|
Author
|
Topic: Mechanically Specific Relativity
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 14. February 2006 21:16
KBC,
I think your moving along well now.
What's your take on Multicellularity ?
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 15. February 2006 15:33
Hey KBC,
I am thinking about my simplification of the MSR concepts I was sharing earlier, and it dawned on me to ask: what is your two sentence definition of MSR? Can you explain the basic idea in a few words?
(I have my own idea, but I'd like to get the concept directly from the source.)
Thanks!
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 15. February 2006 18:18
"what is your two sentence definition of MSR"
MSR reveals irreducibly complex relationships between mechanical systems and independant control systems.
Its purpose is to allow intelligent designers to intelligently evolve simple mechanical systems into more complex or larger systems that will function without the need for trial and error testing by application of defined relationships.
I am using this tool in a new way here in order to make detailed analysis of already existing systems in order to correlate the evidence to show that another intelligent designer used these same methods to make all the physical constructions we observe as life.
[ 18. February 2006, 10:24: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 16. February 2006 21:42
KBC,
Hmmm...well I don't think reducing MSR to ratio eliminates RM / NS as a possibility, nor does it address "specified" as an independent requirement.
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 17. February 2006 17:05
Irving,
As I see it, MSR is a method of pointing out any occurance of a specification and quantifying that specification in a rational method. As with any tool or method its main purpose is to provide information, how that information is interpreted is another thing alltogether.
You are of the opinion that it does not immediately identify specification as independant and I would agree, but, just as any pattern recognition tool it only reflects what is being observed and measured. The advantage of MSR
information is that it can identify patterns of mechanical relationships across broad ranges of time and can make a correlation between two distinctly different systems or system components at a mechanical level.
The one thing this tool can do is show certain constraints that are being retained regardless of overall shape changes which in fact points to independant specification in this case.
You say that "you don't think it eliminates RM / NS as a possibility". I belive that this tool allows us to focus on and possibly eliminate the random mutation part of RM / NS by revealing mechanical relationships that are representable by scientifically measurable numbers that are impossible to refute. These numbers in turn can
be used to infer logical and probabalistic determinations.
In all the literature I have read concerning mechanical forms within biology I never see the defining of these relationships in this manner and as such an important aspect of form, fit & function has failed to materialize.
The stringent requirement that function demands of form is lost without the MSR consideration, so as a whole the arguement for design can only benefit from the revelations that MSR definition reveals about mechanical systems.
Let me show again how the addition of MSR observation allows a farther reach to the argument for design:
In the joint that is formed between the pelvis and femur we can identify that a relationship exists between them and has a continuity that is observable. The contour of the femur head is always within 1% of the contour of the acetabulum
which is the socket in the pelvis. This measurement can be confirmed by repeated measurements of thousands of human skeletons which will prove the specification exists.
Once the MSR is confirmed we can then make some logical deductions based off that empirical fact:
1] The existence of this continuous specification can only be the result of an underlying naturally occurring rule of form such as that followed by crystal formations and snowflake formations or
2] The continuous specification occurs as the result of controlled formation which requires a control system to allow for repetition and accuracy over time.
An observation of the myriad of bone shapes in other systems allows me to dismiss the first possibility as applicable in this situation since all bones would follow a definite constraint that would allow another MSR to be added if it was in fact the underlying cause of formation in bones.
The only assumption left that has a foundation in empirical usage is the determination of a systematic control of bone formation that I can logically infer because of the existence of a minimum requirement needed for continuity of
form replication.
Now that our preliminary series of logistics is set we can make further observations of the system components to add more considerations to our line of reasoning.
When we look at the components involved we see:
That the os coxae [pelvis] is formed by three fused bones: ischium, ilium & pubis; also known as the innominate bone and within the formation of these bones we have the acetabulum, it is the socket for the head of the femur and it is formed at a point where the ilium (1/5), ischium (2/5) and pubis (2/5) meet.
Here we learn that the acetabulum [socket] is not just a simple pocket with a single bone but that it shares its geometric form with 2 other bones as well which eventually fuse together.
With this observation made we now have more information to apply to the previous logic analysis of this system.
A] We must now state that the control system must exert its control over 4 separate mechanical forms and it must specifically control the areas of each bone that form this connection to within 1% accuracy.
This one observation alone has just raised the bar of complexity for the system from two to four controls and the level of accuracy must at a minimum be able to keep the component form relationships within the previously defined
1% range.
B] Each component in this system is formed by cells as its largest construction material
This is where it gets interesting. Since the cell is the largest component that makes up the forms of the four individual components, then we can logically infer that the control system MUST exert its power of control over each of these individual building materials otherwise there could not be shape control and this leads to the
inference that the parameters defined by the control is different for each cell.
It should also be understood that there is no definable limit to those parameters as proven by the shrew femur size comparison to the sauropod femur size so we could posit an almost unlimited amount of differetiation for any one parameter.
Now at this point we have mechanically identified all the physical aspects of this system and made logical assumptions at each point. I can now draw a logical conclusion that the unknown system [black box] must have certain qualities that allow the retention of the original MSR observation of this system.
In conclusion;
The mechanical/biological system that exhibits the relationship of a joint that remains consistently within a 1% definable MSR from system to system must be capable of exerting control of parameters in the billions just for one component and since this particular system is the result of four separate components then the amount of control parameters that can be defined for each bone applies times four, and since any of those parameters can ultimately be of any value I can say that any random mutation that could affect this system would be unable to make accurate modifications without a complete reformation of billions of parameters that must all retain a relationship exhibiting the original MSR value of 1%.
I can further assert that such a complex system exhibiting this extent of relationship control is irreducibly complex since it cannot be posited that the individual components and the control system could occur at different times and still exhibit function nor could it be posited that random chance mutations could acheive this feat in one mutational event.
Irving, all I can say is that for something that you don't think eliminates RM / NS nor provides support for independant specification, I have done fairly well when using just this one MSR as an anchor of logical reasoning to both eliminate RM and provide for independant specification.
Would you not agree? if you disagree then point out any illogical assumptions in the chain of thought.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 17. February 2006 18:43
KBC,
I think you were onto a good set of analysis earlier. What I was referring to, was your response to Atom's request for a two sentence definition of MSR.
quote:
Defines component relationships within a mechanical system by ratio %
My comment is that based upon that definition, you haven't provided independence of specification, nor removed RM / NS as a possibility. Perhaps a flawed way of suggesting that your one sentence formulation of MSR needs some work.
For as I've mentioned before, as long as the 1% value is "hardcoded" into the control mechanism, then mutations to other aspects of the control mechanism can result in other forms yet maintain the exact same ratio. Furthermore, if the control mechanism contains error-correction code, then any mutation that hits a critical code section would result in an un-viable zygote or cause the host to reject implantation such that there is only a cell, and not a large fossil documenting the rejected form.
quote:
The one thing this tool can do is show certain constraints that are being retained regardless of overall shape changes which in fact points to independant specification in this case.
I have found that Dembski's formulation of Specified Complexity to be one of the most mis-understood concepts in ID. Certainly the vast majority of Dembski's critics provide flawed critiques because of their failure to adequately comprehend the quote:
independence
portion of the formulation. Thus, while you may be onto something in which MSR is "specified" in ID terms, I have trouble with the term Specified in MSR since without a clear deliniation of independence it may serve to muddle the concept rather than clarify it.
quote:
The continuous specification occurs as the result of controlled formation which requires a control system to allow for repetition and accuracy over time.
The Darwinian perspective being that such a control system is built up over time regardless of complexity. One must show that the control system is independent of a selection environment in order to claim specification. Though I can conceed that in an IC system, interfaces are specified in relation to each other. As I've mentioned before, co-option is the magic darwin-dust for IC.
quote:
Since the cell is the largest component that makes up the forms of the four individual components, then we can logically infer that the control system MUST exert its power of control over each of these individual building materials otherwise there could not be shape control and this leads to the inference that the parameters defined by the control is different for each cell.
I had asked for your take on multicellularity earlier...
As I said, your moving along well, but as Atom has suggested,if you can't get it down to a simple, yet thought-provocative concept....there's work yet to be done. Perhaps something along the lines of...
MSR establishes irreducibly complex ratios of multi-component systems, such that when existing within symmetry, and scale a matched, independent, constraining control function must also be present.
Now that's not quite good either, since as discussed years ago, code replication of sequencing can result in symmetry, and if the ratio was hardcoded with a mutational co-efficient, you might get scaling as well. Indeed, it's a work in progress.
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 17. February 2006 22:59
"Perhaps a flawed way of suggesting that your one sentence formulation of MSR needs some work"
Ahhh sorry Irving, What would you suggest would work better? I am open to any and all improvement and suggestion. I definitely don't want a weak definiton on this tool.
Ooops.. just reached the part about your suggestion sorry I respond as I read.
I definitely like the way it rolls out.
lets see what can I come up with, How does this sound?
MSR reveals irreducibly complex relationships between mechanical systems and independant control
systems.
And this would be the truth since;
DNA exhibits independant control over a complex mechanical system through irreducibly complex relationships definable by mechanically specified relativities.
I see your not happy with "specified", hmmmm. when I use specified in this term it may be more easily understood if I say it this way;
MSR = the Mechanical Specification of Relationships.
Because it is the mechanics of the system that specifies the relationships required to function.
I think that may be a bit more appealing to the mind, I know it sounds better to me than my first reply. what do you think?
"I had asked for your take on multicellularity earlier"
Sorry I was thinking about how to reply since I read the link. I just don't see how or why multiple cells would ever be able to connect together and perform an interactive function that was previously nonexistent, doesn't that have the ring of the irreducible to it. how would both get a specified change that would be identical within both separate balanced systems? if the mutation only occured to one system wouldn't the non mutated cell attack the mutated cell as it tryed to fuse cell membranes with it to become multi cellular?
"The Darwinian perspective being that such a control system is built up over time regardless of complexity."
An independant control system does not exist without something being controlled. A system does not exist without two components and a function and all three must physically exist at the moment that the system begins.
"One must show that the control system is independent of a selection environment in order to claim specification."
I'm not sure where a selection environment figures into the use of specification as
used in my definition of MSR. the systems environment is a controlled access system that has "Specific" control but as I noted earlier its the mechanics of the system that specifies the relationships required for a function.
"Though I can conceed that in an IC system, interfaces are specified in relation to each other."
IC systems interfaces are definable by MSR method as their interfaces [joints] are mechanical.
"As I've mentioned before, co-option is the magic darwin-dust for IC."
would love to hear how a pelvic joint could be co-opted.
Thanx for bearing with my last posts rendition of msr's value, who knows it may evolve into a more cohesive tale over repetition.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 21. February 2006 23:48
KBC,
quote:
I see your not happy with "specified", hmmmm. when I use specified in this term it may be more easily understood if I say it this way;
Certainly you may use and define terms however you wish. My concern is the term Specification within the ID lexicon has a particular meaning. Your not using the term in the same way, and so may become point of confusion...though I do prefer your current formulation of MSR.
The problem is that your specification is not independent, but tied to the mechanical functionality of the system. It's a specification, but not an independent one. Your point is that for such a specification to remain consistent without any fossilized record of error indicates a Control system. Thus the specificaton must also exist within the coding of the construction control system. It may then be possible to make the claim that the construction code within the Control system is independently specified by the actual mechanical system...which maybe...but may not be independent enough for my liking. But then, that's just me...
You see, the counter is that the complexity of the mechanical specification was built up simultaneously with the complexity of the control system. More directly, that it was mutational changes to the control system that resulted in a corresponding (i.e. not independent) expression in the feature's construction.
Now I can see that you cover this, by then claiming there is no empirical evidence in the fossil record of the statistically mandated number of failures that must exist if such a mutational development is what takes place (I suspect you'll need to address Proteus syndrome at some point); however is this really any different than the statistical lack of transitional forms in the fossil record that has been pointed out for years?
This is not to say it's not correct, but with any experience with the Darwin crowd, it would appear weak, or not all that novel...to them. I can see the standard watchmaker and 747 points in the forum you linked to.
Put your Darwin hat on. Taking your favorite example of the femur joint, how far back in the Darwinian "tree of life" does the MSR of that joint extend? What do evolutionists claim as the precursor species in which the MSR was not present? What is the MSR delta between the precursor species with a different femur MSR than mankind's current femur MSR?
P.S. I think you made your point with Gary, any further badgering may be counter-productive.
[ 21. February 2006, 23:50: Message edited by: Irving ]
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 23. February 2006 22:54
Irving,
I see what you mean now about specified and how it may have a confusion factor in its use.
I see where we may have a bit of misunderstanding about how I am infering the independant part. As you noted my use of MSR indeed points out the relationships of a "construction code within the Control system and that it is independently specified by the actual mechanical system" however the question of what proves that the code itself was specified independantly from an intelligent designer is answered by the revelation of the extent that the system is being constrained and regulated.
MSR points out that form control happens at the cellular level and the larger the form becomes the more specific the control must be in a multitude of ways.
I use the femoral joint as the easiest to understand and the fact that 4 bones are being constrained differently at the joint portions of their connection than the rest of each of their total bone constuction and the control not only selcts the area of control on each bone it also causes each of them to form a highly specified relationship that continues from zygote to death this is a relationship that has millions upon billions of parameters and a multitude of interrelationships that all must correspond in order for function and balance to be retained and the biggest rub of all is that evolution which is accomplished by small incremental steps could never have formed this system even if they were tiny bones because it would still be millions of cells involved and the parameters for each cell are infinite. even if there was only a few parameters the fact that any one could represent any value to infinity is what refutes RM from acheiving. This argument gets us away from the improbability argument of the 20 building block limit to the the concept of infinite values possible for any parameter, and since we can show mechanically that millions of parameters exist then the lower probability bound is not even a consideration anymore.
The greatest thing about this argument is that it is absolutely true and definable. Bone can grow to any shape or size as we can readily observe which leads to the logic that it is being controled cellularly and it would require a different parameter for each of its building blocks which are the bone cells themselves and with no definable limiting factor as to size or shape we can honestly say that any of those parameters can be anything we want them to be.
The problem for RM is that it can't accurately provide a multibillion point mutation that specifically constrains the cells into a balanced system and you will note that I include the control system as part of what can be randomly modified in my paper, so even if we were to say that the shape merely reflects the mutation that occurs in the control itself we would still have to explain RM ability to balance billions of parameters in each of the supposed small incremental changes that changed life from tiny to our size. By releasing us from the 20 building block limit we can introduce infinite value set possibilities that apply to multibillion parameter sets which all must retain balance at each proposed change.
The MSR delta that evolutionist would need to breech is the beginning of the system itself since a bone is not a bone without a multitude of cells in specific configuration and even one bone being constrined would bypass probbility bound limits after you posit even 10 to 20 cells that could have any value whatsoever. Does it seem to make more sence now?
Do you see the intrinsic value of this method allowing me to use science and logic as my backers?, thereby using the same foundation as evolution which disallows being overcome by simple philisophical banter, now they must meet you on the battlefield that they defined. Science.
I see you checked the link. Did you notice the explanatory power that can be brought to bear on each question? and the scientific backing as well as good old logic? MSR may be a somewhat simplistic concept but it commands the power of mechanical science which is equal with science in general.
I was hoping to get Gary to just go away by my method but it seems he is sticking with it anyway so I will switch to just using him to make MSR look that much better and not further any counter productive rhetoric. You should note also that as ssoon as we passed the initial rounds of verbage with the others that they lost their footing in this battle and were at a loss as to how to fight me since I was using science as my club. Once they lost their usual prominant position they toned it down to a somewhat more respectfull dialog that I'm sure is just with the intent to find a weak point in which they might regain thier prominance, but unfortunatly for them MSR is not based on philosophy so no such weakness will arise, effectively costing them the battle.
With no means to fight it they will have to give up eventually.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 25. February 2006 00:24
quote:
however the question of what proves that the code itself was specified independantly from an intelligent designer is answered by the revelation of the extent that the system is being constrained and regulated.
That's not the question. The question is how is the code specified independently from the mechanical system. We certainly don't expect the code to be independent from the Intelligent Designer, as we expect that only Intelligence can bridge the gap between random chance and independent specification.
quote:
...the biggest rub of all is that evolution which is accomplished by small incremental steps could never have formed this system even if they were tiny bones because it would still be millions of cells involved and the parameters for each cell are infinite.
Which is just another variant of the IC arguement. I don't have a huge problem with where you are going and can see that it has some merit; but, I'm trying to get you to see your position from a Darwinist point of view. Saying that Darwinian Gradualism can't create IC, and that there's gaps in the fossil record, is something they've all heard before. The way your current formulation comes across doesn't seem all that novel.
quote:
The problem for RM is that it can't accurately provide a multibillion point mutation that specifically constrains the cells into a balanced system and you will note that I include the control system as part of what can be randomly modified in my paper, so even if we were to say that the shape merely reflects the mutation that occurs in the control itself we would still have to explain RM ability to balance billions of parameters in each of the supposed small incremental changes that changed life from tiny to our size.
And here may be your weakness (not in your point, but in positioning your arguement)...it's not just RM, it's RM and NS. Any current Darwin defender who's up to speed, will readily point out, that Evolution is NOT un-guided. That the environment provides the guidance, and such direction results in such fine-tuned complexity. Your going to have to show why Natural Selection can't balance those billions of parameters over time. Like I said previously, you'll need to address Proteus Syndrome from a standpoint of constraints on the control code...as Proteus Syndrome seems to indicate that such control-code constraints can be violated.
quote:
I see you checked the link. Did you notice the explanatory power that can be brought to bear on each question? and the scientific backing as well as good old logic?
Well yes, I noticed that when they didn't scare you off with arguement from arrogance, they pulled out the Darwinain talking-points. I'm suprised they haven't literature-bombed you yet, but I suppose you pre-empted that through your own pre-bombardment. In the end though, your arguement is coming across as another "...it's just too complex..." arguement. Which they've all heard before. Your going to have to move beyond complexity and focus heavily on why RM + NS can't build such complexity...besides a probability arguement...because they don't see the complexity your presenting in terms other than what they perceive Natural Selection can create.
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 25. February 2006 09:17
Irving,
When you say "The question is how is the code specified independently from the mechanical system"
I am assuming you are referring to the method that the code was introduced from the designer to the physical arrangement right? Its a question of "how did it come into existence" right?
My understanding would ultimately be that the intelligent designer was capable of atomic arrangement but the method that was used would not be deducible by MSR as it can only define existing mechanical relationships. So on a basic level MSR is used to determine minimum requirements that form fit and function need to exist and as a by product of these defined minimums I can exclude incremental mutational steps as causitive and show that an unnatural method is required, but as to how that method is implemented is beyond observation and as such is excluded from MSR's informational ability to determine.
One scientific argument falls into the same hole when attempting to define existence and that is the "Big Bang theory" which essentially posits all physical forms came into existence from non form but it is at a loss to explain how. I guess it could be said that our living forms could poof into existence the same way matter magically came to exist. I don't believe we will ever posess the ability to determine such a thing as its existence would be beyond the scope of observation.
"And here may be your weakness (not in your point, but in positioning your arguement)...it's not just RM, it's RM and NS. Any current Darwin defender who's up to speed, will readily point out, that Evolution is NOT un-guided."
I think you may have misunderstood how MSR deals with the RM + NS point.
The idea I am promoting separates the two and disallows the one from working with the other, effectively separating their foundational concept.
My intent was to show that since RM could not possibly acheive balanced formation in in its supposed method of "small incremental steps" then NS could not select what couldn't happen to begin with. Kinda like divide and conquer. Their dichotomy fails as soon as one of the components is removed and since we know that NS is a true force the only thing that can be annuled is RM and by showing what minimal requirements must occur in order for change to succeed MSR effectively removes RM from the equation. MSR opens our view to what minimal requirements must be met in order to make system chnges and we can use that information to determine what causal power is capable of the action.
"Your going to have to show why Natural Selection can't balance those billions of parameters over time."
As i noted above NS can only be included in the equation when it has something to select from and cannot logically be included until a balance system arises and has a logical method of change.
RM fails to provide a logical method of change since the amount of parameters of a living system are so vast and the value set that RM could alter any of these parameters is near infinite for each one. The final conclusion that time cannot provide a path to allow for an unimaginably huge set of specific parameters to acheive relationship values when the value set of eah parameter are near infinite in possibility.
My thinking in this aea is that we can use MSR to move up fom the confines that we have enclosed ourselves with such arguments of pobability based soley on the 20 building blocks which never accounted for control anyway and move us up into an arena that that previous to MSR was unquantifiable. When we can quantify parameters we can provide probabalistic methodolgy to it and so provide for a stronger case for the requirement of unnatural cause to acheive parameter control.
"In the end though, your arguement is coming across as another "...it's just too complex..." arguement. Which they've all heard before. Your going to have to move beyond complexity and focus heavily on why RM + NS can't build such complexity...besides a probability arguement...because they don't see the complexity your presenting in terms other than what they perceive Natural Selection can create."
Irving You indeed have a highly understanding intellect and I am impressed by your ability of discernment, you have indeed shown the ability to look through the wrapping to see the true things that are happening.
My goal with MSR is to show that it is impossible under any circumstance for RM to account for any viable change of form and by dividing RM from NS as a functioning two part system to effect change over time I remove from them the argument of being able to use NS since it needs to have something to select in the first place. So indeed I am moving in that direction however I cannot completely divorce probabalistic formation from being used in the logic of deduction provided by MSR. Do you have any idea's about how probability could ever be excluded without firsthand knowlege of cause? I have pondered this exact point many times and it eludes my intellect to find a way around its presence when determining unknowns. At this stage of my understanding it seems that any attempts at defining an unknown automatically includes probabalistics as a method of determination based on logic.
If you can concieve of a way to remove its presence I would surely jump un that wagon and ride it for all its worth, but for now I accept its presence and hope by use of MSR to push the limitations of probabalistic measure to such a high value that it would require total illogic to believe in possible when in the presence of almost infinite impossible.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic