|
Author
|
Topic: Is 2nd Law a special case of 4th Law?
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 16. September 2006 01:13
Sal
Thanks for the welcome and thank you for introducing this most interesting topic. To the truly objective observer the universe is replete with the evidence for design. The problem of coming to an agreement about the depth and breath of this design is two fold as I see it.
First, there are very few objective observers who are interested. I am not an objective observer but I am an interested one. I was objective at one time but during that time I did not care to observe much. Second, any observation of design in the universe is necessarily labeled subjective post-observation. In other words, we observe certain structures as design in the universe only because that is what in our minds design should look like. It is like the color of my new truck, “desert sand”. When I saw the truck at the dealer’s I fell in love with what I thought at the time was an unusual color. During the six months that have followed my purchase I have been astounded by the number of vehicles painted in desert sand. The call from the establishment seems to be: If only the ID community would stop looking for what they think design should look like, then we would have far fewer of these subjective sightings and we could all concentrate on explaining things as accidental to the core which is after all a completely natural explanation.
I liked your quote from Dembski suggesting that it is rather likely that design might escape his filter. The truly encouraging thing is that it catches so many. I do disagree with Dembski when he maintains the filter will yield no false positives. Suppose, as Francis Collins suggests in his book “Language of God”, that a false positive is found or that it is statistically possible for the flagellum to have evolved over time. Am I right to say that even the best medical screenings yield a percentage of false positives and false negatives yet they are still used? And according to quantum theory it is statistically possible that a man could walk through the CLOSED front door of his house. There is an actual report of this happening! Should the apostles have said to Christ on His entry through the closed door: Wow Jesus, did you get lucky! No, there is a large estrangement between statistically possible and objectively reasonable. I maintain that objective reason points to design.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 17. September 2006 20:20
Mel, you say: quote:
It seems only slightly more probable to get two ID’ers to agree on the CSI of a string than it is to get two Darwinists to agree whether or not two organisms are in the same species or not.
quote:
To the truly objective observer the universe is replete with the evidence for design.
I wonder if by this you mean that the universe is replete with CSI? If your answer is yes, then do you see the universe replete with specified entities [since w.r.t.complexity there is on the whole agreement in the ID community]?
On this thread of late we have seen a number of attempts to define objective specificity:
(i) Specificity is when a string has another identical string countepart somewhere else in the universe. [by 2ndclass p8.p9]
(ii) Specificity is when a string is K-simple -(discussion of pi)
(iii) Specificity is when a string contains encoded a platonic abstraction [such as pi]
(iv) Specificity is when a string provides instructions for "function" (in particular life)
[(Note1) In the above (ii) and (iii) are essentially the same, seeing that algorithmic formation of pi is K-simple]
[(Note 2) In the above we are talking about physically encoded strings - i.e. DNA strands or computer registers]
I am interested if everyone (or anyone) could "chip in" and give their "objective - specification" condition.
I wonder how Sal makes a stab at objective specification? - i.e. the conceptual component of binary info.
What is that "detachable pattern" that is not already an inbuilt category in our minds?
Personally I like (iv) because it has a close analogue in physics: In physics one writes for the state |phi> of a particle in Hilbert space:
Hop|phi> = E|phi>
In biology it seems with self reproducing phenotype produced by genotype |DNA> in DNA configuration space:
Sop|DNA> = S|DNA>
Hop is the Hamiltonian operator, Sop is the survivability (fitness) operator. In physics Energy (E) is the eigenvalue of Hop; in biology survivability "fitness" (S) is the eigenstate of Sop. [|DNA> that reproduces most efficiently has S=1 being a true long living permanent "eigenstate" of a particular life system (species). |DNA> that is non-functional has S=0, while a mutated form would have S between 0 and 1]. By analogy |phi> in a physical system is that quantum state that "survives" in time (and is thus independent of time). In physics an atom (say) may have many discrete states "k" of different properties P(k); likwise for biology one might see there are many discrete states (species) - i.e. the horse, the elephant, etc, all with there very obvious different properties.
