The Antikythera Mechanism and the Design Inference

_{May 17, 2017

Design inference}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Today’s Google Doodle honors the Antikythera mechanism discovered in 1901 from the Antikythera shipwreck.

This remarkable object has been the subject of intense study for more than a century, with various theories about its precise origin and construction still being put forward. Debates have played out about when it was constructed, by whom it was constructed, and the purpose of its construction.

Yet no-one has questioned whether it was designed.

It was clear from the characteristics of the object itself that it was designed.

It was clear that it was designed before subsequent questions were asked or (tentatively) answered about who designed it, when it was designed, how it was designed, where the designers came from, what their purpose was, whether there were more than one designer, and on and on. Indeed, if researchers had not first determined it were designed, those subsequent questions would never even have been asked.

Furthermore, and significantly, it was well known by scientists at the time it was discovered that the ancients had no ability to construct such a mechanism. At least that is what was thought. Some investigators even argued that it “was too complex to have been constructed during the same period as the other pieces that had been discovered.” In other words, we did not know that there was even a designer around at the time with the ability to construct such a mechanism. However, after the new discovery of the Antikythera mechanism and the eventual acceptance of its early date, we now have a new piece of information about the designer. Now we know that there was a designer at the time capable of producing the artifact in question. This is the direction in which the arrow of discovery and inference runs. Not the other way around.

The Antikythera mechanism is a wonderful example of how the design inference works in practice in the real world. And it gives the lie to so many of the anti-ID talking points against the design inference, showing that the objectors are more often motivated not by an objective search for truth but by philosophical or religious attempts to prop up a dying materialistic narrative.

Comments

kmidpuddle: You are misunderstanding the flow of analysis, assuming that we have to know about the existence of a designer before we can infer design. That is precisely backwards of how it occurs in the real world. In every case in which we do not actually witness the creation in real time, we always infer design from the artifact itself. Then, if desired, we can move to the second-order questions about who did it, what capabilities they might have had, why they might have done it, and so on. A few questions for you: What is your basis for claiming that we can only infer design if we infer human design? Moreover, if we insist that we can only entertain the possibility of design if humans are involved, then consider the following questions: - Do you think the efforts of SETI are irretrievably and fundamentally a lost cause, given that we don't know of any humans from Earth who have traveled elsewhere in the galaxy to send us back a signal? - Once humans are able to use biochemical molecules to store digital information, for example in DNA, will you consider the possibility that the digital information in DNA is the result of design? Finally, a critical question for anyone who is courageous enough to consider the issue: Assuming that some biological systems were designed, is there any way we could tell? Why or why not?Eric Anderson_{June 1, 2017
June
06
Jun
1
01
2017
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

Hmm, seems The Puddle is in a muddle. The question "Was it designed?" has been answered emphatically: "No shit sherlock! We can map any and all human design concepts to designs already present in the human body. Human design concepts are not new. We are only discovering what ALREADY exists. And there is still a gargantual gap in understanding. Having said that, the scientific question is precisely "What tools does the designer use to create and how are the various designs, organizations, and processes implemented?"; useful, practical questions that can assist humankind in improving their own design skills. Hence the massive interest in biological studies. Whether you are inclined to deny the reality of a designed world is irrelevant to its existence. Hopefully The Puddle will now be able to rise out of its unfortunate muddle.Steve_{June 1, 2017
June
06
Jun
1
01
2017
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

KF:
In short, ideologically driven selective hyperskepticism in the teeth of a clear case in point that shows that FSCO/I is real and as evidence that is a sign of design then indicates the credible existence of a capable designer. Which in the case of the Antikythera mechanism, has yet to be clearly identified.
Your bobbing and weaving is quite amusing. Sad, but amusing. Are you seriously suggesting that there is not compelling evidence that this artifact was designed and constructed by a human? I would dearly love to read a credible account of this proposition. I have presented a detailed and rational hypothesis for what the designer of the Antikythera mechanism is. The designer's capabilities, limitations and basic mechanisms of manufacture. On the other hand, you have provided none of this for the intelligent design of the cell, the flagellum, the chromosome, DNA, the atom. So, please tell us again how our inference to design for the Antikythera mechanism is analagous to an inference for design in biology. This is not even apples and oranges. It is more apples and super novas.kmidpuddle_{June 1, 2017
June
06
Jun
1
01
2017
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

KMP, it is almost amusing but then quite sad to see you duck the point of the famous line from a long-running UK field archaeology show: archaeology or natural. The FSCO/I that pointed to design first had to catch the eye of a diver risking life and limb 148 feet down, then that of the examiner onshore. Your onward implication is that unless you have separate evidence of a designer, you will not acknowledge evidence pointing to artifact. In short, ideologically driven selective hyperskepticism in the teeth of a clear case in point that shows that FSCO/I is real and as evidence that is a sign of design then indicates the credible existence of a capable designer. Which in the case of the Antikythera mechanism, has yet to be clearly identified. But you are more and more satisfying us that no actual evidence and reasoning will influence you because you are patently ideologically committed to locking it out. Which, on evident longstanding track record, is no surprise. KF PS: The onlooker may wish to examine here, to see substantiating details on the point: https://uncommondescent.com/design-inference/fft-antikythera-paley-crick-axe-the-first-computer-claim-and-the-design-inference-on-sign/kairosfocus_{June 1, 2017
June
06
Jun
1
01
2017
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

KF:
KMP, of course, how did you recognise that all those items were designed, in absence of direct knowledge of the designers and exactly how they did it?
Unless you are suggesting that they were built by aliens, we have a direct knowledge of the designer. He had two arms, two legs, five fingers on each hand, with opposable thumbs. He had a brain capable of rational thought, abstract reasoning, etc. He had knowledge of metallurgy. He breathed oxygen and respired CO2. He was a carbon based life form that has two genders. He had a maximum life span or 90+ years. He was fully developed in 18 to 25 years. Those are the things that we know about him. And there are many other things that we can infer about him. Now, how much do you know about your purported designer of the cell? Or flagellum? Or protein?kmidpuddle_{June 1, 2017
June
06
Jun
1
01
2017
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

KMP, of course, how did you recognise that all those items were designed, in absence of direct knowledge of the designers and exactly how they did it? Ans, you recognised the sort of architecture of the functional organisation, you accept the possibility of designers who can do that, and so you were willing to acknowledge the force of evidence. But, in the case of the mechanism, in fact the testimony in hand was, an examiner -- after being busy with statues etc for months -- noticed a rock with what resembled a gear in it; which must have earlier caught the eye of a diver working at the limits of the tech of that day . . . one died and two were paralysed with the bends. The item was displaced by about 1,500 years from settings in which such would be a familiar design pattern, in part as it seemed to be far from the minds of the thinking c 1900 that Cicero and others were correct in their literary testimony to the effect that such things existed . . . indeed Cicero IIRC testified to seeing such an item handed down from the general who took Syracuse, coming from Archimedes. In the end, from 1951 on the FSCO/I present and the text prevailed so fifty years after the design was recognised, its details were investigated and gradually located in an unexpected timeframe. Even though, the investigators hadn't a clue as to who could have done it, how, why, when, whether it was the optimal solution or the like -- it certainly is not on nice round numbers, just being gears puts paid to that talking point, given c = 2* pi * r. We still do not have a clear answer as to designers, but we have a much richer understanding of the design, precisely from carefully studying its traces and from creating models. That is why we now need to look with fresh eyes at another case of fossils in rocks with strange features, or with traces in the living cells around us, starting with the significance of DNA as embedding TEXT that functions algorithmically, and thus reflects language, logic, purpose and more; not to mention a molecular nanotech of implementation that puts our best achievements to date to shame. All in something that is of a class of machines we have yet to effect: a von Neumann kinematic self-replicator. In short, if the Antikythera mechanism is chock full of signs of design observable from traces that have come down to us, so is the living cell. Let us start there. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2017
June
06
Jun
1
01
2017
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

KF:
Now, of course, just how the “obvious”-ness of design was recognised is neatly side-stepped.
It was not side-stepped. It is reasonable to infer design based on the fact that this artifact was found within a manufactured box, stored within a manufactured ship. It is not a strong inference as we can just as easily store rocks in a box, but it is an inference none-the-less. However, the fact that it is made of bronze, an alloy that there is no record of ever being formed naturally, and the fact that it contains interlocking gears in exactly the same way that we we still manufacture today, are very strong inferences to design. We know that humans are capable of making bronze and manufacturing gears. That is why all credible authorities conclude that this artefact was manufactured by humans.kmidpuddle_{June 1, 2017
June
06
Jun
1
01
2017
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Now, of course, just how the "obvious"-ness of design was recognised is neatly side-stepped. Hence the significance of my follow-up discussion, here: https://uncommondescent.com/design-inference/fft-antikythera-paley-crick-axe-the-first-computer-claim-and-the-design-inference-on-sign/ . KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2017
June
06
Jun
1
01
2017
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

#77 I think the timing of pointless thought experiments is indicative. You refuse to address actual scientific observation. You cannot even speak the words.Upright BiPed_{May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Getting back to the original OP. Yes, when we first saw this artifact we immediately inferred that it was designed. Leaving aside the fact that it was found in an obviously manufactured box in an obviously manufactured ship, it is constructed of interlocking gears, very much like the ones that we manufacture on a daily basis. It is made of bronze, an alloy that is not found naturally. But extrapolating from this to inferring design in biology is a stretch at best.kmidpuddle_{May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Digital information?! I wonder what that requires? Perhaps it’s relevant to the question being answered.
I wonder what that would be? Perhaps it's a theory of information, which is what I've been asking you for, over and over again. And to which I referenced a specific paper on, which you apparently ignored.critical rationalist_{May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

To use another thought experiment as criticism as to how you've reached your conclusion... Imagine we had no knowledge of how computers worked yet faced some computational problem that could result in the destruction of our planet. Fortunately, aliens appeare in orbit and dropped a pre-programmed computer, so we could avoid extinction. However, they where in a hurry to help some other civilization with a similar problem, so they left it with a message that they would be back to explain how it worked in a few decades, along with an instruction manual on how to use it in the mean time. After we use the device to avert disaster, we give it to our top scientists to examine. While the manual tells us how to program it to solve general purpose problems, other than we previously face, it contains nothing regarding a theory of how the device worked. Furthermore, for the sake of the thought experiment, they discover the device is made out of what our modern day computers are made of, which includes significant amounts of silicon. At this point, we do not know how the device works. The only thing we've experienced that can solve general purpose computational problems is a device mostly made of silicon. Or, as you put it, the "only source that can actually be demonstrated as causally adequate to the task at hand" is a silicon device. To conclude that computers can only be made out of silicon because of what we’ve experienced in the past would be inductivism. And it would arbitrarily decide some specific aspect of experience will continue, while others would not, because it does not provide guidance at that step. However, this lets induction off too early as not only is induction impossible, but we cannot interpret observations without first putting them into some kind of explanatory context. Before we could reach a false conclusion that computers can only be made of silicon, we would have had to developed a false theory about how the device works, such as one that gave silicon some special role that only it could supposedly play. Nothing we experience tells us that. This is why I keep asking for an explanation for that knowledge, you're not just "following the evidence" because the is impossible. Now fast forward, 10 years later. Scientists have developed what we now know of as the theory of computation, which explains how the device works and includes the universality of computation. And a consequence of that theory is that universal computers are not just limited to silicon. A necessary consequence of the theory indicates something we’ve never experienced would occur. Namely, that devices built with vacuum tubes, or even metal or wooden cogs, could also be universal turning devices.critical rationalist_{May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

My follow-up: https://uncommondescent.com/design-inference/fft-antikythera-paley-crick-axe-the-first-computer-claim-and-the-design-inference-on-sign/kairosfocus_{May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Sorry for the delay, traveling after the holiday…
UB: The option you are deliberately ignoring is the one that physicists have already described for you, i.e. genetic translation does not violate physical law, but is a product of a specific type of organization which is capable of producing effects that are not determined by physical law. These are exactly the kinds of effects that discontinuous association and semantic closure can produce. It is what makes biological organization possible.
CR: the paper is directed towards this question in particular: How can organisms replicate so accurately without the design of organism already being present somehow in the laws of physics?
Yes, we already know this. It is difficult to imagine a more impotent question to ask. Can organisms replicate themselves with accuracy without the design of the organism being present in the laws of physics? If the answer is “yes”, then it’s virtually meaningless given that it does nothing to answer the larger question "were organisms designed?". And if the answer is “no”, then it’s non-falsifiable. Great. And must I mention again that the unique physical aspects of the system (those that specifically enable the organization of the cell) are not even mentioned in the text of the paper, except -- ahem -- to assume them without distinction. Is it any wonder the authors conclude: “self-reproduction, replication and natural selection are possible under no-design laws, the only non-trivial condition being that they allow digital information.” Digital information?! I wonder what that requires? Perhaps it's relevant to the question being answered. Brilliant.
CR: “not determined by physical law” is the equivalent to “no-design law” in the referenced paper.
Not hardly. "Not determined by physical law" refers to a specific system that can produce effects that are discontinuous with the dynamic properties of the medium that evokes their production. "No design laws" is an ideological assumption that serves virtually no purpose in answering the question of design in biology.
UB: If you think the theory accurately describes the observed physical realities surrounding language, then spell it out.
CR: That’s like saying “physics” describes computation, as opposed to a physical theory of computation. It’s a category error, so it’s not even wrong.
I don’t begrudge you an opportunity to be pointless and pedantic; it might be all you have left. However, I will assume that this means you are indeed unable to state how constructor theory accurately describes the observed physical aspects involved in language. Given that the theory doesn’t even mention those aspects (except to assume them), it’s hardly a surprise. Even so, I don’t want to sell you short, so I’ll ask again: What are the material conditions that enable a specification to be instantiated in medium of memory? You can take this opportunity to do something that constructer theory fails to do (i.e. be relevant).Upright BiPed_{May 31, 2017
May
05
May
31
31
2017
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

For further clarification on the unity I referred to see this lecture: The Unity of The Universecritical rationalist_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

@UB
The option you are deliberately ignoring is the one that physicists have already described for you, i.e. genetic translation does not violate physical law, but is a product of a specific type of organization which is capable of producing effects that are not determined by physical law. These are exactly the kinds of effects that discontinuous association and semantic closure can produce. It is what makes biological organization possible.
Except, the paper is directed towards this question in particular: How can organisms replicate so accurately without the design of organism already being present somehow in the laws of physics? “not determined by physical law” is the equivalent to “no-design law” in the referenced paper.
If you think the theory accurately describes the observed physical realities surrounding language….
That’s like saying “physics” describes computation, as opposed to a physical theory of computation. It’s a category error, so it’s not even wrong. Constructor theory is new conception of physics which suggests there is a unity to the universe that is more fundamental that the current conception of physics by which there can be laws about laws. As such, phenomena, such as language, would be describable in as possible or impossible tasks in constructor theoretic terms, as would information, probability, thermodynamics, computation, etc. Our point of contention appears to be whether some necessary aspect of language is not presented in the constructor theory of life, not constructor theory in general. Specifically, I pointed out that the constructor theoretic tasks with subtasks, etc, that eventually defer to non-replication specific tasks, in the paper seems to reflect what you mean by language. However, you seem to think this is not the case. Given that we use language to discuss this, I’m assuming you do not think language violates the laws of physics. However, so it’s unclear what that objection is - thus the question. However, topics like information are very vague in the prevailing conception of physics, so this doesn’t come as much of a surprise. (Which is why I keep asking for what physical theory of information you are referring to) IOW, I’m suggesting that what you’re referring to as language, in some yet to be disclosed theory of language in the current conception of physics, is also described in the constructor theory of life in constructor theoretic terms. However, by explicitly indicating you do not think it violates the laws of physics, I'm still unclear what your objection is. Can you clarify this further? Where is the delta?
Have you ever noticed the number irrelevant demands you place on evidence that stem from nothing other than the defense of your theories, not from the actual measurement of evidence itself?
Suggesting you are confused about the role that evidence plays is a “defense of my theory?” Is this really the best you have to offer?critical rationalist_{May 30, 2017
May
05
May
30
30
2017
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

CR: Knowledge, as I’m using it, is information that plays a casual role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium.

Upright BiPed: I’m just guessing here, but, I bet that the information must first be instantiated in a medium before it can play a causal role in its preservation. So, again, what are the material conditions that enable a specification to be instantiated in medium of memory?

CR: ……
Origenes_{May 29, 2017
May
05
May
29
29
2017
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

#69
Part of information theory is defining what information is. Are you saying the genome doesn’t contain information?
What a ridiculous question to ask. I hope this is not the best you have to offer?
So, if not Shannon’s, then what theory? Upright Biped’s? But, unless you’re 70 years old, it couldn’t have been your theory. So, whos is it?
Have you ever noticed the number irrelevant demands you place on evidence that stem from nothing other than the defense of your theories, not from the actual measurement of evidence itself?
And if nature is unambiguous, then that would require a “principe of induction” that could be applied in practice. How does it proved guidance as challenged above?
Ditto.Upright BiPed_{May 29, 2017
May
05
May
29
29
2017
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Either lanague violates the laws of physics or it does not.
Why do you insist on setting up this false dichotomy regarding genetic translation? And frankly, this is exactly why (heavens forbid) you should integrate the physics of the system into your thinking. The option you are deliberately ignoring is the one that physicists have already described for you, i.e. genetic translation does not violate physical law, but is a product of a specific type of organization which is capable of producing effects that are not determined by physical law. These are exactly the kinds of effects that discontinuous association and semantic closure can produce. It is what makes biological organization possible.
Constructor theory is more fundamental than the prevailing conception of physics ...
If you think the theory accurately describes the observed physical realities surrounding language, then spell it out.Upright BiPed_{May 29, 2017
May
05
May
29
29
2017
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

It's not? Part of information theory is defining what information is. Are you saying the genome doesn't contain information? So, if not Shannon's, then what theory? Upright Biped's? But, unless you're 70 years old, it couldn't have been your theory. So, whos is it? And if nature is unambiguous, then that would require a "principe of induction" that could be applied in practice. How does it proved guidance as challenged above?critical rationalist_{May 29, 2017
May
05
May
29
29
2017
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

First, it's not my theory. Second, it's unclear by what you mean when you say "intergate this knowlege". Unless a task is forbidden by the laws of physics the only thing that would prevent it from occurring is the necessary knowelge being present there. Either lanague violates the laws of physics or it does not. Which is it's? And if it does, why? Constructor theory is more fundamental than the prevailing conception of physics because it is about discovering principles about laws. One example is the principle of the conservation of energy, which is a law about other laws - including those we have yet to discover. That principle predicts no new laws will violate that principle. And, as of today, none we know of do just that. Any constructor theory task that would violate it would be impossible in constructor theory. And the "why" would be it would violate the principle of the conservation of energy. Futhermore, constructor theory doesn't place an emphases on any particular time, such as the initial conditions + the laws of motions. It's only interested in which tasks are possible, which are not, and why. In many cases the initial conditions are untraceable, such as the starting point of all of the water molecules in a kettle. But, fortunately, if we want to make tea, that is still a possible transformation we can achieve. In addition, unlike the prevailing conception of physics, constructor theory is not concered with the constructor itself, beyond having the properties of being reasonably accurate, repeatable and remaining unchanged (within the limits of waste, the effects of wear, etc.) So, what does ID do? We already know that organisms are the result of the knowledge of which transformations of matter are required to build themselves from raw materials. So, how does, some designer wanted it that way, explain why? Take all human designers, which are an intelligent agents, and erase all knowledge (in the sense that I'm using the term, including books, computers and the like) with the exception of that which would cause them to imedially stop functioning, such as in their genes. Can they design anything? No, they cannot. Why not? They can still choose. And they can still have goals, exhibit intent and even make plans. And they are still "intelligent", right? And if at some time in the future, they can design things, what will be the delta? They possessed the necessary knowledge. "Intelligent design" isn't about intellgence. Early human beings had basically the same brains and intelligence that we do, yet made virtually no progress for generations. Then we started making slow progress, although most of what we knew was useful rules of thumb that were wrong. Then came the scientific revolution. What changed? Did human beings suddenly become more "intelligent"? No, they did not. Did they somehow gain the ability to make choices? No, they had that before as well. So what happened? They created new knowledge about something very important: how knowledge grows. It contained mistakes, as does all knowledge, but it had improved significantly enough to cause exponential progress.critical rationalist_{May 29, 2017
May
05
May
29
29
2017
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

What are the material conditions that enable a specification to be instantiated in medium of memory?
Again, that question falls under a specific theory of information.
No, CR, it doesn't. Nature is unambiguous as to how this is accomplished. It requires the establishment of a medium, where one arrangement of matter serves as a symbolic representation, and a second arrangement of matter determines what is being represented. The organization of the system must also preserve the natural discontinuity between the representation and its referent. This is the necessary system of discontinuous association that makes an act of specification physically possible in the first place. And when physicists were describing this system in the literature (50 years ago) they did not ask "Is this Shannon information?"Upright BiPed_{May 29, 2017
May
05
May
29
29
2017
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

What you call “knowledge” is the specification of a thing (among alternatives) in a physical memory.
Except, that’s an incomplete description, as it is not just information. Knowledge, as I’m using it, is information that plays a casual role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium.
lol. I'm just guessing here, but, I bet that the information must first be instantiated in a medium before it can play a causal role in its preservation. So, again, what are the material conditions that enable a specification to be instantiated in medium of memory? After you integrate that little tidbit of knowledge, then we can move on to what material conditions are then required for a instance of information to play a causal role in its preservation. Together we can watch such irrelevancies as "explanations have reach" and "non-explanatory knowledge" simply melt away. Perhaps the first to go will be "what theory of information are you referring to?". The real question here is "are you willing" to actually integrate observable evidence? Thus far the answer has been "No".Upright BiPed_{May 29, 2017
May
05
May
29
29
2017
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

@UB
You posted 1400 words and managed not to touch a thing, as has been your pattern thus far. All you’ve done is repeat yourself.
"managed not to touch a thing" is yet another vague criticism. And, yes, UB. I keep repeating what you have yet to address. There is lot. Saying "it's not relevant" for some mysterious reason or calling it "molesting" is not actual criticism. It's deflection.
What you call “knowledge” is the specification of a thing (among alternatives) in a physical memory.
Except, that's an incomplete description, as it is not just information. Knowledge, as I'm using it, is information that plays a casual role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium.
What are the material conditions that enable a specification to be instantiated in medium of memory?
Again, that question falls under a specific theory of information. Which is one of the first things I asked you to clarify. Strangely, you have still yet to do so. I even offered a theory, so we could make progress, which you completely ignored. If your appeal to the fact that information has been brought into physics for decades, then you should be able to reference a theory, right? I'll try again (repeat my self yet again). Are you referring to Shannon's theory? If not, then which theory?critical rationalist_{May 29, 2017
May
05
May
29
29
2017
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

CR #62 Language is established by organization. It requires two complimentary descriptions; one for the dynamic and another for the symbolic aspects of the system. Where does your constructor theory integrate this knowledge? It doesn't.Upright BiPed_{May 28, 2017
May
05
May
28
28
2017
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

CR #61, You posted 1400 words and managed not to touch a thing, as has been your pattern thus far. All you've done is repeat yourself. What you call "knowledge" is the specification of a thing (among alternatives) in a physical memory. What are the material conditions that enable a specification to be instantiated in medium of memory?Upright BiPed_{May 28, 2017
May
05
May
28
28
2017
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

@UB UB wrote:
If you had attempted to incorporate the evidence (instead of ignoring it) then you would not be asking me this question.
The mere claim that I'm "ignoring evidence" is vague criticism. I wrote:
Fourth, I’ve again, pointed out that language can be described using constructor theory task[s] as it is a more fundamental theory of physics
To clarify, constructor theory is a more fundamental theory of physics because it asks what tasks are possible, which tasks are impossible and why. So, unless language is prohibited by the laws of physics, then it can be presented as constructor theory tasks. Are you claiming language somehow violates the laws of physics? If so, how? Otherwise, it's unclear why language cannot be formulated as constructor theory tasks. Or perhaps you claiming that the specific tasks with subtasks, etc. presented in the in the constructor theory of life paper does not accurately represent language?critical rationalist_{May 28, 2017
May
05
May
28
28
2017
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

@UB You came to this forum selling two big ideas. So, my criticisms are somehow limited to just those two ideas, and any other valid criticism can be ignored?
The first big idea was that ID (in order to make a valid design inference) must explain the ultimate source of “knowledge”.
My criticism was that, biological and informationally speaking, organisms are unique to all other things that have the appearance of design in that they contain the recipe of which transformations of matter are required to make a copy of themselves from raw materials. So, that information the proximate cause of the features of those organisms. That is how they become well adapted to serve a purpose. So, the origin of those features is the origin of that knowledge. A designer that “just was” complete with that knowledge, already present, does not serve an explanatory purpose. That’s because one could more efficiently say that organisms just appeared, complete with that knowledge, already present. Your response seems to be, ID doesn’t want to explain anything and it’s only interested in “identifying an action of an intelligent agent at the origin of life” First, this concedes to the criticism presented that no explanation is presented. ID doesn’t enjoy acceptance because it fails in this sense. If things are designed, how does that help us solve problems? As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, some aspects of human designed things serve no other purpose than being ornamental. And human designs can have unexpected side effects and unwanted or unintended consciences, etc. IOW, in its current form adding ID’s designer to the mix merely pushes the problem up a level without improving it. And without an explanation, you’re left with induction, which is impossible. (Still waiting on the specific steps you used to “correctly” induce your conclusion from the evidence.) Second, designers portrayed or appealed to as merely authoritative sources of knowledge, including human beings, are designers that “just were / was” with that knowledge already present. So, my criticism it’s not limited to an ultimate source of knowledge. Third, ID’s appeal to abstract intelligent agency is insufficient. In the case of human designers, which is supposedly the inference to design, the results are independent of one’s belief, intent or will. The key factor is the knowledge of what transformations of matter are required. I’ve illustrated this using multiple examples which have not only gone un-addressed but un-acknowledged! If you order plans to build a boat but accidentally receive the plans to build a car, instead, does your belief result in your constructing anything other than a car? If you only possess the plans to build a boat, car or shed, can you merely choose to build a fourth option, such as a airplane? No, you cannot. So, it’s unclear how merely being an intelligent agent actually results in designed things. Why has this gone completely unacknowledged? It's as if there is some unspoken assumption that ID proponents hold but is not explicitly presented in the theory itself.
The second big idea is that evolution (which you conceptualize as “conjecture and criticism”) can explain the presence of “knowledge” in the genome.
First, if by “explain”, you mean in a reductionist sense, or to ground, demonstrate, prove or make probable, this is a strawman. Second, the criticism I’ve presented is that the account for growth of knowledge in creationism, ID and induction are either supernatural, absent or irrational. The entire idea that evolution cannot explain the knowledge in organisms is based on misconceptions about how knowledge grows in human beings. Namely the misconceptions that we derive the contents of theories from experience or that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources. Since evolution cannot experience or choose things, then it cannot create knowledge, or since it is not an authority, it could not be a source of that knowledge. With an irrational account for knowledge in human beings, which is supposedly the designer that ID appeals to, it’s unclear how evolutions inability to meet that same irrational account represents valid criticism. Third, I’ve already pointed out in the distinction between highly accurate replicators and low accuracy replicators in the previously referenced paper. And I’ve also pointed to examples where a jump to universally was been stumbled upon by human beings when that result wasn’t even the desired outcome. For example, during the evolution of number systems word systems, a disproportionally jump to university when a small change was made. This was also the case with the universality of computation. Fourth, I’ve again, pointed out that language can be described using constructor theory task as it is a more fundamental theory of physics. And this description was presented in the previously referenced paper regarding tasks, with subtasks, which eventually end up with tasks that are not specific to accurate replication. Furthermore, I pointed out that the constructor theory of information does not have the same circular problem of need a express distinguishing state as does Shannon’s theory. When I clearly and explicitly asked you what theory on information you were referring to, you ignored the question. However, it was listed on the site you referenced.
Both of these ideas are entirely wrong, and subsequently had their heads cut off.
They have? Then you shouldn’t have any problems pointing out where you have addressed the above issues, beyond merely saying they are irrelevant for un explained reason or that they are “molesting”, right?
Now, to be sure, it was a clean cut: Biological ID can only attempt to explain the life that we actually have empirical access to (which is the life on this planet).
Except, we already have access to the knowledge in organisms which describes what transformations of mater are necessary to make copies of themselves from raw materials. That’s the proximate cause. It’s unclear how identifying that an abstract “intelligent agent” somehow put it there improves the problem.
And as for evolution, it cannot explain the prior organization that is required for evolution itself to exist (i.e. if A requires B for A to exist, then A cannot be the source of B).
Yes, UB. Being an accurate self replicator cannot be an expiation for accurate self replication. But this was already addressed from the start in the referenced paper.
In the biosphere self-reproduction is approximated to various accuracies. There are many poor approximations to self-reproducers - e.g., crude replicators such as crystals, short RNA strands and autocatalytic cycles involved in the origin of life [11]. Being so inaccurate, they do not require any further explanation under no-design laws: they do not have appearance of design, any more than simple inorganic catalysts do.(4)

The second point is that natural selection, to get started, does not require accurate self-reproducers with high-fidelity replicators. Indeed, the minimal requirement for natural selection is that each kind of replicator produce at least one viable offspring, on average, per lifetime - so that the different kinds of replicators last long enough to be “selected” by the environment. In challenging environments, a vehicle with many functionalities is needed to meet this requirement. But in unchallenging ones (i.e. sufficiently unchanging and resource-rich), the requirement is easily met by highly inaccurate self-reproducers that not only have no appearance of design, but are so inaccurate that they can have arisen spontaneously from generic resources under no-design laws - as proposed, for instance, by the current theories of the origin of life [11, 31]. For example, template replicators, such as short RNA strands [32], or similar “naked” replicators (replicating with poor copying fidelity without a vehicle) would suffice to get natural selection started. Since they bear no design, they require no further explanation - any more than simple inorganic catalysts do.(11)
UB wrote.
Thus, given that you refuse to even acknowledge the evidence against your position, I don’t know why you think I would now want to entertain you in more pointless commentary about inductive reasoning. I’m afraid your sense of “situational awareness” has let you down.
Again, suggesting someone is mistaken about the role that evidence plays is not the same is reusing to acknowledge evidence. Having pointed this out several times before, why do you keep repeating? Is there nothing that can be done about this misrepresentation, either?critical rationalist_{May 28, 2017
May
05
May
28
28
2017
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Still waiting...
If you had attempted to incorporate the evidence (instead of ignoring it) then you would not be asking me this question.Upright BiPed_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

CR, You seem to have lost your place in this conversation, so please allow me to remind you what has taken place. You came to this forum selling two big ideas. The first big idea was that ID (in order to make a valid design inference) must explain the ultimate source of “knowledge”. The second big idea is that evolution (which you conceptualize as “conjecture and criticism”) can explain the presence of “knowledge” in the genome. Both of these ideas are entirely wrong, and subsequently had their heads cut off. Now, to be sure, it was a clean cut: Biological ID can only attempt to explain the life that we actually have empirical access to (which is the life on this planet). And as for evolution, it cannot explain the prior organization that is required for evolution itself to exist (i.e. if A requires B for A to exist, then A cannot be the source of B). You then failed (from a standpoint of genuinely seeking the truth of reality) to acknowledge or incorporate either one of these valid criticisms of your theories. Instead, you keep humping Hume’s arguments against inductive reasoning. Your goal in this, of course, is to maintain your theories despite their exposed flaws. So, in summary, in order to plaster over the very obvious problems with your theories, you’ve elected to argue that (ultimately) we can overlook those flaws because the evidence and reasoning used against them might be mistaken. This is, of course, anti-intellectualism at its finest. To argue that we can ignore physical evidence (because we might be wrong about what it tells us) is anti-intellectual bafflegab at the extreme. Not only is it an abuse of the scientific enterprise, it represents a complete abrogation of reason. It is a hook that I continue to spit out -- every time you cast it my way. Thus, given that you refuse to even acknowledge the evidence against your position, I don’t know why you think I would now want to entertain you in more pointless commentary about inductive reasoning. I’m afraid your sense of “situational awareness” has let you down.Upright BiPed_{May 27, 2017
May
05
May
27
27
2017
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply