The Physiology of Teleology

[_Coggins7]

What I'm about to say will, hopefully be, to the extent that I actually construct a rational body of argumentation to support it, internally consistent. Some of it will be only explicative; it will be a body of statements regarding what I consider to be the implications and teachings of Church as to the origins and nature of teleology in the universe. To this degree, it is a metaphysical and philosophical reflection that, hopefully, while necessarily going beyond settled Gospel doctrine, will not be inconsistent with it.

1. God did not create meaning. The Restored Gospel implies that the central, overarching truth about reality is existence itself. Existence qua existence is the fundamental reality, and there is no other. That is to say, nothing can ever not exist if by "not exist" we mean an absolute ontological negation. Matter, energy, and intelligence will always exist and, most importantly, have always existed. In this sense, Gospel cosmology deals only with the concept of infinity as an aspect of the whole. The Gospel deals primarily with eternity.

2. Since there has, as the Church has always taught, never been a time when there was not a universe, or were not universes, containing worlds upon which children of God were not undergoing or passing through some phase of their eternal progression within the context of the plan of salvation, and never was a time when worlds for this purpose were not being organized, modified, changed and reformed, or matter and energy transformed and applied for this purpose, then there never was a time when teleology, or purpose and meaning, were not a part of the very fabric of reality within which God, man, and all phenomena in the universe are a part.

3. If there is no such thing as nonexistence (only transformations between phases or forms of matter and energy), then existence is left as the one fundamental reality. That is to say, reality exists; reality is real, and this is the fundamental tautology of the universe. it is an axiom. It cannot be proved logically because its opposite, nonexistence, cannot be rationally conceived.

4. It follows from this that purpose (teleology) and meaning (understanding and actualizing or knowledge of purpose) are inherent and intrinsic aspects or reality irrespective or whether or not there is a coherent, organized universe available within which self aware intelligences can be conscious of their owe individual teleology and capable of acting upon the meaning they perceive.

5. The upshot of this is that God does not create meaning when he creates the universe and worlds within it, and puts his spirit children on those worlds to undergo various experiences. As God does not create worlds ex nihilo, so he does not create meaning. What God does, as creator, Father, Savior, and an all wise, all knowing counselor, is identify to his children the meaning and teleology already an essential, inherent aspect of the existent order. He passes on to us what he already knows. The very fact that the universe is an ordered system, and not a mass of chaos, is enough to make such teleology manifest in a rudimentary way. Revelation of further truths is necessary for finer details, but the salient point is that God is a revealer of truth, not a super philosopher who constructs moral, ethical, and ontological meaning out of whole cloth. In other words then, while teleology exists because self existent, eternal intelligences capable of expansion and progression exist (teleology is necessarily coexistent and coeternal with self aware intelligent beings) a coherent, ordered universe is needed to make this obvious, or explicit, to those intelligent beings.

God then, reveals what is, but he does not make up what he has arbitrarily decided should be.


Let the games begin.

[_Analytics]

I have a faint spark of hope that we might be getting somewhere.

The heart of the matter is, I think this:

The very fact that the universe is an ordered system, and not a mass of chaos, is enough to make such teleology manifest in a rudimentary way.

In Mormonism, things such as truth and meaning exist as an inherent part of the universe. God didn’t put the meaning there; it was always there. In fact, the meaning would be there whether or not Elohim or any other God would have ever progressed into a God or not. God, just like us, exists within a universe that in and of itself has purpose because that is a fundamental part of its nature.

Is that a fair representation of your view?

[_Tarski]

What I'm about to say will, hopefully be, to the extent that I actually construct a rational body of argumentation to support it, internally consistent. Some of it will be only explicative; it will be a body of statements regarding what I consider to be the implications and teachings of Church as to the origins and nature of teleology in the universe. To this degree, it is a metaphysical and philosophical reflection that, hopefully, while necessarily going beyond settled Gospel doctrine, will not be inconsistent with it.