In this picture Energy (1st law) & Information (as in CSI) (4th law) are the only two truly conserved quantities in "nature". This is my best shot at objective specificity - What do you guys think? Chris
[ 18. September 2006, 06:05: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 18. September 2006 21:47
I realize that in my last post all I was doing was to suggest that something that survives (self propogates) in time must be specialized (specified). I realize this is in a sense tautological because clearly something that persists in time is conserved. It is that very conservation that we want to prove in the first place i.e. the 4th law! I think the way out maybe to rely on Bill Dembski's mathematical proof of the 4th law for conservation of CSI (can't see anything wrong with it) and then just aim at showing it reasonable to call living systems "specified" - a sensible and obvious thing to most folk (well isn't life terribly special! - has man come anywhere near making a living cell?). Why do we somehow have to "prove" living systems are special (specified).
The analogy made between physics and biology in the last post may still be helpful. Particle states in physics are very precise (similar to those in biology) and if they are true eigenstates of a system they persist in time. This is important because it is the precision required to "hit" a life producing |DNA> state that is ultimately the point w.r.t making the complexity above the UCB.
Please also note that conservation of energy was first and formost an experimental observation; Perhaps then the conservaton of CSI should be likewise? - Chris
[ 19. September 2006, 06:08: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 21. September 2006 20:49
Mel,
quote:
I have instructed a group of my students to design a contraption that will release a die from a height of 5 cm in exactly the same manner each time – trying to take control of as many variables as possible. We will collect data and determine the effects of this control on the probabilities of individual outcomes.
I have been thinking about how you would do such an experiment to the kind of precision you would need - but I have had difficulty thinking how. Do let us know how you get on and results.
quote:
Second, any observation of design in the universe is necessarily labeled subjective post-observation. In other words, we observe certain structures as design in the universe only because that is what in our minds design should look like.
I guess this is why I posted the posts above. I to have felt the common challenge of "post-observation" (i.e. that we are drawing a circle around the target once it has arrived). I think this is a false way of thinking. Briefly modern science works on observables (measurements - phenomenon that happen and can be measured)[i.e. in physics certain particles being formed at certain energies, in biology cellular metabolism and reproduction at certain DNA configurations]. Scan the various spaces and most of the space there is absolutely no observable - i.e. one should focus on scanning configuration space and looking for those small "islands of activity" where something observable happens. I.E. Targets are governed by natural law and not by post-observation. - Chris
[ 22. September 2006, 02:12: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 22. September 2006 07:45
Chris
Sorry, I have not responded sooner. I have been considering your proposed eigenspace for DNA configurations and will respond to that in my next post. For now, I focus on your questions:
quote:
I wonder if by this you mean that the universe is replete with CSI? If your answer is yes, then do you see the universe replete with specified entities [since w.r.t.complexity there is on the whole agreement in the ID community]?
Yes, I see the universe replete with CSI and further replete with specified entities! I also prefer [iv]:
[iv] Specificity is when a string provides instructions for "function" (in particular life).
Perhaps we could include order, i.e. when the string provides instructions for “function” or establishes “order”? But the existence of this order may already be demanded in the complexity stipulation.
While the function and order, all agree present, in the inanimate material throughout the universe is impressive, as you say, it is with life in particular we recognize these two characteristics.
I don’t see the 2nd law of thermodynamics as preventing the natural (evolutionary) development of local complexities, however, inanimate material is a slave to the 2nd law by necessity while “life is a fugitive from the 2nd law” (quoting John Avery from his book “Information Theory and Evolution”). The simple fact that life adapts to its changing environment in order to survive smacks of design. Life that is not designed should be indifferent to death, strapped more tightly to the laws of necessity and less prone to contingencies.
The conclusion that the overwhelming patterns, forms, functions, and order of the universe that are so easily recognized, in fact manifest, to any observer, objective or not, could only exist in the subjective mind reflects a conscious choice to erect chance as an agent of change.
Your example of the set of instructions in the DNA strand shows the error of this choice. There are no laws of necessity that require this level of complexity present in the strand and the degree of specification is too high to be accounted for by the laws of probability. In other words, life is an enigma to the laws of physics and an anomaly to the laws of probability.
We can and do study its complexity, however. And, perhaps your eigenspace of DNA configurations can show the objective specificity of the instructions there contained.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 23. September 2006 08:09
Mel, you say
quote:
Perhaps we could include order, i.e. when the string provides instructions for "function" or establishes "order"? But the existence of this order may already be demanded in the complexity stipulation.
Hmm, I query you inclusion of "order" with regard to living systems and "functioning systems". Surely an ordered string such as 1010101 etc is K-simple and can contain no information for any complex process such as life or function (see diagram of mine on 31 Aug [p9]and Williams diagram [p10] - -which feel free to critique). I thought K-simple (i.e. ordered) systems (and their encoding in strings) would be excluded by "the complexity stipulation" and could only be the product of necessity (i.e. regularity in the laws of physics - e.g. the NaCl crystal and the snowflake)?
quote:
... however, inanimate material is a slave to the 2nd law by necessity while “life is a fugitive from the 2nd law”
Couldn't agree more. Ordered strings such as NaCl cyrstals etc present no problem for the 2nd law; but CSI systems do indeed present big problems for the 2nd. When a planet is formed under the collapse of dust etc the entropy of the universe goes up in a simple to understand way - (while order [reduced entropy] is produced in the planetary matter the disorder going into the radiation field is larger). The same simplicity cannot be said to pertain to the formation of a DNA molecule embedded with CSI [which must necessarily reduce universe entropy since it requires energy input to build - (opposite to NaCl, snowflakes, planets and galaxies where energy is given out on formation) and ALSO because of the CSI itself contains (an entropy reduction)]. I'd like to say more about this in another post referencing to the famous physicist Victor Weisskopf's statement of the 4th law.
- Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 23. September 2006 20:54
Chris
Let me see if I understand your eigenstate analogue.
When the matrix of all quantifiable factors affecting the survival of an organism is applied to the DNA configuration of each organism in a population, that population is then roughly partitioned into n eigenspaces each having an eigenvalue s[i], corresponding to the likelihood of survival for individuals in the ith eigenspace. Am I close?
You say:
quote:
I thought K-simple (i.e. ordered) systems (and their encoding in strings) would be excluded by "the complexity stipulation" and could only be the product of necessity (i.e. regularity in the laws of physics - e.g. the NaCl crystal and the snowflake)?
O.k., I agree we can have order without information but can we have information without order? Take the DNA strand. The information stored in it is no good without the order. Without the order it is irretrievable. How complex can things become if the information is untransferable?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. September 2006 02:18
There is no problem with the 2nd law as long as efficiencies do not exceed 100%, which so far they most certainly do not. Thermodynamics is a science and when the efficiencies of biological processes are in the 80% range which they most definitely are, living sysems are'nt "fleeing the second law."
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 24. September 2006 20:10
Mel - I understand your point of view on "order" in the universe. I think that much depends on definition. The 1st sense - the string with order - i.e. the 1010101 or pi (all K-simple patterns)[this is the technical sense as used in the EF]. The 2nd sense of "order" is a higher level concept (which I believe is the sense you use)- such as the ordering of the planets, the order seen by the ancients (Rom 1:20) in nature and human society and as you say the fact that the DNA molecule can and does existence. But I ask you is this form of "order" not the outworking of CSI that we cannot see embedded in the universe and which also lies behind the laws of physics (fine tuned for life) - and the boundary conditions of our universe. There is mounting evidence that planetary systems and life sustaining planets like ours are so uncommon that they probably only exist at one place in the universe !- which strongly suggests that there was initial CSI present at the Big Bang (or possibly injected along the way)- an ultrafine trajectory [absolutely collosal CSI] that led to our solar system and planet earth (an astrophysics colleague agrees this is possible). Newton believed that the planets had been set in their orbits by God and perhaps he was on the right path ! [The same could be said for the formation of DNA] However, I must maintain that with regard to the "order" we seen in condensed systems (stars, planets etc) - and indeed we see order (in a 3rd sense ) - this order has only been made at the expense of a greater disorder in the radiation field (in a sense it is only apparent order since we cannot see the whole show) - i.e. this 3rd sense order is a natural thing that one would expect from physical law alone and needs no CSI to guide it ( except that which is possibly embedded in the laws of physics - e.g. the laws that cause forces such as gravity to be attactive). Note that w.r.t DNA the degradation of existing CSI that occurs in time (one form of the 4th) relates to entropy incease on the DNA string (the 2nd) - this too is natural - Chris
John - I agree with you under normal conditions what you say about the 2nd law applies - but what at those times when the BFL was downloading - can you say the same at those instances? - Chris
[ 24. September 2006, 20:35: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. September 2006 04:43
Chris
I am not a philosopher, just a poor bench scientist who tries to understand what can be tested in the laboratory. That includes thermodynamics. I find it amazing the amount of speculation that goes on concerning matters subject to direct examination. I have called attention to experimental findings which fully support conventional thermodynamics with the understanding that in living, open systems, extraordinarily high efficincies prevail. Those findings have been ignored here as speculation reigns supreme. Frankly, I don't even know what is going on in much of internet communication, because very little of it deals with the real world which is the world of the laboratory that I am most familiar with.
I have offered an alternative to the Darwinian myth in the form of the Prescibed Evolutionary Hypothesis. It is based on hard cold fact. It remains largely ignored both in the published literature and in the ephemeral world of the internet.
I regard that as a good sign. Mendel's contributions were ignored for 32 years and he died long before that. I am sure my fate will be the same. I am content.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
I am not prepared to speculate about that which cannot be examined. Speculation is for philosophy, not for science. I regard it as a monumental waste of time. I am not alone.
"Upon reading books on philosophy, I learned that I stood there like a blind man in front of a painting. I can grasp only the inductive method....the works of speculative philosophy are beyond my reach."
Albert Einstein
IP: Logged
|
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 25. September 2006 19:35
Hi Chris,
quote:
Christopher [iv]: Specificity is when a string provides instructions for "function"
"(iv)Specificity" would be my choice also. On an earlier post I used to words "transcendent specificity" (pg.7 Oct 27/05) wherein the word "transcendent" refers to something that stands out statistically from its background. The obelisk on the moon (2001 space oddity) "stands out," "transcends" or "goes beyond" the standard lunar features of craters, rubble and dust. For me "transcended specificity" is the same as "functional specificity" (iv). The words "transcend" and "functional" refer two attributes of information/specificity and subsequent ways in which specificity might be empirically (objectively) identified.
DNA code is functionally specific. The level of this specificity can be determined by gene "knock out" experiments or by genetic engineering experiments. These experiments establish the extent to which the DNA code (say for the flagella) can be modified without loss of function (or loss of flagella). It seems to me that Behe's claim is that the specific DNA coding for the flagella represents an island of functionality surrounded by an ocean of dysfunction -- in which countless, slightly altered, codes do not work. In a similar manner the Washington monument is both an obelisk and a monument. If one were to take a wrecking ball and thereby randomize ("level" the formerly vertical {non level}) monument it would no longer function(iv) as an inspirational monument.
Cosmological arguments for design likewise point to the functional specificity(iv) of the cosmological constants. While we cannot change or alter the cosmological constants we can indeed calculate what would happen if they were slightly different. While perturbation tolerances vary from case to case, and functions may differ, it seems to me the "functional specificity" that I (we?) allude to is objective, quantifiable and empirically testable.
We seem to have a considerable agreement from all sides regarding "functional specificity" or something of the sort.
quote:
Chris, June 2005 pg 5.
It is an empirically determinable fact whether or not the DNA coding leads to a working functional flagellum
quote:
Chris,
[MS2> = 010001110111010010011100110101101011101110101000010
50 bits from a portion of virus MS2 RNA. This hits a "functional life" target of making the virus "work". I know 2nd class will not be too happy with defining specification via "functional life" -
quote:
2ndclass Christopher,... I even agree with the part about the "functional life" target.
quote:
Melvin H Fox 22. September 2006 07:45
"I also prefer [iv]: Specificity is when a string provides instructions for "function" (in particular life)"
I am thinking it might be an good idea to review our definitions
quote:
Sal, 20. May 2005 00:17 (Page #1.)
These definitions are understandably confusing at first, but surmountable...
Probabilistic Complexity
Specificational Complexity
Specified Complexity
Irreducible Complexity
Kolmogorov Complexity
All of these are in Dembski's book, and should be treated with care, lest one becomes totally confused.
Probabilistic and Specificational Complexity require a separate discussion.
Specified complexity has these features (per Design Revolution, page 84)
1. Low Specificational Complexity
2. High Probabilistic Complexity
Have I confused you all yet?
If "specificational complexity" is employed in the definition of "Specified Complexity" then surely we would be well advised to discuss it. Here is my take on these in terms of K-complexity.
#1. Probablistic complexity = Improbability {c=-Log2(p)} = additive "logarithmicated" improbability
#2. Specificational complexity = (i)K-complexity
#3. Specified Complexity(Specified Improbability) = (i)K-complexity sufficiently improbable so as to defy the universal probability bound.
#4. Irreducible Complexity = high (i)K-complexity -- a specific form of #3.
#5. Kolmogorov Complexity has 2 forms in my model .. (m) and (i)
(m)K-complexity is K-complexity in isolation, devoid of a valid informational context. -- (though not devoid of informational implications, eg, thermodynamic microstates -- see below.)
(i)K-complexity is K-complexity that has a valid informational context (such as DNA).
For obvious reasons "Specificational complexity" can be easily confused with "Specified Complexity." I believe Dembski is assuming a valid informational context for his "Specificational complexity" and this would make it synonymous with my "(i) K-complexity" in that it tracks directly to information density.
As I see it, platonic derivatives such as the Pi string can be used as "standard candles" in order to initiate/facilitate contact with extraterrestrials or vice versa. In such cases however we are not just sending information as to the amplitude of Pi (so that ET's can accurately measure siding for their circular Jacuzzis). We are instead using Pi string as a carrier of secondary information such as "we are intelligent life, we have computers and we are not afraid to use them." The entire Pi string then becomes important (information laden) as an example of our mathematical acuity and subsequent intelligence. We are assuming that a technological ET society will already know the Pi ratio and that Pi holds in say Andromeda galaxy just as much as it does here.
Using an obelisk to invoke a design inference seems to be another case of using platonics, not as a primary but as a carrier. Once again, precision (and subsequent intelligence) is on display. Platonic lines, rotational symmetry and exaggerated vertical-ness is on display in defiance (transcendence) of the background "level-ness." When a macroscopic structure is destroyed we will often say that it has been "leveled." In our particular gravitating universe "leveling " is easy and "vertical-ing" is hard -- particularly complex symmetric "vertical-ing."
quote:
2ndclass,
Given a uniform distribution, every digit is decided with a probability of 1/10. But given an algorithm that generates the digits of pi, every digit is fully determined and therefore contains zero additional bits of information.
In order to correctly place Pi and its digital representation on my info-density chart I must assess it in its natural (real world) informational context. We need to tell (inform) the (real world) worker -- who has only ever worked on square buildings -- how long the siding must be to cover a circular structure, given its diameter. The decimal system carries the information as to the amplitude starting with the most important number "3."
quote:
2ndclass,
Technically, there is always a countably infinite number of digits left to decide, which means that omega doesn't shrink.
We have the power/freedom to produce information and its attendant omega spaces. In order to communicate remainders to any given level of accuracy, we (humans) have chosen an orderly shrinking system of decimals that deals logically with remainders. Each new integer limits the amplitude and surprisal value of the next. If the numbers following after #3 were to make Pi larger than 3, (say 4 or 5 instead of 3) then that would be a surprise, but the "3" in "3.14.." is forever settled and surprisal is subsequently capped (finite).
quote:
2ndclass, September 2006 12:30
My point was that credit card numbers could be chosen randomly (if they were long enough to ensure uniqueness) and still meet the criteria that Dembski spells out for CSI.
Randomness never choose (specifies) anything. Random numbers can however be used (specified) by intelligence and by such usage they are granted a function and transformed. As soon as a random number ({m}K-complexity) is chosen and used as a "code" or a "key," (and the system in question is re-configured to unlock only in response to this specific sequence/code) then this formerly random number has been granted (by the intelligent designer) a valid functional informational context. It is subsequently promoted from the very bottom of my diagram to the top (maximum info density for its attendant system). As a new case of "functional specificity" and an information(identification) carrier, it is now fragile and (unlike random numbers) it is in need of maintenance and/or error correction. Any error in the string and the code will not function to open the lock. The repeated use of this specific code/sequence will also defy (transcend) the uniform probability distribution (randomness) which has no such spike. This particular chosen sequence is now both "transcendent" (as I use the term here) and functionally specific.
quote:
quote:
William Brookfield quote:Just as with randomness the complexity of Pi is in the display (the string) not in Pi itself.
2ndclass,
I can't tell if the word complexity in this sentence refers to Dembskian complexity, K-complexity, mock K-complexity, or some other concept.
I consider the complexity of the Pi string to be result of a display problem and therefore (m)K-complex.
I consider the string to be ordered (non-random) sequentially (I.E., 3 specifically comes before .1 and .1 comes before ..4 etc..). but I consider the display frequency for each integer (0-9) over the whole string to be statistically uniform, just as I consider randomness to be statistically uniform.
[ 25. September 2006, 19:57: Message edited by: William Brookfield ]
IP: Logged
|
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 25. September 2006 19:54
One model I have thought might be of help here is that of a "Sky-writing model airplane in a gas box."
If a very small model airplane were programmed to write CSI in the form of say "Happy Birthday" into the "sky" -- of a large gas-filled box. Assuming our standard atmosphere we can write the oxygen-nitrogen mix simply as "A" and the molecules of smoke output from the airplane as "S." After the message has been written we can then track the system's devolution over time.
Macroscopically:
The letters are becoming more and more spread as the system is approaching equilibrium. The sky-written information is becoming harder and harder to read. The {I}K-complexity of the lettering is lost over time as the system approaches equilibrium.
Microscopically:
Initially the smoke trails (SSSSSSSSSSASSSSSSSSSSSSASSSSS) are intact with only minor irregularities. Initially the many air "trails" are also intact (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA). Over time however this orderly K-simplicity is lost and the system becomes more and more K-complex (AASAASSASASASASSAASASSSASSASAASSS). Without a valid information context however, this increasing K-complexity does not represent an information increase. Instead it seems to me that (m) K-complexity is tracking (in upside down fashion) the macroscopic story of genuine information loss. Moreover, because the particles are all in states of different motion, their attendant spacetime frameworks are in black-hole-dynamic conflict, resulting in the (hyper-subtle) dissipation of gravitational energy and loss of space-time-mass differentiation (cosmic information loss). Without an information context "AASAASSASASASASSAASASSSASSASAASSS" doesn't mean anything (beyond informing us that the macroscopic sky-lettering is severely damaged and most likely unreadable). Without a spacetime framework letters are truly unreadable. Of course, relativistic effects here are very subtle.
Due to the existence of nanotechnologies, microscopic K-complexity cannot always be identified with randomness. I believe the crucial thing is a valid informational context for any given sequence. I.E., functional context determines whether any given example of K-complexity is {I}informational or {m) "mock" complexity. "Mock K-complexity" is where the complexity depends of the display (graininess, pixilation) and is not inherent in that which is being displayed.
It seems to me that, when properly applied, Shannon's "Specified Information" fits like a hand in a glove into Dembski's "Specified Complexity." I feel however, that the direct use of Shannon's mathematical formalism to (context-absent) thermodynamic microstates ({m}K-complexity) is misplaced. Left alone, entropy always increases and "entropy" is disorder.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 26. September 2006 06:11
John
I agree that life does not violate the 2nd law. I simply mean to say that it does not cooperate with it [William’s transcendent specificity]. Life seems to understand that it is being destroyed and seeks ways to overcome or at least postpone this destruction. A star is not aware that it is dying or if it is then it takes no action in order to prolong its existence. There is nothing philosophical about this so far, correct? Most systems play along with the 2nd law; they seek to achieve a minimum of free energy. Living systems do not play along. A star does trap (by necessity) matter in its gravitational field but it does not construct a thin fibrous web or change its color in order to collect energy.
Living systems take action and purpose to survive. This is an objective conclusion based on observation. I ask you this question: Is there a law in nature that would bring such living systems into existence by necessity? I can think of none. If we rightly dismiss chance, then what is left but design and a designer? Now we can speculate that this designer is impersonal, as you have done in earlier posts, or we can trust that He is a personal all mighty God based on observations which can’t be verified in a laboratory. In any case, the existence of a designer is manifest in His creation and is most conspicuous in living systems with respect to their un-necessary fight against the increase in entropy.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. September 2006 07:07
Mel
I accepted Intelligent Design as a given over 20 years ago so I don't have to answer your question. Every evolution paper I have ever published literally oozes with it. It is a waste to present these matters for debate as they only serve to prolong the Darwinian fantasy. Darwinism is in a self destruct mode as it always has been and the best thing is to let it continue unobstructed. It is the biggest joke in the history of science and, if one must refer to it, that is the way it should be done, with the utmost levity.
"Darwinians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your natural selection."
after Karl Marx
"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
John Donne
"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley
"Darwinism is the slowest yet most certain form of suicide ever conceived by the human imagination."
John A. Davison
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 26. September 2006 21:08
quote:
Chris asked:
I wonder how Sal makes a stab at objective specification? - i.e. the conceptual component of binary info.
There are some axiomatic (faith assumptions) in science for basic patterns. We consider them "objective", but in the formal sense, it is still an axiomatic faith assumption and thus one could still argue subjectivism. That said, consider the following 2 coin strings (spacing for clarity):
1. H H H H H H H H T H H T T T T T
2. H H H H H H H H T H H T T T T T
#1 and #2 are identical. They specify each other in other words. One can call this "objective".
What Wigner realized and I think some today are realizing, is that even this supposedly self-evident specification is still subjective. What makes equivalence any more special than any other specification?
If one finds this a bit bizarre, consider that life is special because life shares equivalence in many dimenstions such as:
1. replication
2. metabolism
3. coding schemes
etc.
One quickly realizes it is hard to give life a fully objective specification, and yet, there it is.
Thus, because it is so foundational to science to accept that specifications exist, whether specifications are subjective or objective is less of a question than whether they work to identify designs in nature.
quote:
What is that "detachable pattern" that is not already an inbuilt category in our minds?
If it pre-exists in our minds before we happen upon it in physical reality, then it is considered detachable. This may seem strange so it is worth a little explanation.
Detachable only means the pattern is not post-dictive. A blue-print of a car may influence the way a car is built. It is still detachable since the physical car does not dictate what is written in the blueprint. However the reverse (the blue print dictating the car) is permissible.
In like manner, we carry blueprints in our minds. Then there are a finite number of valid variations of those blueprints which will still be valid specifications. That is why we can recognize designs (like a novel that we've never seen before) as still designed.
A very complex discussion of this is in debmski's latest paper on specification :
Specification : The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence
He goes into a very intersting discussion of the Champernowne sequence which took me 2 weeks to figure out since it was so novel.
I don't have the space to elaborate, and I'm still digesting Dembski's ideas, but he goes into how to statistically factor out subjectvism or possibilities of post-diction in a specification.
For example
1. H H H H H H H H T H H T T T T T
2. H H H H H H H H T H H T T T T T
3. T T T T T T T T H T T H H H H H
#3 is the complement or inverse of #1. We can't give #3 as strong a specification score as #2, but it is hard to simply say #3 is not specified when it clearly is (since it seems to be the inverse of #1).
Dembski offers how to objectively "penalize" #3 and lower #3's specification score. I have not fully digested this, but I think he's on the right track.
This is important since ID is supposedly self-evident. What Dembski's work does is assure us that, following ordinary scientific practice, we aren't being deluded by our own subjectivism, unless of course science itself is an equally subjective illusion, a hypothesis which a scientist would reject since this axiom is his article of faith under which he views reality.
[ 26. September 2006, 21:11: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
