Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!axiom!drilex!rclex!cdx39!jc
From: jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers)
Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion,net.origins
Subject: Re: The Cosmological Argument
Message-ID: <282@cdx39.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 30-Aug-86 13:10:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: cdx39.282
Posted: Sat Aug 30 13:10:14 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Aug-86 01:52:00 EDT
References: <15222@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Lines: 49
Xref: linus net.religion:10504 talk.religion:14 net.origins:3401

>               ... We now have an ordering relation of ontological dependence:
> universe = R0 < R1 < R2 ... where "<" means "explains" or "causes to be".
> We may assume X < Y < Z => X < Y. Let us suppose also that X < Y & Y < X is
> impossible; that is, two *different* things cannot provide mutual explanations
> for the other's existence. 

Leaving aside the rest of this for others to hack apart, I'll
jump into the fray by attacking this point.  At first glance,
this seems like an intuitively reasonable assumption, but that
just goes to show how feeble a think intuition is.  Biologists
quite frequently invoke arguments in which X < Y & Y < X.

How so?  Well, consider the evolution of the ornate reproductive
structures we call "flowers".  It seems quite clear that these
evolved in response to the pollinating behavior of insects (and
possibly a few birds).  On the other hand, the insects' behavior
clearly evolved as to take advantage of the existence of flowers.
Thus we have:
    X = Insects visit flowers, consuming nectar and/or pollen,
    	and incidentally cross-pollinate the flowers.
    Y = Plants produce flowers that announce the presence of
	nectar and pollen.

It seems quite clear that X < Y, and also Y < X.  That is, without
the presence of pollinators, flowers wouldn't have evolved; without
the presence of flowers, insects would do little if any pollination.

This is usually referred to as "co-evolution".  

A similar situation exists with the evolution of edible fruit,
which are devices that plants use to trick large animals (mostly
birds and mammals) into scattering the plants' seeds and fertilizing
them as they sow them.  Fruit evolved because there were animals
around willing to eat them; the animals eat them because the
plants supply them.

Perhaps I should put "because" in quotes.  The concept of "causation"
here is a bit different than what most theologians and philosophers
have dealt with.  Note especially that this interpretation of the
concept doesn't require purpose and/or intelligence on the part of
the agents.

-- 
	John M Chambers 
Phone: 617/364-2000x7304
Email: ...{cthulhu,inmet,harvax,mit-eddie,mot[bos],rclex}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp}
Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193
Telex: 922-443 CODEX A MNSF
!fortune -o