|
Author
|
Topic: By what mechanism does the intelligent designer affect the physical world
|
yanniru
Member
Member # 1732
|
posted 30. August 2005 16:46
I am new to this Society. So to begin I read much of the Brainstorms and the Journal Articles. Now what struck me is that in attributing the action of an Intelligent Designer to evolutionary progress (for lack of another descriptor), what seems to be missing in making this a really scientific argument is how the intelligent designer interacts with the physical world. In other words, what is the physical mechanism by which the Intelligent Designer achieves that design physically. I have my own ideas about ho3w that might be done. But I prefer to hear how the proponents of ID think it could be achieved. In short, how does the non-physical influence the physical?
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 30. August 2005 23:38
The only proposal for how an unembodied designer could "impart" information to the material world of which I'm aware is Dembski's, in Intelligent Design Coming Clean: quote:
How much energy is required to impart information? We have sensors that can detect quantum events and amplify them to the macroscopic level. What’s more, the energy in quantum events is proportional to frequency or inversely proportional to wavelength. And since there is no upper limit to the wavelength of, for instance, electromagnetic radiation, there is no lower limit to the energy required to impart information. In the limit, a designer could therefore impart information into the universe without inputting any energy at all.
That is, Dembski invokes a zero-energy (and therefore zero channel capacity) infinite wavelength (and therefore unfocusable) communication channel. One also wonders what sort of modulation of a zero-energy infinite-wavelength signal would encode the 'information'.
The other alternative that's been offered is Behe's puff of smoke.
Of course, earlier on this board Dembski asserted that ID isn't obliged to offer 'mechanistic' explanations: quote:
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
RBH
[ 30. August 2005, 23:40: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 31. August 2005 07:32
yanniru - that's a really good question, but let me say the following:
1. We still do not know the mechanisms by which the intelligent activity of human beings and other animals proceeds from thought to action.
2. Yet, we do know that human being represent a class (perhaps a very small class) of beings in the universe that cause things to happen in a unique way: intelligently (where intelligent causation represents those cases where the world is changed to conform to some idea or thought)
3. So, while yours might be an interesting question to pursue, we might first want to build a model around the organisms that we can conduct research on: human beings.
While that research is being done (and it is being done in fMRI machines at a University near you) we can still separate that question out from other facts such as:
1. The fact that intelligent agents exist
2. The fact that intelligent causation takes place
3. The fact that some of the effects of intelligent causation are recognizably distinct, yet perfectly physical
4. That physical things are amenable to empirical investigation, etc.
[ 31. August 2005, 07:34: Message edited by: Micah Sparacio ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 31. August 2005 10:50
The posed question is a difficult one because the answer probably only lies 50% in the physical universe. Theologically the Designer speaks (spoken active word) across the "void" - see for example the theological development of D. Bonhoeffer (Creation and Fall). But on the more science side I have heard it suggested that for example when DNA is replicating in e.g. meiosis that mutations could be introduced by the Designer (information source) without necessarily contravening quantum mechanics. Quantum fluctuations would occur rapidly during transmission - producing say a novel gene - if it were possible to observe?. All the laws of physics as we know them could (in principle) be undisturbed but information would have none the less have been written de novo onto the the parting DNA strands. This is something for quantum chemists to comment on. These are interesting speculations - but can they ever be anything more than this one wonders?
[ 31. August 2005, 11:03: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 31. August 2005 11:09
Christopher D. Beling,
I wonder why you say this:
quote:
Its a difficult question because the answer probably only lies 50% in the physical universe. Theologically the Designer speaks (spoken active word) across the "void"
Why 50% -where'd you pull that number from? What's this void that you're talking about? Where's the evidence of this void? Talk like that seems scientifically vacuous to me.
In my view, yanniru begs an important question when he concludes his initial post with this:
"In short, how does the non-physical influence the physical?"
This begs the question about whether intelligence is something non-physical. Why do you suppose that it is?
I say, let's figure out first how human intelligence affects the world. That's the easier of the two questions, and is still unsolved. Yet, we know without a doubt that it happens. So, we've got a datum "human intelligence changes the physical universe." How does that happen?
By insisting that it happens "in the void" or in some non-physical space is really avoiding the question altogether.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 01. September 2005 21:09
quote:
Why 50% -where'd you pull that number from? What's this void that you're talking about? Where's the evidence of this void? Talk like that seems scientifically vacuous to me.
Hi Micah,
With regard to the 50%. My reasoning was that any standard communication system one has the components:
Source message>encoder> - channel> -decoder>desination message.
In the physical realm - (alone which we can empirically investigate) - we have the destination message, and some of the channel (not sure about the decoder? )i.e. one could say approximately 50% of the system - although it may indeed be that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg? The source message + encoder + the entry in the channel - will all be obscure to us because about this realm (being defined as non physical) we cannot know by empirical means. It is possible that my "50% unseen" could also be "totally other" and as such incomprehensible to us with our limited minds/experience. For example it may be presumptious to even suggest it has things like an "encoder". I guess we are fairly safe in saying it must have a "source message" - but of what form - digital?
Two possibilities seem open with regard to that unseen realm:
1)To rely on revelation - Bonhoeffer was doing this from the Genesis one account - and hope for at least systematic consistency. [Bonhoeffer's use of the word "void" I cannot comment on too much, but it seems to indicate - a region/realm where there is lack of form, or we could even say lack of information rich structures.]
2)To rely on human (anthropomorphic) speculations based on analogies in the physical realm. Personally I think this quite dangerous and can lead to insubstantial lines of reasoning - For example Richard Dawkins in "Climbing Mount Improbable" (p68) argues (quite wrongly I believe)
quote:
Any designer capable of constructing the dazzling array of living things would have to intelligent and complicated beyond all imagining. And complicated is just another word for improbable - and therefore demanding an explanation
Even with physics theory we cannot really properly understand quantum mechanics - the way in which a particle can for example be in a superposition of states - and this is theorizing within the physical realm. The deeper we go in physics the less comprehensible things become - what if we extend to metaphysics?
[ 02. September 2005, 23:40: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 08. September 2005 11:44
The thread topic asks "by what mechanism does the intelligent designer affect the physical world."
Let's remember that "intelligent designer" applies to any cognitive agent that implements some plan. Design as we know it involves several processes which involve different types of causal interaction (body->mind, mind->body, mind->mind and body->body).
The planning stage of design takes place in the mind of a cognitive agent. Unfortunately, we're still trying to understand what exactly a mind is. Most philosophers have determined that mind consists in the functional roles that it plays. This allows for multiple realizabiltiy of mind wherever the functions of mind are realized. So it is at least conceivable that we could have some cognitive agent that was non-biological (maybey it is based on contemporary hardware components).
Does the existence of mind imply the existence of a designer? I'd like to suggest that it does not. It is conceivable and plausible that minds could merely cogitate, think, perceive, etc. without being active agents. A mind might exist in a passive, receptive state. The minds that we know best are both active and passive. They receive their contents from the world in a largely passive fashion (via sensation and perception) but they also initiate action in the physical world.
The point here of course is that while we know that human minds (whatever they are) exist and we know that human minds make a difference in the world, we really haven't a clue about the mechanism by which this takes place.
So, before we posit a question about the design mechanism of some remote designer of biological systems, we might want to figure out the mechanism by which humans design.
Obviously we plan and conceive of a state of the world that does not yet exist. Some philosophers might throw in the fact that we need the mental state of "desire" to motiviate us to make that plan a reality. We then work and act towards changing the world. But how it happens, understood in a purely physical fashion, is still an unanswered question.
[ 08. September 2005, 11:46: Message edited by: Micah Sparacio ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 12. September 2005 15:05
quote:
So, before we posit a question about the design mechanism of some remote designer of biological systems, we might want to figure out the mechanism by which humans design.
I guess this is ok, but I still worry about the danger of possible anthropomorphic extrapolations. To see this danger we could say that an objective look at microprocessors and computers would indicate that the designer probably has a mind of a digital nature based on the digital nature of the logic gates etc. However, if we look at the anatomy of the human brain we don´t see a digital based thinking system, but a complex system of neural networks. But laying that aside for the time being, there are perhaps essences of mind that transcend physical form.
When thinking about "mind" one cannot escape the age old free will problem in philosophy. If given two possible courses of action A or B, assuming that the mind has some way of instantiating action that would either result in A or B, then is the mind fully free to choose? A physicalist would say no - all the action that takes place, although perhaps perceived as a free choice, is in fact governed by the laws of physics (i.e. the total sum of heredity+environment encoded in certain brain states - transiting to a new brain state that brings about the choice-action) . The alternative is free-will philosophy, which would agree with most of the physicalist description-but say that it is incomplete - there being another factor to add in - free will. This is something metaphysical - something beyond the Schrodinger equation acting on all the electrons in the brain. I guess I am a non-physicalist.
For example we say¨"I have not made up my mind" in English. This presumes the existence of the I - the inner self´- that really observes, thinks and cogitates on all the information it has available to it at the time of decision making, but really does have the real freedom to instantiate A or B.
I believe that neuroscientists and those engaged in artificial intelligence - now largely understand how neural connection make and break in the brain. To a large extent makes and breaks in neural pathways are governed by rewards or lack of reward - something that a physicalist would delight in. However, the interesting thing about being human is that we can override lower level desires. We can choose to a limited extent which parts of the brain to develop which effects our future decisions. We can also choose to act altruistically. I wonder if you agree?
- Christopher
[ 12. September 2005, 20:30: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stuart Harris
Member
Member # 152
|
posted 15. September 2005 15:08
yanniru,
In addition to RBH's link above, see Chapter 20 "Nature's Receptivity to Information" in Dembski's The Design Revolution. It contains a more recent (2004) summary of Dembski's ideas on information imparted to nature as being a mechanism for intelligent design.
IP: Logged
|
|
Wade
Member
Member # 1713
|
posted 17. September 2005 17:43
Perhaps a relevant question is the nature of process control designed into the world around us. Is this a "fire-and-forget" (passive-control) system, or a
"fire-and-occasionally-tweak" (semi-active control),
or a "fire and pilot" (always-active control) system? How could we tell those apart with observational data or theoretical arguments?
My top-level post (about 8 down) regarding magnetrons describes a class of control system with no moving parts except the actors, who appear to only be interacting with each other.
A small aircraft with V-shaped wings (as seen from
the front) has a "dihedral" shape, which is self-correcting. If one wing tips down, it has a larger horizontal cross section than the other, therefore more lift, therefore it pulls itself back up, and the system is dynamically stable.
It seems to me to say the world is "designed", by itself, is as contentless as saying something is "art". You have to get into "designed FOR X" and assert some purpose, objective, or outcome, to have content.
So, since evolution is the most dramatic observational event around us, let's suppose the world is designed to evolve, and, further, that this is reflected in the world evolving distinctly (a) faster than, or (b) more targeted to a specific end-point than "simple" mutation plus recombination would produce or (c) more powerfully , in the sense that barriers could be crossed that recombination schemas alone couldn't cross (multiple-simultaneous changes).
There's things that could have observational consequences and even p-values computed. I think Dembski computed some numbers, but I couldn't follow the higher math.
A problem with searching for mechanisms, per se, as opposed to comparing outcomes, is that, a designer would probably be extraordinarily efficient and effective. Most of what we see as government or management or pilot intervention is gross change necessitated by prior mistakes. As a society, we place very little value on preventive maintenance - for example, less than 2% of the health care budget of the US is spend on prevention - we prefer to wait until things break, then do dramatic saves and fix them, which is vastly more visible and costly. The designer of worlds, probably not so.
If you watch a professional pilot land a 737 or a Lear jet, their fingers barely touch the controls and the control moves are imperceptible. The coffee remains level in the cup, even though the plane is banked. They planned their path long ahead, and fix even tiny errors early with maximum leverage. Compare to a student pilot, who jerks the plane around wildly and energetically.
So, whatever control there is, would probably be extremely or vanishingly subtle - down in the noise, but very wide spread and constant. Again, science is not at its best, nor are humans, at detecting constants.
In fact, to alter the trajectory of a system in this fractal, open, non-deterministic space we live in requires zero-energy, in the limit, if you don't care that the change be immediately visible.
So, in the sense of scanning the heavens for F=ma
type exertions of force from "nowhere" to change the course of events, seeing nothing is not persuasive either way.
It seems we need stronger theoretical muscles on the outcomes end instead. Whatever it is, however it works, are the outcomes not only surprising, but startling? Intuition is probably a poor guide, because the outcomes of artificial life experiments with cross-over and mutation are also quite startling and surprising.
IP: Logged
|
|
David Thomson
Member
Member # 1755
|
posted 23. September 2005 21:27
> what is the physical mechanism by which the Intelligent Designer achieves that design physically.
Living beings are not first level order of reality. Living things are made from cells, which are made from molecules, which are made from atoms, which are made from subatomic particles. The subatomic particles are quantum, in that they are first level matter, which makes up the entire physical Universe.
I have thoroughly re-examined the quantum constants, force constants, and other quantum measurements. In doing so, and without making an effort to prove or disprove intelligent design, I discovered that the fundamental forces all originate from an enormous quantum Gforce, which I have properly quantified. This Gforce is equal to 1.21 x 10^44 newton and applies to each quantum of spacetime.
The Gforce not only is the root of the fundamental forces, but is also the cause of spacetime itself. Spacetime, in turn, absorbs dark matter and converts it into visible matter. The Gforce and spacetime (Aether) both exhibit dynamic qualities that resemble the activity of living things.
Further, the theory I developed also quantifies certain aspects of consciousness. All of these claims I have given here are backed up by solid math and empirical data. To see an introduction to this theory, you can read:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
There really is a physical mechanism for Intelligent Design and it goes right to the heart of science, which is quantum physics.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 24. September 2005 13:50
quote:
Is this a "fire-and-forget" (passive-control) system, or a
"fire-and-occasionally-tweak" (semi-active control),
or a "fire and pilot" (always-active control) system? How could we tell those apart with observational data or theoretical arguments?
This is really a very interesting question Wade and the airplane analogy a good way to stimulate thinking. Could I restate your 3 hypotheses for designer interaction as follows
(1)"fire-and-forget" (passive): Here the designer is super-knowledgeable about the physical atmospheric conditions around the globe to a unlimited degree of precision. He is thus able to feed into the airplane's flight control systems memory all the data set D1[aj(ti)] for controlling the rudders/flaps at all times ti along the flight - aj are the digitized signals for controlling the j flaps. The airplane flies perfectly with a perfect landing at the destination.
(2) "fire-and-occasionally-tweak" (semi-active): Here the designer has built in major feed-back systems:- such as the "dihedral shape, which is self-correcting" - or perhaps sensors in and around the plane pick up the local atmospheric conditions allowing calculations to be made by the auto-flight system - that allow corrections to be made to the rudder/flaps. Whatever, the designer can now just program in the flight path and can be sure that the plane will reach the destination. Here the ride may be more bumpy - as there will be some delay in retrieving and processing data from the environs. The flight control data set D2[aj(ti)] will have slightly less precision and information content. Only a small fraction of this information need now be fed in at take-off (i.e. the flight path)
(3)"fire and pilot" (always-active control). Here we get back to the good old days - but although there might be no "flight control system" as such there is still a virtual data set D3[aj(t)] that describes the rudder/flap control of the pilot during the flight. In this case no information need be fed in - there is no on-board computer anyway.
We might refer to these systems as:
(1) TOTAL information loaded at take-off
(2) PARTIAL information loaded at take-off
(3) NO information loaded at take-off
However the designed destination is reached in all cases - and the total rudder/flap control function will be similar but not identical. Therefore D1 approx= D2 approx= D3. If information is given just by the formula -logP, P being the probability of getting the data set by chance then I(D1) approx= I(D2) approx=I(D3). If on the other hand we include within the information measure the specification of "smoothness" of flight - certainly I*(D1)>I*(D2) or I*(D3), because flying by method (1) would represesnt the perfect flight -i.e maximal info. [I* represents info with inclusion of specification]
One also notes that the information can be broken down into two parts - the info at take-off, Io + the info put in during flight, If.
I(DX)=Io(DX)+If(DX)
So that Io(D1)=I*(D1), Io(D2)=small, Io(D3)=0
I.E. in cases (2) and (3) the bulk of the info has been added in during flight - via the feed-back system (auto as per (2) or pilot as per (3))
D3 might also have close to maximal information if the designer was the pilot! with a perfect response function to environmental conditions - i.e. the ideal of the most perfect pilot. In this case I(D3)approx=I*(D1)=max
The interest comes in applying this analogy to the way the Real Designer has operated in the past as regards Macro/Micro evolution. Perhaps one should not be so bold as to even try answering this - but in the spirit of this thread - I think we live more in a world of either (1) or (2). Both these would fit in the PEH - (Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis) of John. A. Davison (other thread) - i.e. the front loading of information. The problem with (3) is that it is not experimentally differentiable from (1) - but would lead to some panenthiestic worldview which may be argued against on other grounds. (2) would mean that the Designer had built in a micro-evolutionary adaptation system (subspecies level) that was in a sense free to govern itself - so as to ensure the survival of the species in different physical environs that may turn up.
-Chris
[ 25. September 2005, 21:26: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Aspen
Member
Member # 1787
|
posted 18. October 2005 07:05
What is the physical mechanism by which the ID achieves that design, physically?'..
Ahh,.. How can the designee observe the method of his design, if it were not in the design that he should?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 18. October 2005 23:25
quote:
1. We still do not know the mechanisms by which the intelligent activity of human beings and other animals proceeds from thought to action.
Actually, we usually have a pretty good idea how designs are implemented here on earth. Don't get distracted by a discussion of the nature of intelligence - we can leave that for the psychologists. Let's focus on the mechanics.
For example, currently electrochemical impulses in my brain are passing between neurons and ultimate send signals along my spinal column to various muscle groups, resulting in my fingers pressing down on various keys of my keyboard. A switch translate that keystroke into an electric signal that passes through a wire into my computers CPU. The CPU processes those electronic signals through millions of microscopic switches, engaging in complex mathematics. Some of the results of those calculations cause my monitor to emit an electric pulse the exits molecules on the screen to emit light at certain frequencies, which pass through the lenses of my eyes and strike my optic nerves, which are excited in specific ways and the information passed as electrochemical signals back into my brain. Some of the information passes (or will pass shortly) through a wire through an Interconnected Network of servers and become a posting on ISCID.
That is how I "created" this post.
One of our esteemed colleagues suggests that the Designer is actually a Supreme Observer, and "observes" at the quantum level to invoke specific effects. There are two flaws with this, at least as presented.
We know that when, in a physics experiment we observe something at the quantum level, we change it. There is nothing mystical about this. It is just that the tools with which we can observe such things are quite crude and requires a brute force physical interaction to make the observation. In fact, ALL observations are a result of some kind of physical interaction. Therefore if a Supreme Observer can create effects at the quantum level, it must do so by some physical means. There must be some physical interaction between the observer and the observed. That has yet to be explained.
Second, we make observation in order to learn things about that which we are observing. The physical change is a side-effect of the observation. We change the quantum state of the observed object and to the degree that we can quantify how our method of observation affected the object, we can calculate its state prior to the observation. However, we cannot produce a specific effect, because we lack prior knowledge of the quantum state.
A Supreme Observer, in order to "observe" something into existence, must have prior knowledge of the quantum state. This requires some means of ascertaining that knowledge - perhaps by a very precise interaction that affects the quantum state the information from which is used to generate a second interaction which produces the desired effect. A very complex system indeed.
So when I ask HOW the Intelligent Designer, I am simply asking for the physical process, just as we can easily explain our physical processes of creation. A useful scientific theory should be able to explain this.
[ 18. October 2005, 23:28: Message edited by: Jim Skipper ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. October 2005 06:59
There is no question that the entire universe WAS designed. If one begins with that assumption as I have, what more must be assumed? Everything that WAS designed determined everything that HAS transpired since. There is no reason to believe that major changes are any longer in progress and several reasons to believe that they are not. You will note that I am using the past tense. It is my conviction that macroevolution (the formation of true species and higher catergories) WAS a phenomenon of the past. Just as ontogeny IS a self-regulating and self-terminating sequence, terminating with death, so phylogeny HAS terminated and is no longer in progress beyond the relatively trivial production of varieties.
One cannot assume that the devices we now observe operating in nature are the same ones that produced that nature. Quite the contrary, what we see operating now are mechanisms that are counter-evolutionary, serving to prevent rather than promote organic change. This was clearly recognized by Reginald Punnett and Leo Berg very early in the last century when they pointed out that Natural Selection DOES NOT produce change but rather maintains the status quo. Are we to believe that Natural Selection in the past did something THEN that it can no longer do NOW? I refuse to accept that reasoning.
EVERYTHING in the Darwinian model is wrong. It has proven to be a gigantic illusion based on the assumption that what we see now operated in the past, the so called uniformation principle of Lyell as applied to living systems. It is without foundation.
I have asked the following question many times and never received even an acknowledgement not to mention an answer. Assuming, as we must, that a creator must have been involved in a creation. exactly when in that prcess did the creator hand over the reins to Nature, that which had been created? My answer is never.
EVERTHING we now see around us was predetermined to appear and chance had nothing to do with any of it. Just as ontogeny terminates with death so all we see now is a finished phylogeny terminating at an alarming rate with extinction. I concur with Robert Broom and Julian Huxley that a new genus has not appeared in two million years and I further have challenged others to document a new physiologically isolated mammalian species that has evolved in historical times. That challenge also continues to be unanswered. The simple truth is that Homo sapiens is probably the youngest mammal species on this planet. To me that suggests a plan, a plan that has now been executed and terminated.
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic