Two Lego block piles — what’s the difference, why?

_{kairosfocus
October 21, 2014

Design inference, ID Foundations, specified complexity

2}_{Categories
Design inference
ID Foundations
specified complexity}

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

Lego Pile A:

Lego “Pile” B:

What’s the difference, and why is it there?

What does this tell us about functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (FSCO/I), why?

So, bearing in mind this needle in haystack search challenge:

. . . also, the design inference process flowchart:

. . . and the use of coded paper tapes in older computers and Numerically Controlled machines:

Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)

. . . what can and should we infer concerning the FSCO/I involved in the protein synthesis process (including the coded mRNA tape)?

What, then, does this tell us about the causal factors credibly involved in the origin of cell based life crucially dependent on protein synthesis for it to carry out its functions? Why? END

PS: As a supplement (post meeting), I would like us to reflect on the configuration of two dirt piles,

CASE C: About six miles south of where I type:

Soufriere Hills Volcano dome, Montserrat, at night

CASE D: On some beach or other:

Let’s pose the first two questions again:

What’s the difference, and why is it there?

What does this tell us about functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (FSCO/I), why?

Comments

This must be what Hell looks like: 'debating' with materialists over two Lego block piles for eternity ...Box_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Rich, will you please explain how RNA and recursion achieve translation. Thanks.Upright BiPed_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

KF : why not?rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Rich: Not coded functionally specific complex protein creating DNA, repeating blocks maybe but such are not relevant to life function. KFkairosfocus_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

BA: A+, Rich, honourable mention, TT, Unfortunately, for cause, F. KFkairosfocus_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

You've omitted recursive forces, Barry. I think DNA could be constructed from RNA and recursion. Which of the categories of the filter does that fall into?rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

F/N: I have added two more piles, built out of "dirt" . . . including fine stuff, sand (now we know where a lot of that black beach sand here came from and how long it would have taken! Boy was I ever wrong in Physics class when I went with the usual erosion story!) and rocks. Let's see if the configurational issue will be seriously addressed. KF PS: Pile A has no particular specificity so its Chi_500 metric will be an easy - 500 functionally specific bits to go. Pile B can be reduced to a 3-D CAD model, and the number of structured bits to specify config can give a working value for functionally specific info content. Easily beyond 73 ASCII characters worth, about 10 typical English words.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

rich @ 23. Yes. Thank you. Let’s review. You agree that the best explanation (abductive inference) for the second pile is that it is designed for a purpose. You also agree that the second pile is almost certainly beyond the capacity of chance/law forces. You agree that the second pile conforms to a specification (i.e., medieval diorama). These observations leap out and are undeniable (though, sadly, all too often they are nevertheless denied; see tin’s continued antics). What has happened here? You’ve taken a quick trip through the explanatory filter. Is it contingent? [if no, law-like necessity cannot be excluded; reject design inference but possible false negative] YES. No law-like mechanical force could possibly account for this configuration of the blocks. Is it complex? [if no, chance cannot be excluded; reject design inference but possible false negative] YES. The “search space” for the various configurations of this number of blocks is enormous. Is it specified? [if no, chance cannot be excluded; reject design inference but possible false negative] YES. It conforms to the specification “medieval diorama.” The possibility that chance could reach this target within the search space is vanishingly small. Conclusion: Designed without the slightest possibility for reasonable doubt. Now let’s go through the filter with respect to the first pile. Is it contingent? [if no, law-like necessity cannot be excluded; reject design inference but possible false negative] YES. No law-like mechanical force could possibly account for this configuration of the blocks. Is it complex? [if no, chance cannot be excluded; reject design inference but possible false negative] YES. The “search space” for the various configurations of this number of blocks is enormous. Is it specified? [if no, chance cannot be excluded; reject design inference but possible false negative] NO. The possibility that chance could reach this target within the search space is actually quite high. Indeed, most of the search space consists of random piles of blocks. Note that a false negative is possible. Someone might very well have carefully arranged each and every block in the pile with the specific purpose of having the pile of blocks look exactly this way. But we could never know. Conclusion: Design inference rejected. What is the purpose of this rather mundane and obvious exercise? Simple, it is a toy model of design inferences generally. Let’s see how the same model can work with the DNA code. Is it contingent? [if no, law-like necessity cannot be excluded; reject design inference but possible false negative] YES. No law-like mechanical force could possibly account for a staggeringly complex digital code. Is it complex? [if no, chance cannot be excluded; reject design inference but possible false negative] YES. The “search space” for the various configurations of molecules in the DNA strand is enormous. Is it specified? [if no, chance cannot be excluded; reject design inference but possible false negative] YES. It conforms to the specification “digital code.” The possibility that chance could reach this target within the search space is vanishingly small. Conclusion: Designed without the slightest possibility for reasonable doubt.Barry Arrington_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

1) rocks strewn naturally along a backcountry trail. 2) rocks stacked to mark a trailhead. Is there a difference? Rocks are rocks?ppolish_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Really appreciate the dialogue, BTW - I think its been good so far?rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

Barry, so I've tried my best. All my answers basically boil down to "Looks designed to me, based on what domain knowledge I have / past examples I've seen of this type" I've done no math nor science, and one can argue my methods are very subjective / nonscientific. Is the same true of CSI / FSCO/I? Because, pardon the bluntness, FSCO/I seems to want the veneer of science without *doing* any of the science. Thanks.rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Settle down Mindpowers Murray. I've said they are both designed, at different levels. Do you disagree?rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

@William - I'd pick the second one because it looks like a medieval diorama, like the ones you see on the box fronts and instructions. @Barry (13) No. This would be "Lego in a tumlbe dryer" (TINJY pun) and Lego has no recursive processes available to it that I know of, so I would find chance / necessity / recursion unlikely.rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Barry, I keep asking the question, but nobody answers. Not even with a staggeringly stupid comment. 1) pile of sand and a sandcastle. 2) pile of Lego and a Lego castle. 3) pile of quartz sand and a complex quartz crystal structure. Without prior knowledge of human experience, which of these is designed?tintinnid_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Rich apparently wants us to believe that he cannot discern which noun the term "designed" refers to - the Legos themselves, or the pile/arrangement. It's this kind of dishonest debate tactic we can expect until the refuse gets taken out again.William J Murray_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

rich said:
I think they’re both designed, but at different levels / configurations?
If the bet was that one or both of the lego arrangements might have been intelligently designed, but you had to pick one that was intelligently designed, which one would you pick? Why?William J Murray_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Rich, we have competing questions again. I'll answer yours first. "no." Of course I meant the second question rich (i.e., the only question in my edited comment 13) Barry Arrington_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Barry: "In what meaningful sense of the word is a pile of Lego’s designed?: The bricks themselves are designed. Made for a purpose, an extensible children's toy?rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

I see you've already replied Barry, thanks. If I may have a little semantic quibble: You say - "But you didn’t have to know to make the design inference did you?" But I think "But you didn’t have to know to make *this* design inference did you?" more correct. For a universal tool, don't we need CSI or FSCO/I to resolve to an actual number that beats a confidence level (UPB?) Thanksrich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

The more important question is whether you believe that the configuration in the second picture could have been constructed by chance/law processes.Barry Arrington_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

I think they're both designed, but at different levels / configurations? AND.. I know who the designer is ;) Design inferences aren't hard or that controversial in domains where we have familiarity and design / designer knowledge, I think. Now if someone like to take a stab at my question, I'd be grateful.rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Yes rich, that is what we have come to expect from you and your ilk. Thank you for not disappointing.Joe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

My turn rich. I don't know. But you didn't have to know to make the design inference did you?Barry Arrington_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Yes rich. Good for you. Design inference duly noted. That wasn't so hard was it? Maybe you can talk to tin for us.Barry Arrington_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

I shall try my best, Barry. Just to check - you are referring to: "Two Lego block piles — what’s the difference, why?" A - is more primary colours, more regular blocks ("basic" Lego I think) B - has more grey pieces, more specialty pieces (medieval / "caste" lego) and appears to used to construct a medieval diorama. based on my experience with Lego. Is that what you were after?rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

tin, Your first sentence is especially staggeringly stupid. Saying how they are the same is the exact opposite of saying how they are different. See "Darwinist Derangement Syndrome" in the glossary for why you answered the question that way. Your dodge of the question, like rich's, is duly noted. Any other Darwinist want to step up and dodge/divert? Barry Arrington_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

"Two Lego brick piles, what’s the difference, why?" They are both designed and built by humans. There, that was easy. Any other questions? Oh, there is another difference. It is not possible to assemble the second picture from the material in the first.tintinnid_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

rich, cantor has a point. KF asked first. Answer his question and I will answer yours.Barry Arrington_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Oh please, Cantor. I'm simply asking for details of concepts brought up in the post: "What does this tell us about functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (FSCO/I), why?" Its a very relevant question and if ID can answer it it has made empirical headway.rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

2 rich October 21, 2014 at 1:57 pm How much more FSCO/I does A have than B?
https://uncommondescent.com/ddd/darwinian-debating-devices-15-chasing-irrelevant-tangents/cantor_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply