History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Smolin’s About Time and the issue of history/evolution in WHEE

May 20th, 2015 · No Comments

I started Time Reborn, by Smolin. The attempt to critique those who thought time an illusion is refreshing, we shall see.

I am perhaps one of those on the fence: how about the Kantian take on space/time and the categories? How about transcendental idealism (which is neither transcendental or an idealism)?
Physicists disregard that aspect of philosophy but as Smolin admits the timeless camp starts with Plato…

I have a penny ante in the pot here: my model of ‘history/evolution’. Smolin is already well-known for his ‘darwinian’ evolution re: the laws of the universe…I am quite dubious of biological darwinism, but the idea of an ‘evolutionary’ model remains of interest.
My model of evolution/history is ignored by scientists but I can predict (or try to) where models of physics will fail, as they attempt universality: they model a universe without values, and/or one which can’t specify the entry point for values.
But in my model this question lurks in the background as unanswered on the grounds that we see teleological processes at a very late stage (and probably intrinsic to evolutionary starting points) which makes us wonder where they come from and what as the ‘end point’ (late human history) they demand from the starting point.

So there’s the possible net equivalent of ‘values’: directionality/teleology. How does this find a place in physics? We see the issue already in the issue of the precision of the constants of nature: the fine-tuning issue. I take no position on this necessarily: that’s not what my model is about, although I do mention it as a possible issue. But the macro model of World History and The Eonic Effect shows a clear path to a teleological interpretation of history, not as a conclusion, but a ‘breakthrough’ insight that can make the idea work. And this raises the curious issue of transcendental idealism on the grounds (in one approach to my model) that we are confused because we can’t ‘see’ teleology, only its phenomenal representation of the noumenal, maybe. My model doesn’t make any specific or necessary interpretation of itself on such grounds, but that is one of the suspicions: we see the temporal representation of directionality as a cyclical phenomenon. We can’t conclude ‘teleology’ if we are immersed and can’t see the ‘end point’, but we can see the probable suspected reality, and in any case, ‘teleology’ doesn’t have to be the case: the ‘end’ may be in the cyclical dynamic: process, without a final state. The process can simply stop and leave a result in place of some kind.
this is a direct reinvocation of the ‘timeless’.

But Smolin’s book will be interesting to read.


Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment