You said
" If you read my essay you would know that I do not think that physics and chemistry occurs with or for purpose but that things happen which can appear purposeful as they serve functions. Air does not flow faster over the curved surface of a wing so that it can become airborne but rather the air does flow faster and so the wing functions for flight. That the universe is suitable for life does not mean it was made with that purpose, but as it is what it is, it functions to support life evolved under those conditions. Was there something in particular you wanted to discuss?"
I understand the distinction you make concerning the wing. I agree, the laws of physics dont exist so that a birds wing may generate lift. It is the birds wing, honed through Darwinian progression that calibrates the wing to exploit this potential of physics. We have achieved the understanding of how Darwinian biology leads to this style of complex structure.
However, complexity of the world does not begin and end with the study of biology. Photon structure has mechanical properties which have agency in the world. And atoms are wondrous in terms of their mechanical nature, the structure built of nuclear and electron bonding potentials, chemistry that initiates a host of various activities, and heat processes which lead to elemental phase changes etc. Ultimately all potentials of biology owe their existence to the pre-existing potentials of matter, so credit has to be given where its due. This credit has to be issued to the physical world in terms of its level of complexity, which is very much a subject related to fine tuning observations. When science becomes a strong advocate of ideas such as "the multiverse" based on the inferences of unexplainable complexity of the world, it takes on an amateurish feel. In terms of choosing to believe in something which has no empirical evidence or predictive ability, which might be a mandatory requirement to reinforce such a belief. And when a belief in multiverses becomes the reason to turn ones back on new ideas offering prospective explanations for complexity of the world, then science has become something to unflattering to mention out loud. I not talking about required belief of a new idea, but rather just curiosity and willingness to test ideas!
What bothers me increasingly, is that I have stepped forward with an idea which seeks to give a solution to universal complexity. An idea which goes to the effort of providing an interpretation within terms of what is already known about the world, and might be tested against logical argument and confirmed empirical measures of the world. And this community which holds its primary mantra to be "asking the foundational questions" has not engaged with me seeking to comprehend or test the validity of my idea. In a world where theory's attempting to prescribe answer for complexity can be counted on a three fingered hand, you might expect for more. I certainly do.
I want this community to engage with me, even if it's just to determine why my idea doesn't work. What do you suppose I have to do before I am honoured with acknowledgment of my existence here? Make some kind of noise perhaps? Perhaps I've been to quiet?
Goes without saying that none of this frustration is directed at you or anybody in particular:)
