We have come quite a way in this series on the science of purpose. We have demonstrated that purpose is a scientific fact, observable, measurable, and ubiquitous. 

Just as importantly, we have identified the limitations of reductionism and the physical laws upon which it is based. From the inception, Isaac Newton deliberately excluded purpose from the domain of his lawful mechanics. He believed that the laws of physics pertain solely to the inanimate realm, and that they did not, and could not, explain purposeful life. 

The demonstration of irreducible specified complexity proves that life is inexplicable within the framework of physical law alone. Therefore, in order to explain irreducible complexity, and thereby life itself, we must employ a logical framework that goes beyond physical law. My claim is that powers ontology is that framework.

Digging Deeper

Thus far, I have just scratched the surface of powers ontology. Now it’s time to dig deeper. 

Powers ontology asserts that all things, both animate and inanimate, have the power to manifest their intrinsic properties, e.g. heat, rigidity, fragility, fluidity, mobility, flexibility, reactivity, etc. Also, powers ontology claims that these properties are primarily manifested under circumstances to which they are disposed. For example, gasoline has the power to forcefully move pistons, but only when it is ignited. Copper has the power to conduct electricity, but only when it is connected to an electrical circuit. Water creates waves only when the wind blows. Predators only hunt when they’re hungry. Insulin is only released into the bloodstream when serum glucose levels rise. 

What gives powers ontology such extraordinary explanatory purview is that powers are “intrinsic” to the properties of matter from which they derive. As such, their disposition to be primarily manifested under specific conditions is neither entirely contingent nor entirely necessary. The power of their manifestation exists as a potential between the two constraints of chance and necessity.

Conditional Entailment

The precise term for this disposition of powers is “conditional entailment.” And indeed, physical law “largely” explains the mechanisms by which those powers are manifest in the inorganic realm. Oxygen will oxidize a reduced substance, but it won’t or can’t oxidize water. Coal will produce heat when burning, but not when it just sits underground. Your pancreas will not secrete insulin when you are hypoglycemic, but it will do so soon after you swallow a candy bar. The same is true for all other things, both living and nonliving. And it is indeed this universality of the powers ontology domain that justifies its validity. 

Now, is there a unique quality in life separate from redox and thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics that provides for the “conditional entailment” driving all of the biosphere?

Functional Logic

The conditional entailment rules of physical chemistry most assuredly occur both in life and in non-life. The key distinction is that for life alone, they only do so according to the rules of “functional logic.” Unlike the inorganic realm, in the animate realm, purpose is everywhere manifest. And that which is manifested is precisely the domain of powers ontology. It then follows that purpose becomes the primary power of life itself. And we know this to be true because everything that occurs within life performs a function that serves a purpose. 

How does this apply to the conundrum of irreducible complexity? Recall that what makes the complexity of life irreducible is that the observed mechanisms of life require an assembly that is end-directed, i.e., purpose driven. And as previously stated, the laws of physics and chemistry are devoid of purpose. So the explanation of irreducible complexity requires a broader metaphysical context. And now with powers ontology, we are in a position to provide that explanation within a rigorous logical framework.

That which is unique to life alone, which offers the only valid explanation of irreducible complexity, is the manifestation of goal-directed functional logic. In a word, intentionality. And powers ontology alone can accommodate intentionality. Because recognizing that purpose is the primary manifestation of the power of the animate, it follows that intentionality is the property that confers that power of purpose on life.

Therefore, the only way to move forward with a logical framework that defines and explains life is just this: powers ontology claims that intentionality is an intrinsic property of the living state, and that property is manifest by conferring the power of purpose into living things.