1. God did not create meaning. The Restored Gospel implies that the central, overarching truth about reality is existence itself.

In what sense is existence a "truth"? What theory of truth do you espouse? Normally propositions are either true or false. The statement that what exists, exists is a tautology and totally without interest. A big "so what?"

Existence qua existence is the fundamental reality, and there is no other.

Then you deny that things could exist meaninglessly? What do you mean "there is no other"? This sounds fairly meaningless.

That is to say, nothing can ever not exist if by "not exist" we mean an absolute ontological negation.

OK that really was dribble.

Matter, energy, and intelligence will always exist and, most importantly, have always existed.

And you want to disqualify the question of how and why that may be the case.

In this sense, Gospel cosmology deals only with the concept of infinity as an aspect of the whole.

In what sense is "infinity" and "aspect" of the whole?

Since there has, as the Church has always taught, never been a time when there was not a universe.

What is "a time". Do we not now know (since Einstein), that time is a frame dependent notion? What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that all world lines are infinitely extendable. Is the set of events path connected? Why? If not then there may be events which are niether in our part nor in our future.

3. If there is no such thing as nonexistence (only transformations between phases or forms of matter and energy), then existence is left as the one fundamental reality.

Are you proposing a conservation law? Is it anything more than the usual conservation laws of physics?

That is to say, reality exists; reality is real, and this is the fundamental tautology of the universe.

come on now! This sentence is useless.

4. It follows from this that purpose (teleology) and meaning (understanding and actualizing or knowledge of purpose) are inherent and intrinsic aspects or reality irrespective or whether or not there is a coherent, organized universe available within which self aware intelligences can be conscious of their owe individual teleology and capable of acting upon the meaning they perceive.

Nothing follows in any sense other than you have simply asserted it.

. The upshot of this is that God does not create meaning when he creates the universe and worlds within it,

Indeed, it seems that the Mormon god is neither a creator of anything fundamental nor is he really the only god nor does he sustain the universe or do anything else but be a supermammal procreating and populating.

[_Coggins7]

In Mormonism, things such as truth and meaning exist as an inherent part of the universe. God didn’t put the meaning there; it was always there. In fact, the meaning would be there whether or not Elohim or any other God would have ever progressed into a God or not. God, just like us, exists within a universe that in and of itself has purpose because that is a fundamental part of its nature.

Is that a fair representation of your view?

Close. Meaning is always there for God, but for us as mortals, we must have an organized, coherent created order with which to interact for such meaning to be manifest. Beyond that, you've essentially got it.

The one caveat would be about God's becoming God. In LDS theology, there is no inherent limitation to progressing to a point of ultimate perfection. Sin is the one wild card. Therefore, teleology implies the plan of salvation. Intelligence is as eternal as existence and other existent things. The plan of salvation tells us what our ultimate purpose is and how to use the laws of the universe to our advantage to achieve our full potential.

[_Coggins7]

Further, I'm not sure meaning would exist without God, or gods, because without them, matter and energy are in a perpetual state of chaos and would remain that way forever.

I think there is an argument to be made that meaning implies not just existence per se, but a certain degree of organization and order to existence, so let me modify my major statements with that and add that to the mix.

[_The Dude]

I take issue with the title of this thread.

I can understand physiology having a purpose, so talking about it in a teleological sense is rational.

But talking about teleology having a physiology is nonsensical babble, or at least suggests the person doesn't know what the word "physiology" means. Since Coggins typed it, I'll assume he knows what the word means... he just thrills in nonsensical babble, as usual.

[_Tarski]

Further, I'm not sure meaning would exist without God, or gods, because without them, matter and energy are in a perpetual state of chaos and would remain that way forever.

Says who? Why? Do you always just make assertions filled with words like infinity, chaos, essence, characteristic, energy and then pretend that some kind of logic has just taken place?

[_Coggins7]

In what sense is existence a "truth"? What theory of truth do you espouse? Normally propositions are either true or false. The statement that what exists, exists is a tautology and totally without interest. A big "so what?"

Do you question the truth of existence as a concept? Most tautologies are without interest, so what? The point is that existence exists, and that's the only conceptual framework we have. Indeed, our language will allow us nothing more.

Then you deny that things could exist meaninglessly? What do you mean "there is no other"? This sounds fairly meaningless.

Yes, I've been denying that "things" could exist meaninglessly for three days now. What I mean by "there is no other" is that the opposite of existence is nonexistence, which is a conceptual self negation.

Quote:
That is to say, nothing can ever not exist if by "not exist" we mean an absolute ontological negation.



OK that really was dribble.

Quote:
Matter, energy, and intelligence will always exist and, most importantly, have always existed.

And you want to disqualify the question of how and why that may be the case.

Might as well, because I have no bloody idea at all of how and why this should be the case. Why do I have to understand all fo this for me to at least appraoch the claims of the Gospel with an open mind?


Quote:
In this sense, Gospel cosmology deals only with the concept of infinity as an aspect of the whole.

In what sense is "infinity" and "aspect" of the whole?

Infinity is a line starting at a certain point and continuing on in one direction forever. In eternity, the line goes back in the opposite direction forever as well.



Quote:
Since there has, as the Church has always taught, never been a time when there was not a universe.

What is "a time". Do we not now know (since Einstein), that time is a frame dependent notion? What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that all world lines are infinitely extendable. Is the set of events path connected? Why? If not then there may be events which are niether in our part nor in our future.

You've lost me here. What is a "world line"? What is the "set of events path"? (this doesn't seem grammatical).

Quote:
3. If there is no such thing as nonexistence (only transformations between phases or forms of matter and energy), then existence is left as the one fundamental reality.

Are you proposing a conservation law? Is it anything more than the usual conservation laws of physics?

I'm proposing a logical necessity in which the only alternative to reality is non-reality, which is a conceptual impossibility. Were speaking here of how reality is manifest, not whether it is possible that such a thing as reality could ever be non-real.

Quote:
4. It follows from this that purpose (teleology) and meaning (understanding and actualizing or knowledge of purpose) are inherent and intrinsic aspects or reality irrespective or whether or not there is a coherent, organized universe available within which self aware intelligences can be conscious of their owe individual teleology and capable of acting upon the meaning they perceive.

Nothing follows in any sense other than you have simply asserted it.

Really? If intelligence and the possibility for eternal progression and happiness for that intelligence is coexistent and coeternal with organized matter and energy, how does it not follow that teleology is not an inherant aspect of the universe, as it is already an inherent aspect of intelligence? Any intelligence that can impose order on chaos, has then, by definition, made explicit (teleology) what is implicit in the fundamental fact of existence (intelligence existing alongside matter and energy that can be used to raise that intelligence to a point of perfection which is not bound by time constraints).

Quote:
. The upshot of this is that God does not create meaning when he creates the universe and worlds within it,

Indeed, it seems that the Mormon god is neither a creator of anything fundamental nor is he really the only god nor does he sustain the universe or do anything else but be a supermammal procreating and populating.

One of your problems, tarski, is that you just don't understand LDS doctrine very well. You don't view the cosmos and its laws, rules, and underlying structure as something fundamental? I just don't see how God not creating reality itself, the fudnamental substratum of being, minimizes him. The scriptures make clear that he is the sustainer of the universe. It remains as an organized, ordered system through him and his power. In what way is this meant? I really don't know. I only know that it is true.

[_Coggins7]

But talking about teleology having a physiology is nonsensical babble

Your right. It should have been, the anatomy and physiology of teleology: its structure and its function in the universe. I'll take that up with my agent, while you smoke another bowl.
[/quote]

[_Coggins7]

Just consider this the Anatomy and Physiology of Teleology post from now on.

We now resume our regular scheduled derailment.