Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Quora: Is it possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that intelligence was required to create life?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Josh Anderson writes:

Yes, it is. Here’s the question you should ask yourself: Is symbolic code something that blind, intelligence-free physical processes could create and use? Or is mind alone up to the task?

The legendary John Von Neumann did important work on self-replicating systems. A towering giant in the history of mathematics and pioneer in computer science, he was interested in describing machine-like systems that could build faithful copies of themselves.

Von Neumann soon recognized that it would require both hardware and software. Such a system had to work from a symbolic representation of itself. That is, it must have a kind of encoded picture of itself in some kind of memory.

Crucially, this abstract picture had to include a precise description of the very mechanisms needed to read and execute the code. Makes sense, right? To copy itself it has to have a blueprint to follow. And this blueprint has to include instructions for building the systems needed to decode and implement the code.

Here’s the remarkable thing: Life is a Von Neumann Replicator. Von Neumann was unwittingly describing the DNA based genetic system at the heart of life. And yet, he was doing so years before we knew about these systems.

The implications of this are profound. Think about how remarkable this is. It’s like having the blueprints and operating system for a computer stored on a drive in digital code that can only be read by the device itself. It’s the ultimate chicken and egg scenario.

How might something like this have come about? For a system to contain a symbolic representation of itself the actualization of precise mapping between two realms, the physical realm and an abstract symbolic realm.

In view here is a kind of translation, mechanisms that can move between encoded descriptions and material things being described. This requires a system of established correlations between stuff out here and information instantiated in a domain of symbols.

Here’s the crucial question: Is this something that can be achieved by chance, physical laws, or intelligence-free material processes? The answer is decidedly NO. What’s physical cannot work out the non-physical. Only a mind can create a true code. Only a mind can conceive of and manage abstract, symbolic realities. A symbolic system has to be invented. It cannot come about in any other way.

If you think something like this – mutually interdependent physical hardware and encoded software  can arise through unguided, foresight-less material forces acting over time, think again. If I were to ask you to think of something, anything that absolutely requires intelligence to bring about, you’d be hard pressed to think of a better example. It’s not just that no one understands how it could be done, it’s that we have every reason to believe that it is impossible in principle. No intelligence-free material processes could ever give you something like this.

But wait, how can we be so sure this feature of life was not forged by evolution, built up incrementally by the unseen hand of natural selection? What’s to say this is beyond the ability of evolution to create?

The question answers itself. In order for evolution to take place you have to have a self-replicating system in place. You don’t evolve to the kind of thing we’ve been describing. That is, necessarily, where you begin.

The DNA and the dizzyingly complex molecular machinery that it both uses and describes did not evolve into existence. This much is clear. Any suggestion that it did is not based on a scintilla of empirical evidence or any credible account of how it could have come about in this way.

The conclusion is clear: The unmistakable signature of mind is literally in every cell of every living thing on earth.

Watch a few seconds of this to remind yourself of the kind of mind-bending sophistication in view here:

Quora

Note that John von Neumann mathematically showed that the information content of the simplest self-replicating machine is about 1500 bits of information. This is a vast amount of information, since information bits are counted on a logarithmic scale, and it cannot be explained by any natural process, since it far exceeds the information content of the physical (non-living) universe. Therefore, since self-replicating organisms obviously exist on Earth, their origin must come from the only known source of this level of information – an intelligent mind of capability far beyond our mental ability – consistent with the biblical view of God.

Comments
Relatd: You are creating a fictional story that cannot be shown to be true.
Do you ever read what you write? Do you not see the hypocrisy?Sir Giles
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
VL at 443, You are creating a fictional story that cannot be shown to be true. Your imagination, your intelligence, is being used to create fiction. Notice what you wrote - it is all goal oriented. Can a computer upgrade itself? Where does it get the new material to work with? Nowhere? That is what you are doing here. If you add the word 'designer' then tell me - who is the designer?relatd
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
Very simple animals orient themselves and move in he direction of light as detected by the light sensitive spot. It doesn't need a brain for this to happen. And perhaps the designer directed the emergence of conscious over time, as nervous systems became more complex. It seems certain to me that there is a progression from very simple cells which get stimulation from the environment and then respond, without a brain, to concentration of nerve cells eventually leading up to simple brains and eventually to our, with multiple parts, some shared with other animals and some more unique to man. I took an independent study course on this in college many years ago, and it was fascinating.Viola Lee
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
VL at 441, It's very unreasonable. To say something is emergent or emerges from implies direction, a goal. According to evolution: Before eyes, a 'light sensitive spot' appeared - apparently from nowhere - on some organism. This spot would tell the creature when it passed from a lit area to a dark one or when an object passed by that obscured the light coming in for some period of time. Which means absolutely nothing if the creature did not have a brain able to interpret this information in a meaningful/useful way. If it didn't, then going from a lit to a dark area meant nothing.relatd
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
re 439. Yes, possibly, from the quantum substrate, perhaps. It's not an unreasonable hypothesis.Viola Lee
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Origenes at 439, Emergence from what? New information comes from where? Someone's imagination? [said with a Brooklyn accent] Hey buddy! I got yer emergence right here!relatd
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Relatd @438 Perhaps consciousness emerges?Origenes
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Experiment: Take all the parts for a bicycle. Leave them in a pool of water for one million years. Result? Nothing happens.relatd
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Argument FOR **POOF** emergence - Who will be convinced by it?
‘Yesterday there was a pile of electronic parts on my desk. I identified the sum of those proper parts as the whole I call Yesterday’s Electrical Parts (YEP). In terms of YEP as a whole, you could say YEP composed a heap. Now, say that today a computer technician takes all of YEP and puts its proper parts together (differently than YEP) to make me a laptop. The electronic parts have changed from the whole, which was a heap, to a whole, which is a laptop. I identify it as My Laptop (ML). The changed relation between the proper parts, which is the different arrangement of the proper parts, allows for a “new” whole, ML, which turns out to have vastly different properties than YEP. In fact, the different arrangement of proper parts that now compose ML make a “new” whole that has “new” causal powers: I can surf the Internet, write a paper, listen to music, and etc. The arrangement of proper parts in YEP did not have these particular properties. If the proper parts in the first arrangement could not make a whole with these particular properties, then these “new” causal powers must not come from those same proper parts when the proper parts are each considered distinct from their whole, or when the proper parts are considered together but not in their current arrangement. YEP is not ML: they have different properties and therefore have different identities. Again, the “new” causal powers of ML are the product of the arrangement of the proper parts. That leads me to the conclusion that ML, a differently arranged “new” whole, has properties that cannot be reduced to the properties of the proper parts. According to what the relation of proper parts happens to be (in this case arrangement) there will be different identities and different wholes, therefore, a whole is over and above the sum of its proper parts’.[Melendez]
Origenes
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
JVL, I cannot but notice you tried the "condescending" card for a fairly standard opening phrase "recall . . ." then proceeded to try to belittle me for a well known short hand "to the a" etc. This exposes the rhetorical points scoring game. Meanwhile, my substantial point remains, that any n in N is encoded by a chain of exponents [should I insist on UK usage, powers?] of successive primes, which then decompose into repeated sums in an actual or imaginary accumulator. The existence of ALU's that do complements and add or shift-add is enough to show that addition is the fundamental arithmetical binary operation, but it is convenient to cluster in certain ways yielding quite complex operations. KFkairosfocus
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Asuaber: Anyway, JVL, I consider “emergence” a euphemism for “it just does.” Because that’s what it is. Who cares what someone who asks for references but never reads them thinks? You're not interested in the science at all are you? If you were, you would have checked all this stuff out before. But you didn't. Because you don't care. And you have no intention of actually trying to find out about things that might challenge your views.JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Jerry: No, just that it is nothing more than addition in terms of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. You got it wrong. Just admit it. I never said the addition was unique. But The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic does talk about a unique factorisation which you blatantly and obviously ignored. You got it wrong; just admit it. If it is odd, then subtract a prime number and the result is an even number so the prime plus the sum of 2s will get one the number. "[W]il get one the number"? What? You're just saying things to make it sound like you actually have some idea of the mathematics involved when clearly you don't. Just admit it. Interesting but of little practical value. What I am arguing for is practical value. Funny you spent a lot of time telling the rest of us we were wrong then. Why did you do that? You got it wrong, just admit it. For the Pythagorean theorem, Pythagoreus did not use numbers but actual squares in his proof. Which is why later on the multiple of two numbers together became known as its square. What? 2x3 became known as 'its square'? Really? You keep getting things wrong. Just admit it. My main point is that math should be useful. After sitting through many long hours of proving theorems in graduate school, I began to appreciate just how useful most math is but that much of pure math may not have any value in the present world. It seemed the object of the math PhD was to find obscure ways to say something that may have no practical value at all. What does this have to do with you pretending to know stuff and getting it wrong? My mention of a perfect GRE score was right in one sense but wrong in another sense. I did not get anything wrong but did leave three questions unanswered. We were instructed to do so if we were unfamiliar with the question. All three questions dealt with simple statistics issues such as a standard deviation. I thought statistics was beneath a math graduate program so I never tried to learn it. Wait . . . let me clarify . . . you never learned about standard deviation? Is that correct? Because you thought it 'was beneath a math graduate program'. Really? Aside: I later learned statistics thoroughly and taught it. I actually recommend everyone getting a technical degree learn statistics before calculus even though I taught calculus at one time. Statistics is of much more value. But when one is young, they are often arrogant. I taught it too. And Calculus. And Dif Eq. And Linear Algebra. So what? Thousands of people do that. I just don't get you. You think you are some kind of math guru but then you say dumb stuff which you can't defend and then, later, you are all apologetic. Why don't you just stop trying to be a mathematician because clearly you are not that. You argued for days ignoring completely a uniqueness statement in The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. You're not even really paying attention. Are you?JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Anyway, JVL, I consider "emergence" a euphemism for "it just does." Because that's what it is. Andrewasauber
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
"How’s Oxford then?" JVL, I don't know. Don't have access. Andrewasauber
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Asauber: It’s obvious, JVL. I like at least the semblance of an authoritative source when I look at links, not webspam designed for teens. How's Oxford then? https://academic.oup.com/book/12769/chapter-abstract/162924464?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=falseJVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Jerry, do you have anything against stating the fundamental theorem of arithmetic in terms of products, or the Pythagorean theorem in terms of squares, etc?
No, just that it is nothing more than addition in terms of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. I never said the addition was unique. All positive numbers can be the sum or different prime numbers. If it the number is even then a sum of 2s will get the number and any two primes added together plus 2s will also get the number. If it is odd, then subtract a prime number and the result is an even number so the prime plus the sum of 2s will get one the number. There are numerous alternatives. Interesting but of little practical value. What I am arguing for is practical value. For the Pythagorean theorem, Pythagoreus did not use numbers but actual squares in his proof. Which is why later on the multiple of two numbers together became known as its square.
do you accept the practical value of the various further operations in math that go beyond being stated in terms of addition?
I am on record that I do. My main point is that math should be useful. After sitting through many long hours of proving theorems in graduate school, I began to appreciate just how useful most math is but that much of pure math may not have any value in the present world. It seemed the object of the math PhD was to find obscure ways to say something that may have no practical value at all. My mention of a perfect GRE score was right in one sense but wrong in another sense. I did not get anything wrong but did leave three questions unanswered. We were instructed to do so if we were unfamiliar with the question. All three questions dealt with simple statistics issues such as a standard deviation. I thought statistics was beneath a math graduate program so I never tried to learn it. Aside: I later learned statistics thoroughly and taught it. I actually recommend everyone getting a technical degree learn statistics before calculus even though I taught calculus at one time. Statistics is of much more value. But when one is young, they are often arrogant.jerry
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
"What is your point?" It's obvious, JVL. I like at least the semblance of an authoritative source when I look at links, not webspam designed for teens. Andrewasauber
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Asuaber: Seriously, JVL. KnowledgeBurrow? What institution produces that? Why are you interceding in this conversation? Do you want some examples of emergent properties or are you just stirring the pot? What is your point?JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Seriously, JVL. KnowledgeBurrow? What institution produces that? Andrewasauber
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Asauber: Seriously, JVL. TimesMojo? What institution produces that? Nice that you don't actually have a comment on the content of the site. How many do you want me to produce? https://knowledgeburrow.com/what-are-examples-of-emergent-properties-in-biology/ Are you interested in the science or not? When someone asks for data or examples should they or should they not look at what is provided?JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Seriously, JVL. TimesMojo? What institution produces that? Andrewasauber
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Jerry: For biology, we are still waiting for examples. Some have said there are some, but I have yet to see the actual examples. That's because you are too lazy to check. https://www.timesmojo.com/what-are-examples-of-emergent-properties-in-biology/JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Jerry, do you have anything against stating the fundamental theorem of arithmetic in terms of products, or the Pythagorean theorem in terms of squares, etc? That is, do you accept the practical value of the various further operations in math that go beyond being stated in terms of addition?Viola Lee
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Jerry idiosyncratic position is totally unfeasible from a practical point of view, but he is attached to being an iconoclast.
More nonsense. There is nothing wrong with anything I said. What is idiosyncratic about anything I said? How is anything I said, which is 100% true, iconoclast? I'm making a statement that this has been much ado about nothing. Irony: I am all in for what is practical so how is my observations, which are accurate, against practicality.
idea of emergence, as that seems to be a concept getting quite a bit of negative press in some other threads (which I am not following)
You haven't missed much by not following them. There are some things which appear to happen out of nowhere and for which the term "emergence" has been justified. The best examples are water and salt which are quite different from their atomic constituents. I assume there are other compounds that are also alien to their parts. As of today's science these few compounds do not seem to follow any known laws based on their molecular ingredients and the orbits of their electrons. But they are identified and maybe future physics theory will be able to predict the qualities of the compounds from the components. So the term emergence would no longer be appropriate if this happens. For biology, we are still waiting for examples. Some have said there are some, but I have yet to see the actual examples. Maybe they exists but no one has described one here. One good candidate is the cell but no one has been able to construct one yet.jerry
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
KF writes, "What happens, is we are used to one form of emergence, by which interactions of lower order components give a higher order complex but unifiable operation. With that emergence, the particular point of prime factor decomposition of a number is that it uniquely constructs the particular number. But, the ops involved are logically reducible to complex structured chains of additions." Sure, everything can reduce to addition, but without the "emergence, by which interactions of lower order components give a higher order complex but unifiable operation," such as multiplication, math would be impossible. Jerry idiosyncratic position is totally unfeasible from a practical point of view, but he is attached to being an iconoclast. And it is interesting that KF uses the idea of emergence, as that seems to be a concept getting quite a bit of negative press in some other threads (which I am not following).Viola Lee
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Jerry: So someone else decides to pile on over nothing. I said arithmetic is adding and subtracting. That multiplication is just addition and division is a partitioning. Please tell me if that is wrong. You said more than that didn't you? Check out comment #192 above: you quoted (me I think) referring to The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic and responded:
Is just the partition of a positive number into lesser positive numbers that add up to the number. It is a combination of fast addition or multiplication or/and just plain addition.
When it clearly is not. It's not stated that way and it doesn't work that way. The fact that you can't see that tells me you don't really understand mathematics. Please tell me if the fundamental theorem of arithmetic is not just the multiplication of certain numbers which is then just adding. The real question is why anyone cares? Again, missing the central qualification of the representation being UNIQUE! Why are you continuing to argue about something you don't understand?JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: recall Condescending. multiplication is repeated addition and division repeated subtraction, suitably nested of course What does this have to do with The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic or portioning integers? as is practiced for some ALU designs, that subtraction can be reduced to addition with complements. So, everything is reducible without residue to a complex of additions. Fine, you reduce The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic to 'a complex of additions' and get back to us. Take the successive prime factors 2,3, 5 etc for any n, where n = 2^p * 3^q * 5^r etc. For an even, p is at least 1, for an odd it is 0 Stating the obvious, again. For a prime, all primes up to itself are to the 0. Are 'to the zero'? You mean the exponents are all zero. Learn to speak mathematics properly. This is where uniqueness emerges, the value of exponent for each prime in succession, i.e. a unique code for each number. Then, translate 2^p into 2 + 2 + . . 2, p times. That is a first accumulation, then if say 3 is squared, add accum A to itself thrice and reload it with the result. Do so again. Proceed to the 5s etc. What happens, is we are used to one form of emergence, by which interactions of lower order components give a higher order complex but unifiable operation. With that emergence, the particular point of prime factor decomposition of a number is that it uniquely constructs the particular number Are you sure? Let's try it: 2 x 3 x 5 = 30. All the exponents are one. So . . .let me guess, you're going to get fifteen 2s all added together. Are you saying that is a unique way to add prime numbers together to get 30? What about 13 + 17? What about 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + . . . 10 times? What about 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5? Your method 'uniquely' constructs the particular number?JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Jerry’s formalization is nothing like the real fundamental theorem of arithmetic.
I love it. So someone else decides to pile on over nothing. I said arithmetic is adding and subtracting. That multiplication is just addition and division is a partitioning. Please tell me if that is wrong. Please tell me if the fundamental theorem of arithmetic is not just the multiplication of certain numbers which is then just adding. There is nothing I have said that is wrong.      The real question is why anyone cares? jerry
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
VL & JVL, recall, multiplication is repeated addition and division repeated subtraction, suitably nested of course. I took the further step to show -- as is practiced for some ALU designs, that subtraction can be reduced to addition with complements. So, everything is reducible without residue to a complex of additions. Take the successive prime factors 2,3, 5 etc for any n, where n = 2^p * 3^q * 5^r etc. For an even, p is at least 1, for an odd it is 0. For a prime, all primes up to itself are to the 0. This is where uniqueness emerges, the value of exponent for each prime in succession, i.e. a unique code for each number. Then, translate 2^p into 2 + 2 + . . 2, p times. That is a first accumulation, then if say 3 is squared, add accum A to itself thrice and reload it with the result. Do so again. Proceed to the 5s etc. What happens, is we are used to one form of emergence, by which interactions of lower order components give a higher order complex but unifiable operation. With that emergence, the particular point of prime factor decomposition of a number is that it uniquely constructs the particular number. But, the ops involved are logically reducible to complex structured chains of additions. KFkairosfocus
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Viola Lee: Vinograd’s Theorem seems obvious. There's a rough outline of the proof here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinogradov%27s_theorem (It's the obvious ones that can be the hardest to prove!!) Here's another unsolved problem that's easy to understand but . . .
Waring's problem asks whether each natural number k has an associated positive integer s such that every natural number is the sum of at most s natural numbers raised to the power k. For example, every natural number is the sum of at most 4 squares, 9 cubes, or 19 fourth powers. Waring's problem was proposed in 1770 by Edward Waring, after whom it is named. Its affirmative answer, known as the Hilbert–Waring theorem, was provided by Hilbert in 1909. Waring's problem has its own Mathematics Subject Classification, 11P05, "Waring's problem and variants".
Here's another that has been proved (by Cauchy in 1813):
The Fermat polygonal number theorem states that every positive integer is a sum of at most n n-gonal numbers. That is, every positive integer can be written as the sum of three or fewer triangular numbers, and as the sum of four or fewer square numbers, and as the sum of five or fewer pentagonal numbers, and so on. That is, the n-gonal numbers form an additive basis of order n.
JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 16

Leave a Reply