in and for itself.

 

[Alexander]

Purpose of animal (or anything else) is as arbitrary as its definition, then.

So, anything which comes to you mind is the purpose of cat then.

I prefere more sober materialistic view - there is no purpose by itself. Rock, cat, universe, planet, life, combustion, digestion, etc - do not have any purpose by themselves. They are just physical objects and physical processes. Physical process does not have a purpose.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
Purpose of animal (or anything else) is as arbitrary as its definition, then.

So, anything which comes to you mind is the purpose of cat then.

I prefere sober materialistic view - there is no purpose by itself. Rock, cat, universe, life, combustion, digestion, etc - do not have any purpose by themselves.

Does that also include human life?

 

[Alexander]

Of course. What is the purpose of human or viral life?

 

[FZ+]

I agree with Alexander. Purpose as a concept only exists in a specific context of an observer to judge the criteria of purpose.

 

[Mentat]

Alexander and FZ+ make a good point. If you look at nature, there is only one animal (only one being, for that matter) that contemplates "purpose". So, if there were no humans (or any other sentient creatures), then there would be no "purposes" (unless you consider achieving lower energy levels a purpose).

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
Of course. What is the purpose of human or viral life?

The purpose of human life is to have a purpose in life?

But it is obvious we run in problems using the term "purpose" outside of it's context. This was a good exercise in finding that out.
Yet many concepts are born on that idea, extending terms beyond there well defined meaning. That is where the trouble comes from.
If one sticks to this extended definition, and want to have meaningfull answers to things like "purpose of the universe" etc., then one comes up with vague entities (f.i. God) that portray such concepts.

 

[BoulderHead]

But it is obvious we run in problems using the term "purpose" outside of it's context. This was a good exercise in finding that out.
Yet many concepts are born on that idea, extending terms beyond there well defined meaning. That is where the trouble comes from.
If one sticks to this extended definition, and want to have meaningfull answers to things like "purpose of the universe" etc., then one comes up with vague entities (f.i. God) that portray such concepts.

This is where I had been thinking you wanted to take this; People wishing to apply a purpose to things that may not have one in and of itself…
Isn’t this really a major factor behind humans entertaining notions of God, and where does it come from? I would put forth an opinion that, by and large, humans are conceited egoists who cannot accept a universe without themselves in it. There must therefore be a purpose for our existence.

Mankind has shown its insecurity by its belief in a greater purpose.
-Michael Pain

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
This is where I had been thinking you wanted to take this; People wishing to apply a purpose to things that may not have one in and of itself…
Isn’t this really a major factor behind humans entertaining notions of God, and where does it come from? I would put forth an opinion that, by and large, humans are conceited egoists who cannot accept a universe without themselves in it. There must therefore be a purpose for our existence.

Mankind has shown its insecurity by its belief in a greater purpose.
-Michael Pain

At one point, you seem to agree, but in later instance you totally disagree. I think that our existence itself has no purpose. But this does not contradict the fact that we can find in our lives purposes for ourselves.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by heusdens
At one point, you seem to agree, but in later instance you totally disagree. I think that our existence itself has no purpose. But this does not contradict the fact that we can find in our lives purposes for ourselves.

Let me edit (in bold) myself for clarity;

This is where I had been thinking you wanted to take this; People wishing to apply a purpose to things that may not have one in and of itself…
Isn’t this really a major factor behind humans entertaining notions of God, and where does it come from? I would put forth an opinion that, by and large, humans are conceited egoists who cannot accept a universe without themselves in it. Humans therefore have invented the concept of god to add purpose and meaning (other things too) to their existence

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Let me edit (in bold) myself for clarity;

This is where I had been thinking you wanted to take this; People wishing to apply a purpose to things that may not have one in and of itself…
Isn’t this really a major factor behind humans entertaining notions of God, and where does it come from? I would put forth an opinion that, by and large, humans are conceited egoists who cannot accept a universe without themselves in it. Humans therefore have invented the concept of god to add purpose and meaning (other things too) to their existence

Ok. That makes it clearer, and I would agree on that.

 

[Iacchus32]

Purpose is the "intended design." Like the purpose of a skeleton is to hold us up. Similarly, the purpose of a "cat's skeleton" -- i.e., in the "possessive sense" -- is to hold the cat up.

It's just utter nonsense to say things don't exist without a purpose.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Purpose is the "intended design." Like the purpose of a skeleton is to hold us up. Similarly, the purpose of a "cat's skeleton" -- i.e., in the "possessive sense" -- is to hold the cat up.

"intended design". This sounds like a willful act. What is the difference between the 'function' of the cat's skeleton and the 'purpose' of same?

It's just utter nonsense to say things don't exist without a purpose.

Is it utter nonsense also to claim that we mere mortals truly know the purpose of things?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
"intended design". This sounds like a willful act. What is the difference between the 'function' of the cat's skeleton and the 'purpose' of same?

And yet it would seem the two words are interchangable here, through the "purposeful act" of us trying to communicate their difference.

Is it utter nonsense also to claim that we mere mortals truly know the purpose of things?

Perhaps because we, as human beings, have the capacity to acknowledge that things don't happen arbitrarily, meaning there must be a sense of purpose to all things (even if we may not understand what that is). And why is it that those things which seem weak or "less purposeful" wind up becoming "a meal" for those things which are "more purposeful?"

When a predator sinks its teeth into its prey, wouldn't you deem that an act of willfulness?

And yes, I guess that does imply the Universe came about in a purposeful way ... as evidenced by us, human beings, who are given the ability to recognize it.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Good enough points, however I think we are
talking about two different kinds of "purpose".
I was talking about the kind of purpose that
implies that something is there for a specific
reason. Evolution would dictate that physical
charecteristics came about for no specific
reasons, but were (afterward) used to the
advantage of the creature that happened to
have them.

On the contrary, evolution came about for
very good reasons, they're called the Laws
of Physics.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
On the contrary, evolution came about for
very good reasons, they're called the Laws
of Physics.

Live long and prosper.

That is not a reason. A reason is a justification for an act. Something that occurred at random may be justified (or, rather, what caused it can be explained) by some sentient being later on, but that doesn't mean that it was done for a reason.

 

[Alexander]

Define justification.

Evolution indeed happens just because laws of physics are such. Nobody "seeded" it and nothing (but natural laws) "manages" it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Define justification.

Evolution indeed happens just because laws of physics are such. Nobody "seeded" it and nothing (but natural laws) "manages" it.

Except when mankind shows up, out of a "sense of purpose" -- playing God if you will -- and throws a monkey wrench in the works.

 

[Alexander]

Mankind is a kind of apes.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Mankind is a kind of apes.

There's very little about what mankind has done to the world which could be deemed "natural." Indeed, it's all been brought about by his "abstract" ability to reason.

 

[Alexander]

Anyway, there is no purpose of (or in) life, evolution, viruses, mankind, monkeys, air, combustion, rusting, universe by themselves.

If you define a purpose as "to be used for", then purpose of, say, air is to support airplanes or combustion (for example), or purpose of life is to serve as a food for other lives.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Anyway, there is no purpose of (or in) life, evolution, viruses, mankind, monkeys, air, combustion, rusting, universe by themselves.

If you define a purpose as "to be used for", then purpose of, say, air is to support airplanes or combustion (for example), or purpose of life is to serve as a food for other lives.

And yet mankind "seems" to be endowed with a sense of purpose. In other words there seems to be a sense of "accountability" that coincides with his actions.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
That is not a reason. A reason is a justification
for an act. Something that occurred at random
may be justified (or, rather, what caused
it can be explained) by some sentient being
later on, but that doesn't mean that
it was done for a reason.

I'm not sure what you mean.
"Sentient being" ? I have no reason to
think that means anything more than
the laws of nature in action (for now).
Anyway, what's a justification ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet mankind "seems" to be endowed
with a sense of purpose. In other words
there seems to be a sense of "accountability"
that coincides with his actions.

Sure, when I wan'na eat I know I got'ta
grab a sandwich, when I got'ta go I know
I got'ta go and when I see a pack of greens
I wan'na grab it...

No offense, but if you say something clearly as
controversial as that you should explain it
immidiately. (This is not the G. & R. forum,
here you actually need to explain everything
you say. )

Peace and long life.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Sure, when I wan'na eat I know I got'ta
grab a sandwich, when I got'ta go I know
I got'ta go and when I see a pack of greens
I wan'na grab it...

No offense, but if you say something clearly as
controversial as that you should explain it
immidiately. (This is not the G. & R. forum,
here you actually need to explain everything
you say. )

Peace and long life.

Then what's the point (purpose) in even bothering to reply?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what's the point (purpose) in even
bothering to reply?

Excuse me ?
Clearly the point is to do what I asked
that you do: explain yourself or admit
the lack of an explanation, for your claim.
Thanks.

Peace and long life.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by drag
Excuse me ?
Clearly the point is to do what I asked
that you do: explain yourself or admit
the lack of an explanation, for your claim.
Thanks.

Peace and long life.

What is the difference between making a point and expressing a purpose? What is the point to this thread? Or, what is the purpose of this thread?

Clearly there must be a "sense of purpose" in you asking me to explain myself. Otherwise, what's the point?

If we can't get past this, then why bother?