----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: <glbahi18scm2a8id2rtlhj8ior3nstoi48@4ax.com>
4920764c
@REPLY:
<ac745c57-960c-4681-a943-c1e66502bf29n@googlegroups.com> e7ad8eac
@REPLYADDR Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Martin Harran
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID:
<glbahi18scm2a8id2rtlhj8ior3nstoi48@4ax.com>
@RFC-References:
<03e48931-b72f-414d-8295-1e0c82c2f642n@googlegroups.com> <b5f992e1-5167-455d-a572-82922059d81bn@googlegroups.com>
<iv7jgilull0tt8j1h2ppqblin8cjv2j47v@4ax.com> <c23d4af2-f48a-4811-b505-1be40d7c8080n@googlegroups.com>
<9jrngih43sutjhdivvpd9lsi9985kdcilq@4ax.com> <de5408e7-ce70-4975-a3c9-b39744a0ed3fn@googlegroups.com>
<v49tgihpu4s0pl78anc350medn95n8d73d@4ax.com> <48e8bac3-5b19-43b0-ae87-5e0ac6cc5911n@googlegroups.com>
<ac745c57-960c-4681-a943-c1e66502bf29n@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: 0100
@PID: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 12:13:17 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<
b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:25:49?PM UTC+1,
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You haven`t answered any of MarkE`s questions in his reply to
this post of yours.
>>
>> It`s obvious that your priorities lie elsewhere.
>>
>> I am skipping over the part of your post on which he had questions.
>>
>> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:15:46?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>> That part ended at the following line:
>> > ==========================================
>> >
>> > [1] If you are not familiar with the ideas of Teilhard De Chardin,
>> > they can be difficult to initially grasp as Teilhard`s writing is
>> > almost impenetrable for the average reader. Essentially, his flow of
>> > logic (in my words, not his) is:
>>
>> > - Everything that exists "wants" to join together.
>> I`m very curious to know where Teilhard made such a naive and unscientific
>> comment. It bespeaks a woeful ignorance about astrophysics.
>
>
>My guess would be from :"heart of Matter".
I didn`t have any single source in mind. Teilhard detailed his ideas
in two full books and multiple essays; I was trying to give Mark an
overall sense of those ideas in just a few brief sentences. That is
why I explicitly qualified it as "in my words, not his". I put quotes
around the word "wants" because I was using it in an anthropomorphic
sense, just like Dawkins talking about "selfish" genes.
Peter as usual sees what Peter wants to see.
>And while one can criticise Teilhard
>in lots of ways, this is not one of them. Essentially, he revives
the Aristotelian idea
>of immanent telos ("sones fall to the ground b/c that`s where they
belong") with his
>process theology - dynamic aspects of things are more important than static
>aspects. The result is a metaphysics of matter - spiritual
materialism. Not to everyone`s
>liking, Dawkins called it "the quintessence of bad poetic science",
but consistent by design
>with Newtonian physics at the least.
>
>Reformulating classical mechanics in his vocabulary is relatively
straightforward.
>Your "counterexamples" are no problem for this, really. Merely
because A and B want
>to be together does not mean they get together - in the words of
the Stones, "you can`t
>always get what you want - but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> >This is
>> > demonstrated by how the particles that came into existence at the Big
>> > Bang joined together to form atoms; they in turn joined together to
>> > form molecules, eventually developing into matter in the form of stars
>> > and planets and eventually forming life, at least on our planet.
>> The opposite is "demonstrated" by the following facts:
>>
>> (1) The "wanting of atoms and molecules to come together" on earth
>> basically ended about 4 gigayears ago. If it had proceeded to where earth
>> would be about twice the diameter it is now, earth would be, like Venus,
>> inhospitable to life.
>>
>> (2) The moon formed quite close to the earth, and has been moving *away*
>> from it ever since due to tidal forces. If it had kept coming
closer, it would
>> either crashed into the earth or raised such stupendous tides as to make
>> evolution to our species essentially impossible.
>>
>> (3) "The exception that proves the rule (1)": About 65 million years ago,
>> a ca. ten mile wide asteroid hit earth and raised an immense cloud of dust
>> that caused the food chains to collapse to where no animal weighing
>> more than 50 kilos is known to have survived. Had that asteroid been
>> ten times the diameter [I know of at least six asteroids that
are larger than *that*],
>> all but the hardiest prokaryotes would have perished, setting evolution
>> on earth back a few gigayears.
>>
>> And that would have put *finis* to evolution to our level of intelligence.
>> The sun keeps growing hotter, and it is estimated that it will be too hot
>> for life as we know it by the time one more
>> gigayear has passed.
>>
>> And that`s just looking at the possible fates for our little planet.
>> I could name a lot more flaws by looking further out, at least as serious.
>>
>>
>> Got to go now. Duty calls. I`ll leave you with this thought:
>> have you ever wondered why stars are typically so FAR apart?
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>> U. of South Carolina at Columbia
>>
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
--- ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
* Origin: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441