|
Author
|
Topic: Mechanically Specific Relativity
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 06. February 2006 09:48
Thanks KBC
Before anyone gets too excited by high complex specificity, the key factors are "non-compressible" "high resolution" and independent.
A wheel with a socket hole of radius Rw on an axle with a radius Ra can only function when the axle is with the tolerance range of operation relative to the wheel. These can be specified with a relatively few parameters. We still need to address Atom's comments on perturbation space.
Anyone have some good references or a review on evaluating the complex specificity of algorithms or computer programs?
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 06. February 2006 12:24
David said:
"Before anyone gets too excited by high complex specificity, the key factors are "non-compressible" "high resolution" and independent.
A wheel with a socket hole of radius Rw on an axle with a radius Ra can only function when the axle is with the tolerance range of operation relative to the wheel. These can be specified with a relatively few parameters. We still need to address Atom's comments on perturbation space."
This very subject is what I call an MSR and if we can look at the fossil record and define the relationship that is obviously needed between the socket and Ball in a joint such as the one at the pelvis then we can make ratio % comparisons for all the joints and if as I suspect we find another relationship or MSR among all the joints then we have a case for a control system that must control this MSR and effectively removes random chance mutations from altering it.
I don't see how random mutations can expect to keep a defined relativety (MSR) at each posited evolutionary change since the size of either the socket or the ball which are part of two different blueprinted constructs can be affected by random mutation and could change to any value up to infinity. In my new post I compare the shrew femur size to the sauropod femur size and obviously if both these sizes exist then we can assume or infer that any size within that range could occur at any mutation point essentially allowing for probability calculations for the chance of hitting just the right MSR's ratio % at each evolutionary stage at a near infinite improbability.
Now if an evolutionist says at this point that a control system evolved that controls the amount that anything can change then how does he fight the further question of what keeps the control system from mutating over time in every one of the phyla? We reach the damned if it did and damned if it didn't scenario either way.
I really think that this MSR method will allow us to quantify things better than has been done in the past and now we can make the fossil record actually work for us as a positive evidence of design based on the infinite improbability of evolutions engine of change to hit the correct ratio's of all the MSR's that we can identify and prove to exist.
Here is another point I would like to make about the evolutionary engine that should be obvious.
Unlike a designer such as myself that can just hit erase if I accidently assign a bad value to a parts size, evolution must follow through with the design and remove it by selection, effectively leaving behind a record of its error in every case.
This alone should be evident as we make our observation of the fossil record since it has been proven that there would be thousands of bad mutations for every good one proposed.
[ 06. February 2006, 12:42: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 06. February 2006 19:49
David,
The problem with the scissors, is that the cutting event is NOT independent. Therefore the resultant edge is NOT specified. The cutting function IS the local environmental selection pressure. While I am certainly proposing that interfaces are specified, it only exists if it can be shown that the interface has been independently arrived at.
Yes, you can establish an interface specification a priori, but that offers little advancement over textual specified complexity in that the language must be known prior to recognition of the specification.
One must demonstrate that the interface is arrived at by chance (from an RM / NS perspective). Thus the likelyhood of two components achieving the same interface is mere probabalistic chance, and thus subject to the Universal Probability Bound.
And to role KBC's MSR back into the discussion, the same holds true for MSR. If MSR is to be subject to design inferrence by the UPB, then it's formation via the darwinian mechanism must be un-directed and pure chance. Thus the factors in any equation must be shown to be independent of each other in instantiation.
Which brings me back to the paper tear again. No matter how complex the tear...the torn edge is NOT specified. What is subject to the UPB, is the likelyhood that two seperate & random tears in two seperate pieces of paper are equal. The equivilance being purely subject to chance and thus if the complexity exceeds the UPB, then a non-random (i.e. directed) force is to play in the tearing function.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 06. February 2006 22:02
Irving
quote:
The problem with the scissors, is that the cutting event is NOT independent. . . .it only exists if it can be shown that the interface has been independently arrived at.
I don't understand why it is "not independent."
The specification function is first or independently specified, programmed into the laser cutter, and then the interfaces are cut to that specification. The only thing not "independent" is that I described cutting both interfaces at the same time. That is pure efficiency or economy issue, not an "independence" issue.
We can equally program the system to cut one component out with its interface, and then cut the second component out with its corresponding interface.
From the proposition that the interfaces have the same complex specificity as the specified interface function Fi:
Interface Recoverability
A complex interface specification Fi may be recovered by comparing the interfaces of two complementary components made to satisfy that interface to some confidence depending on the uncertainty in measurement and preservation of those interfaces.
------------
quote:
is mere probabalistic chance,
I don't understand this argument either. Does not not all science deal with probabilities(except for interger and logical math, common programming etc.) In particular, scientific measurement has to deal with "uncertainty" in measurement. See:
Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results
From a simplistic view, we measure and take the average of the two measured interfaces as an approximation to the original interface function. e.g., a jig saw puzzle.
From Dembski's complexity filter, showing that an interface like a jig saw puzzle cannot be obtained by law or chance results in it being by design.
Now to prepare the strict definition and equation for that to where we formally incorporate the uncertainties involved.
Your tearing paper example sounds similar to theistic evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 07. February 2006 07:21
quote:
The specification function is first or independently specified, programmed into the laser cutter, and then the interfaces are cut to that specification. The only thing not "independent" is that I described cutting both interfaces at the same time. That is pure efficiency or economy issue, not an "independence" issue.
What's the difference between that, and an "independent" lightening bolt cutting a tree in half?
You can't determine the independence of the specification through the halves alone...you must first "know" the laser's programmming. In which case you are not comparing the two halves to each other...you are comparing the halves to the laser's programming.
The specification must be TOTALLY independent, thus the likelyhood of meeting the specification is pure chance. With a specification of sufficient complexity, pure chance is insufficient over the known lifecycle of the Universe...thus...voila Design! (or directed action).
The question, is how does one identify specified action with ONLY the artifacts of that action...and no "a priori" knowledge of the specification. Your example does not provide that, since it makes no distinction between a complex "un-directed" cut, and a complex "directed" cut.
My paper tear example might be similar to theistic evolution in that theistic evolution is "directed," or "guided" evolution. Thus the "directed," or Design inferrence. The mechanism of the tearing need not be evolution...one can look to IC for that...the point at issue, though, is the non "a priori" detection of complex specified information.
[ 07. February 2006, 07:22: Message edited by: Irving ]
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 07. February 2006 12:37
"The question, is how does one identify specified action with ONLY the artifacts of that action...and no "a priori" knowledge of the specification. Your example does not provide that, since it makes no distinction between a complex "un-directed" cut, and a complex "directed" cut."
I believe that identifying MSR's such as the relationship of each vertebrate in a spine will allow us to identify specified action from the artifacts in the fossil record and in current records. Even though we would have no knowledge of how it became specified originally, we could correlate what specific changes would be needed in order to evolve the system which we could then correlate into probabalistic formulae.
Your post seems to ask the question;
"If you can't define the designer then how could you know it was designed."
The entire idea of finding the mechanical relationships (MSR's) and being able to plot their supposed evolution over time will allow us to show how specified the changes would have to have been.
I believe that we will eventually be able to show a plot that shows possibly hundreds of defined mechanical relationship ratio's that consistently adhere to an MSR relationship in each instance of a supposed evolutionary advance and in this way we can show that the level of control needed to keep this level of continuity across multiple MSR's would not be in the realm of chance mutation to attain.
So in effect we can see the observable specifications provided by the artifacts and then plot just how well they seem to continue to be conserved over time. A simplified idea of this is to view a puppet show where the puppet master is unseen but, the evidence gleaned from the systematic movement though time of the puppet itself reveals the presence of the puppet master.
In an effort to apply this idea to your statement about an "un-directed" cut, and complex "directed" cut." we would not so much be determining how the cut originated (directed or undirected) but rather by monitoring the relationships of the cut edges as they relate to one another over time and recording how well directed the interface remains at each proposed evolutionary event postulated to be the result of random chance. This artifactual evidence such as that which can be gleaned from a spine which could represent a long piece of paper with a multitude of tear interfaces remaining in a constant relationship throughout all the vertebrate phyla over millions of years would certainly be a scientific observation that cannot be discrded out of hand. Even if it was postulated that evolution formed a system that was able to somehow keep these correlations over time there would still be the question of where are all the failures that would represent the highly negative changes presented by bad mutations that would have been subsequently selected out. without conclusive evidence that many bad mutations exhibiting failed relationships over time exist we would have a second piece of empirical evidence to back the idea of the unseen designer since a designer would not need to let a bad design come into existence like bad mutations would be required to do.
[ 07. February 2006, 13:00: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 07. February 2006 14:07
Irving
quote:
You can't determine the independence of the specification through the halves alone...you must first "know" the laser's programmming. In which case you are not comparing the two halves to each other...you are comparing the halves to the laser's programming.
Obvious Design
When I see a Formula One racing car and compare that to a wind eroded rock formation, I infer design in the one and natural causes in the other, even though I do not have the specifications of the functions used to make the racing car. There must be was to infer probability of design without a priori knowing the interface functions.
From tens of thousands of lightning strikes on trees we discover the mechanisms of lightning interacting with trees. e.g., causing very high currents in trees which generate high pressure steam, exploding the tree, and causing high temperatures which cause charred or burnt wood.
I cannot think how anyone could credibly argue that a lightning bolt will cut out a jig saw puzzle, cloth pieces from a bolt of cloth, or electronics housing components from a sheet of metal. Thus the larger application of laws of nature and chance combined do not have the capability of performing a highly specified function that does no imitate nature.
Lets separate out the issues:
1) a priori Known Function:
If we have an [italics]a priori [/italics] specified function, then we can test to conformity with that funciton.
2) a priori Unknown Inferred Function:
If we do not know the specified function a priori we can recover the function assuming it is designed, and then test for that assumption.
It should be mathematically and physically possible to recover the interface function from the interfaces, with a measure of that probability based on the uncertainties involved assuming the interfaces were built to that function.
Then separate from that is the issue of distinguishing if that interface function Fi can be achieved by natural causes. e.g., lightning cutting out a jig saw puzzle.
3) Design Theory Modelled & Predicted Function
A third option is to develop a design theory which models existing designed systems and which predicts interface functions. Then test to see if those predictions are fulfilled.
Now to provide objective quantitative measures for these options.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 07. February 2006 17:00
KBC,
quote:
Your post seems to ask the question;
"If you can't define the designer then how could you know it was designed."
Most certainly not. I am definitely NOT of the belief that you must know the designer prior to inferring design. However for Specified Complexity, you must be able to demonstrate the independence of the specification.
The rest of your post is very good. I can entertain the notion that the MSR of a structure at a single point in time represents a specification. Then, that the ability of chance to duplicate that specification at a different time could be subject to probabilistic determination. From a scalability perspective then, is it the likelyhood that chance would create an MSR that in itself is scalable? That as the complexity of the MSR increases, the probability that the MSR could also scale decreases?
[ 07. February 2006, 17:22: Message edited by: Irving ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 07. February 2006 17:21
David,
quote:
When I see a Formula One racing car and compare that to a wind eroded rock formation, I infer design in the one and natural causes in the other, even though I do not have the specifications of the functions used to make the racing car.
Which is the classic WatchMaker arguement. It's a fine observation, but it doesn't have the scientific rigor of Dembski's Specified Complexity formulation.
quote:
There must be was to infer probability of design without a priori knowing the interface functions.
Which I believe as well...and is why I've proposed the Replication Component Architecture approach earlier in this thread and others.
Specified Complexity is more than just complexity. Nature is more than capable of creating complex arrangements...to include jigsaw puzzle like arrangements. See Photo:
One must show that the complexity is independent of the formation in order to claim Specified Complexity.
So the issues are:
1) If we have a specification independent of the environment, then the realizing of that specification is either pure chance, or "directed."
quote:
If we do not know the specified function a priori we can recover the function assuming it is designed, and then test for that assumption.
I can derive all sorts of specifications whether it was "designed" or not. Hollywood "recovers" the specifications of natural locations/objects and re-creates models (even actual scale) to those specifications, on-set all the time.
The question is how do you recover a specification with assurance that the specification is independent of the object from which you are recovering the specification?
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 07. February 2006 18:22
"Then, that the ability of chance to duplicate that specification at a different time could be subject to probabilistic determination. From a scalability perspective then, is it the likelyhood that chance would create an MSR that in itself is scalable? That as the complexity of the MSR increases, the probability that the MSR could also scale decreases?"
Irving'
Evolution posits that mutational change in physical structure over time is how every creature that existed in the fossil record and at the present time came to be right? And the method is random mutation with errors selected out, so no matter what, evolutionists must alway allow that forms mutated to get where they are.
I believe that their achilles heal so to speak is the selected out mutations. We have the empirical evidence of the approxamate ratio of good to bad mutations, so if we take the measurable data that has been collected over time by many researchers we should be able to plot these ratios with specific numbers assigned for what would be ideal for each creature type and then see just how many fall outside the ratio as this would be observable evidence for evolution if lets say 30% were mechancaly failing in any respect right?
I believe however that we will find that only about 5% are failures and then we can empirically state that the engine of evoution also fails the acid test in the fossil record.
They have explained away the missing transitional forms but could they explain this away as easily? could they deny the multitude of bad mutations failing to appear when it is understood that it would take thousands of failures as a byproduct of undirected advancement to get one good one and we can show that thousands or millions of good mutations were required to get to where we are today.
The good part of this type of evidence lends itself to the control of an intelligent agent in effect giving us positive backing for ID.
I was thinking that we may find a pile of evidence with trilobites since they are prolific over a fairly wide range of time and i believe there has been an ongoing investigation into their size and shapes so possibly there are data sets just collecting dust that can be plugged into a spread sheet allowing specification of MSR's. I think if we choose those creatures that have the most instances in the fossil record we may be able to request the data on them from museums and possible archeaologists who spent their careers measuring everything.
[ 07. February 2006, 18:24: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 07. February 2006 19:59
quote:
We have the empirical evidence of the approxamate ratio of good to bad mutations...
Do you have that number?
quote:
I believe however that we will find that only about 5% are failures and then we can empirically state that the engine of evoution also fails the acid test in the fossil record.
They have explained away the missing transitional forms but could they explain this away as easily? could they deny the multitude of bad mutations failing to appear when it is understood that it would take thousands of failures as a byproduct of undirected advancement to get one good one and we can show that thousands or millions of good mutations were required to get to where we are today.
Your losing me here a bit. If the failure is 5%, do you still consider that a multitude? Don't get me wrong, I also have issues with the statistical distribution of the fossil record, I just want to see how your point relates to MSR and Specified Complexity.
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 07. February 2006 20:16
"Your losing me here a bit. If the failure is 5%, do you still consider that a multitude? Don't get me wrong, I also have issues with the statistical distribution of the fossil record, I just want to see how your point relates to MSR and Specified Complexity."
Sorry Irving,
I didnt mean what you interpreted. My allusion to 5% being more probable is that I believe that a designer was involved so 5% would represent a very limited action by mutations. MY logic is that if evolution by mutation "WAS" the engine of our advancement then logicly there would be lots of evidence left behind which we could see as failures in a mechanical way, but since I don't believe that was our beginning then i am supposing that it will show up very little maybe 5% or less which will allow us to ask evolutionist "where are all the failed mutations"
The term "you gottta breaks some eggs to make an omlet is immenently applicable to evolution as it says there will be lots of failures to eventually make an advance, so if we only see a small amount of mutational failures showing up in the fossil record then not only are we missing the transitional forms but we are missing the garbage that natural selection has proposed must exist for advancement of any species.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 07. February 2006 20:31
quote:
which will allow us to ask evolutionist "where are all the failed mutations"
And the successful mutations as well...
But what does this have to do with MSR?
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 07. February 2006 21:34
"But what does this have to do with MSR?"
Well MSR is the method that identifies normal specification of individual phyla or defines what is normal for the mechanics of bone structures or any other system. by making measurements of specific components between multiple systems or skeletons we can predict what the sucessful mutations posess in a mechanical way and then we can easily determine those systems or skeletons that fail to meet these mechanically specific relativeties. MSR can give us a wealth of information including thw number of specific relationships that exist from system to system which allows us probabalistic formulation as well as predictive conclusions.
So my last few post try to outline how we can use identifiable MSR's to base normal on and then identify the failures as evolutionary failures since a mechanical fail would definitely be selected out. mechanical failures should represent random mutational failures that are supposed to pave the way for the advances right?
Irving lets see how MSR might apply to your "tear"
Suppose we find an object that has what appears to be a tear but because we didn't see it happen we cannot immediately determine if it was directed or undirected because our overview is limited to the information our eyes give us, suppose at this point we make a dimensional analysis of the tear that can define measurable values beyond our eyes ability to differentiate, then let us further determine a way to plot these dimensional values into a spread sheet with a view to look for specific relationships (the search for MSR's). We could start by just looking at peak to valley differences as they occur from one end of the tear to the other.
Now suppose our graph shows that the peak to valley distance of individual tear points stays exactly the same from one end to the other and the measurements are exact to a thousandth of an inch. We could now state that peak to vally ratio's exhibit 100% conformity to mean average (an identified MSR). With this information in hand can we make any assumption based on this MSR as to whether the tear was directed or undirected?
lets say for now that this evidence is still not enough to make a good determination.
Lets look for another MSR, this time we will plot the peak to peak distances of both the peaks and valleys. Now suppose we find that these values are all exactly the same and which gives us another ratio exhibiting 100% conformity to mean average could you now determine if the tear was directed or not?
Suppose I further compare the two graphs and MSR's and by chance I notice that the peak to valley values and the peak to peak values are identical. I could easily say at this point that according to the three defined relationships(MSR's) that I can attribute to this object that It would require a directed force to form such a perfect geometric tear.
This representation of MSR identification and usage would be normal for mechanical systems analysis and even though the values that were used in the example where highly specific we could easily imagine an observetion that may have yielded values anywhere in the 100% to 0% range which we could then use to infer either directed or undirected action.
The ability to form ratio percentages of any relationship is one of the best tools we can use to identify when intelligence has affected the material world.
see my post on MSR here for a better outline of how it works: http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000608.html
and see how it is possible to re"view" the fossil record or any system from this perspective.
Irving,
You also asked:
"Do you have that number?"
in reference to my statement:
"We have the empirical evidence of the approxamate ratio of good to bad mutations..."
I have several respected places that define the numbers but the best explanation that I have seen so far is this one:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm#Footnote%203
it refences to many of the respected scientific generated numbers from these studies:
1. A. S. Kondrashov, Contamination of the genomes by very slightly deleterious mutations. Why have we not died 100 times over? J Theor Biol 1995 Aug 21;175(4):583-94. Abstract
2. J. Crow, The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997 Aug 5;94(16):8380-6.
3. Eyre-Walker & Keightley, High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids, Nature 397, 344 - 347 (1999)
So in general I have a bit of confidence in its representation.
[ 08. February 2006, 12:51: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 08. February 2006 17:27
Okay,
Then just as before I can see that the peak to valley ratio can be specified complexity....possibly; however, it must be specified independently, and I don't think you've done that yet. Just like I mentioned previously that a single-state MSR may represent an independent specification to a subsequent action.
The undirected action of any object used as a template for a cut would yield the exact same cut over and over again. Just as a solar eclipse "cuts" the sun with the same "edge" of the moon each time.
Now if your claiming that the fossil record doesn't contain the sufficient ratio of failed speciation attempts (at the macro level), equal to the empirical ratio at the micro (non-speciation) level...well..there you may have something. But that's unrealted to specified complexity.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic