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
Vinograd's Theorem seems obvious. Since all primes are odd, and two odds added together make an even, it would take three odds to add to another prime. My partition of 35 is an example.Viola Lee
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Viola Lee: Jerry’s formalization is nothing like the real fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Jerry thinks he's some great mathematical genius because of something some math professor (who he won't identify) told him years ago. And he says he's done loads of mathematics but yah gotta wonder when he misinterprets such a well known, elementary and easy to interpret theorem. For instance, 35 = 11 + 17 + 7, which is another way to express 35 as the sum of prime numbers if they don’t have to be the same prime. I think there must be quite a lot of ways to write 35 as the sum of primes. In fact, there is a name for such a thing: prime partition. The Goldbach conjecture is part of that area of number theory. https://planetmath.org/PrimePartition
A prime partition is a partition (http://planetmath.org/IntegerPartition) of a given positive integer consisting only of prime numbers. For example, a prime partition of 42 is 29 + 5 + 5 + 3. If we accept partitions of length 1 as valid partitions, then it is obvious that only prime numbers have prime partitions of length 1. Not accepting 1 as a prime number makes the problem of prime partitions more interesting, otherwise there would always be for a given n, if nothing else, a prime partition consisting of n 1s. Almost as bad, however, is a partion of n into (formula got corrupted in the pasting) 2s and 3s. Both Goldbach’s conjecture and Levy’s conjecture can be restated in terms of prime partitions thus: for any even integer n > 2 there is always a prime partition of length 2, and for any odd integer n > 5 there is always a prime partition of length 3 with at most 2 distinct elements. Assuming Goldbach’s conjecture is true, the most efficient prime partition of an even integer is of length 2, while Vinogradov’s theorem has proven the most efficient prime partition of a sufficiently large composite odd integer is of length 3.
But, all that is completely different from THE Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. Some more on the general issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(number_theory) I love number theory.JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Jerry writes, "This means that the fundamental theory of arithmetic says that any number greater than one is the result of the addition of prime numbers." I'll note that the real fundamental theorem refers to a unique factorization. But 35 = 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 or 35 = 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7, so there is not a unique way of expressing 35 as the sum of the same prime, which is another feature missing from Jerry's definition. For instance, 35 = 11 + 17 + 7, which is another way to express 35 as the sum of prime numbers if they don’t have to be the same prime. Jerry's formalization is nothing like the real fundamental theorem of arithmetic.Viola Lee
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Jerry: I notice that you were unable to find a unique sum of prime numbers that add up to 35. Not too surprising since it's easy enough to find two completely different ways of adding up prime numbers to get 35. There are probably many ways to add up prime numbers to get 35. That's why The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic refers to a unique PRODUCT of prime numbers (the order is irrelevant). IF you think The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is really about sums then you should be able to find a unique representation of any given number as the sum of primes AND you should be able to restate the theorem in terms of sums. You've already bailed on the simpler of those two tasks. And, I predict, you won't be able to complete the second one either. So, Jerry, shall we conclude that you really don't understand mathematics at all? The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is very clear and easy to understand and you bottled it. Badly. And then you run away when someone asks you to justify yourself. Shall we take a look at some other well-known mathematical theorem? Like the Central Limit Theorem? Or The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra? Or The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? How about Zorn's Lemma? The Prime Number Theorem? Can you contribute anything to a discuss of any of these or are you just going to say: it's all addition and then run away which it's shown they're not? Why? Why do people reply with nonsense to a correct portrayal? Because your portrayal is not correct. Your portrayal doesn't work. It's false. I asked you to back up your portrayal and you couldn't. Would you like some wine with your humble pie?JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
More nonsense/irrelevancies in reply to an absolute correct representation. Why? Why do people reply with nonsense to a correct portrayal? That is the real question on this blog and it is not just here. UD is not unique but a good illustration of the world.jerry
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
JVL, it is, as I just showed, a matter of multidimensional or multi tier nesting, one block per prime in succession from 2 up; it is much easier to chunk in concepts that make it easier to modularise what you are doing. Just as, real numbers in decimal form are disguised power series, and for irrationals, the series converge they do not hit the value short of w terms as the surreals show. KF PS, if you want a more significant case see how human computers set up and ran algorithms to fast extract roots, multiply large numbers and add three columns to any length faster than a calculator. My late Dad, such a computer as a statistician-economist trained in the pre computer days, used to cross check calculator entries in his head and trusted his mental calculation over the calculator. He READ and added the numbers, he could mis key the calculator. The algorithms are crazy.kairosfocus
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Jerry, multiplication is repeated addition, subtraction repeated addition, which BTW has subtleties. Complements as ALU designers know allow reducing the subtraction to addition and some ALUs just have logic units and shifters with full adders. This is to say it does all come down to addition, slightly more subtle. However, that then allows expansion back to the four rules. As for prime factorisation, it is of course compounded additions in blocks, e.g. 2^3 * 3^2 is, nine times over accumulate [ (2 + 2) + (2 +2) ], an accumulator being a register for just that. KFkairosfocus
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Jerry: So the fundamental theory of arithmetic says that any number greater than one is the result of the addition of prime numbers. Uh huh. Well, let's see how you do with some examples shall we? Remembering too that The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic says there is a unique representation. Find the unique (meaning the only) representation of 35 as a sum (according to you) of prime numbers.JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic according to Wikipedia
the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, states that every integer greater than 1 can be represented uniquely as a product of prime numbers
This says that every number greater than 1 is the sum of prime numbers The term product in mathematics is just another word for the result of a multiplication. Multiplication is just addition. So a product is just an addition. This means that the fundamental theory of arithmetic says that any number greater than one is the result of the addition of prime numbers. This comment is a reply to nonsense comments which are the norm here. My guess is that 90% of the comments on this thread are irrelevant or inane. They are not meant to elucidate or clarify.jerry
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
Jerry: The fundamental theorem of arithmetic is about the addition of whole positive integers. Any credibility you had has just evaporated into dust. I've already told you what The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic says; do I need to rub your nose in it again?JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
I need not comment on Jerry, other than that he came back to me on a point and I further responded
You said something that was essentially irrelevant and obscure (use of complements) and then when questioned replied with something that was also obscure. Nothing new on this blog. There was no point in pushing your reply as it was at best a side issue. By the way, I got nothing wrong. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic is about the addition of whole positive integers. Why did you not acknowledge this instead of bringing up the idea of complements. I maintain that positive integers are all that exist in reality. If people want to arrange them in certain ways, more power to them. It doesn’t change anything about arithmetic.jerry
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: it is both a thesis and a theorem. The theorem establishes the thesis as certain. In all my years of taking and teaching mathematics I never heard anyone call an unproven theorem a thesis. The term is just not used. You can't just grab words out of a thesaurus and expect them to be understood. As far as Jerry is concerned: if he has the mathematical experience he claims then he has no need for you to state the obvious. Just like I don't. You don't have to spout a bunch of elementary mathematics in a flowery style to impress or educate. That's why you sound condescending: it's like you're saying "oh, I guess I'd better remind you of this" or "surely you are aware of". Just stop it. If you have something to say that isn't just bringing up things everyone (should) know then say it simply and clearly and succinctly. First rule of teaching as I'm sure you're aware.JVL
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
VL, right reason is an ancient phrase going back to Aristotle IIRC. The ciceronian first DUTIES of right reason, for cause include duties to heed the first principles thereof and are in fact first built in law. My remarks on math foundations are meant to draw out the raw intellectual power of the seemingly trivial LOI and its close (far more -- and needlessly -- controversial) corollaries LEM & LNC, also illustrating how these results for math do not simply directly follow, we need to connect to being, I do so through possible worlds. I note, we may speak of first principles and duties of right reason, for example. Then we have things like the weak inquiry form principle of sufficient reason and its results for cause and logic of being, and more. But also, first plausibles of worldviews implies a much wider circle of first facts [including self-awareness], first truths, explanatory, unifying presuppositions, actual axioms, personal and community beliefs etc, the core of how people perceive the world. I turn to your onward remarks in a F/N. KF F/N: VL, >>This is where, as we have often discussed, I think you make an unwarranted jump to assertions that are not logically connected to points 1-3 above, but are beliefs and value judgments from your worldview as to how people ought to behave, using words like truth, prudence, warrant etc. don’t help with specific beliefs when people disagree about what is true, prudent or warranted.>> 1: As I have pointed out, these are not original they come from Cicero as reorganised. 2: Now, as we need to see yet again, let's take your, "I think you make an unwarranted jump . . . " Notice, the duties to truth, right reason and warrant you just appealed to? 3: My point has always been, as I just again highlighted to SG, that objectors invariably make such appeals even in objecting to these principles of duty. That is, they too sit on the same branch. 4: My argument, therefore, has always been, branch on which we sit inevitability, similar to the Epictetus reply to his interlocutor's challenge. The point is precisely the same:
How, then, will you know if I impose [--> notice, appeal to said duties] upon you?— . . . Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not?
5: The inescapable, embedded in our reasoning is of first principle, branch on which we all sit, pervasive character, so, known to undeniable certainty, the built in, naturally evident moral government of our rationality. 6: As I noted to SG:
reasoning does not move a rock, force does. Reasoning does not move a computer, pre programmed chains of essentially mechanical forces do, using special arrangements of rock called gates, flipflops, registers, memory, ALU etc. By contrast, though we are more moved by emotions or by the flow of perceived authority, the force of fact and reason is the call to duty to truth and right reason
7: There has been no non sequitur leap. Just as with Mathematics, substantial facts have been brought to the table, of HOW we argue whether in trying to object to these duties or in trying to prove them. They are branches on which we all sit, truths about duty of first principle pervasive character. We may flout them, but only to fall at once into formal or informal fallacies, and sometimes, injustice. >>Yes, logic is entangled with everything we assert,>> 8: LOI is such that without distinct identity pivoting on core characteristics, we cannot assert. Start with distinct letters and sounds with distinctive attached meanings. >> given the necessity to be consistent with math and logic as outlined in 1-3 above. >> 9: There is no mechanical necessity of force of nature or logic by itself that makes us conform to built in rules such as a CPU has to. The "necessity" you appeal to here is the necessity of ought, of duty. >>That does not mean that logic by itself can be expanded to provide certain truths about all those other things you mention, because the application of logic always involves assertions of various kinds that are not themselves part of logic.>> 10: Yes, we go to contexts, whether possible worlds for foundations of math or how objectors and those ill advisedly trying to argue against or in claimed proof for pervasive first principles err self referentially. 11: Here, the objectors as ever implicitly appeal to the duties (but fail to recognise their implication of moral government of responsible, rational freedom) and the would be defenders instantly embed the point in their first statements. 12: The solution is simple, recognise that there are self evident, branch on which we all sit, pervasively acting first principles and see that reasoning starts from such it cannot independently ground such. 13: Our civilisation's certainty haunted nature here runs into trouble in dealing with self evident first principles foundational to and more certain than proofs (and indeed, than axioms adopted that are contingent). KFkairosfocus
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
JVL, it is both a thesis and a theorem. The theorem establishes the thesis as certain. I need not comment on Jerry, other than that he came back to me on a point and I further responded. And, it is readily seen that some ALU's function as I describe, because my point is correct. As for factorisation, n = 2^p * 3^q * 5^r . . . is a well known pattern, an even number will have the 2 power at least 1, an odd, 0, a prime will have itself at 1 power and all other primes leading up to it 0, etc etc. Outlining facts in substantiation to move to clarifying specifics rather than vague generalities, not "condescending." This opens up the power of multiplication, division, breaking up of many polynomials into linear factors, with onward extension into poles and zeroes in the complex frequency domain etc. KFkairosfocus
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
SG, your attempt to provoke toxic dismissiveness is duly noted. I will respond to the branch on which we sit Ciceronian first duties of reason [and first, naturally evident, built in law], which are in fact so pervasive and so branch on which we sit that -- inevitably, yet again -- you tried to appeal to them in your dismissiveness. Duties? Oh yes, reasoning does not move a rock, force does. Reasoning does not move a computer, pre programmed chains of essentially mechanical forces do, using special arrangements of rock called gates, flipflops, registers, memory, ALU etc. By contrast, though we are more moved by emotions or by the flow of perceived authority, the force of fact and reason is the call to duty to truth and right reason:
We may readily identify at least seven branch- on- which- we- all- sit (so, inescapable, pervasive), readily knowable first principle . . .
first duties of reason and so too first universally binding laws written into our rational, responsible nature and forming morally driven governing principles of reason, high and low alike:
"Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to and pervasive in our reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority [--> as you just demonstrated]; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,
1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason [--> which has come up], 3rd - to prudence [including warrant],
[--> said warrant, being the aspect of prudence that by duty to truth and right, judges and responds to a valid, sound or cogent reasoning and especially to moral certainty]
4th - to sound conscience
[--> emphasis, on soundness, here our duties are directly, consciously clear],
5th - to neighbour [--> i.e. Neighbour love, cf. Locke citing Hooker]; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc
.
Likewise, we observe again, that the objector to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality. [--> this is a building up on what Cicero argued]
Of course, SG, with all due respect, diagnosis is in order: you have by your loaded objection shown dullness of conscience and perception. Why should we take any of your claims seriously? You acknowledge no duty to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience, fairness or neighbour. Nor have you shown fairness, starting with respect for innocent reputation. Now, IIRC you are a lawyer. Perhaps, that is wrong. Even if so, it is a duty of civilised citizenship to be aware of the perils of the day. Here, there is a now dominant school of thought that sees law, roughly, as whatever those who control the legal presses issue. This is colour and ceremonies of law, too often lacking the genuine substance and spirit thereof. If one issues a judicial lynching under colour of law, the judicial murder of one certain George William Gordon was not thereby transmuted into justice. Even Darwin understood that. Similarly, if the legislature rules that pi is 22/7, it has not made it so. And BTW, the US wine gallon is 231 cu in because of such an approximation applied to a cylindrical container of 7 in diameter and 6 in deep. More to the point, no parliament, court or king can rule that the tail of a sheep is its fifth leg, a tail is a different thing. As to, the course of US elections, from the election of Jefferson on, it has been plagued with irregularities, 1876 being settled by a dirty deal. In 1960, it is acknowledged cheating was the margin of success. What you are failing to report fairly is that I have noted that the 2004 election in Ukraine had to be abandoned and re run under international pressure and that in the US State Dept testimony was entered into the Congress as part of that. Absentee and/or correspondence voting, refusal in many cases to insist on the standard of two picture IDs [or at minimum one], harvesting of ballots and direct witness shows us that likely from 2018 to now, there has been a dangerous wave of election manipulation. Beyond that the SOCOM insurgency escalator, the parallel history of colour revolutions and especially Mao's Cultural Revolution 1966 - 76, the rise of black colour themed street mob action and a huge wave of lawfare, as well as exposure of media corruption, point to sobering breakdowns of the civil peace of justice. But then, you do not acknowledge basic duties of reason, so we have no reason to take your assertions and accusations as more than attempts to cynically manipulate, and, here, to further derail a thread of discussion while trying to trash people. Alinsky agit prop once seen for what it is, like other agit prop -- as Dr Goebbels himself admitted -- loses its power. Once again, you have failed to responsibly handle facts and reasoning, and have come up short on your projection to your obviously despised other, of gross failure of reasoning. Cicero, 7+, SG, 0. Final score. KFkairosfocus
December 20, 2022
December
12
Dec
20
20
2022
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: I footnote, that Jerry questioned me on onward reductions to + and I answered him which you picked up. My obvious context is ALUs, a collective entity of some importance in a computing age; which also means 2s complements are my main focus, invert bits and add 1, so the logic side, not, comes in, a not being a one input NAND. I then extended it back to it still makes sense to separate out the four rules, regardless of inner structure. I think he may indeed have misremembered prime factor factorisation, the thesis that any arbitrary n in N is either itself prime or is a product of primes p1 to n, perhaps to arbitrary power, e.g. 3^c etc. Clearly Jerry didn't remember what The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic actually says. And did he apologise for that or accept that he got it wrong? He did not. Typical of him don't you think? There's no need for you to restate it in a garbled form: "prime factor factorisation, the thesis that any arbitrary n in N is either itself prime or is a product of primes p1 to n, perhaps to arbitrary power, e.g. 3^c etc". It's not a thesis, it's a theorem. You wonder why people criticise your posts for being confusing, you're not calling things by their proper name. In other words: a thesis is absolutely NOT the same as a theorem. Look it up and use terms as they are commonly used or provide your particular definition.JVL
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
Origenes: So, you are saying: No, I'm not. Once again you've grabbed part of a long post and didn't consider it in context. Perhaps you'd like to read the whole post (and the posts leading up to it) and then consider your queries again. That is the fair thing to do when you step into a conversation being had with someone else: make sure you are completely up-to-speed on the issues.JVL
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
VL: KF, there is a set of paragraphs [7self evident duties]that you often have posted that starts:
Many of which are not duties or self-evident. But KF dismisses anyone who doesn’t accept them. As he dismisses anyone who doesn’t accept objective moral values, the depravity of same sex attraction, and that the 2020 election was stolen. And he wonders why people think his arguments are flawed.Sir Giles
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
Seversky @394
Amino acids can be reasonably described as the building blocks of proteins.
I have been told that if you try to conduct Miller-Urey type experiments with the actual gasses present on the early Earth, you don’t get amino acids at all.Origenes
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
JVL, I footnote, that Jerry questioned me on onward reductions to + and I answered him which you picked up. My obvious context is ALUs, a collective entity of some importance in a computing age; which also means 2s complements are my main focus, invert bits and add 1, so the logic side, not, comes in, a not being a one input NAND. I then extended it back to it still makes sense to separate out the four rules, regardless of inner structure. I think he may indeed have misremembered prime factor factorisation, the thesis that any arbitrary n in N is either itself prime or is a product of primes p1 to n, perhaps to arbitrary power, e.g. 3^c etc. KFkairosfocus
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
KF, there is a set of paragraphs that you often have posted that starts:
[STEP ZERO:] We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. [–> notice, self evidence and the means to see it are set out at the outset. This is before anything that follows.] [STEP 1:] Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc..
I think "right reason" and similar phrases have been a fairly common part of your position for a long time. Maybe "rules" is not the best way for me to paraphrase this point. I would be glad to accept the phrase of your choice. The rest of 392 seems to be about math and logic (my points 1-3) in 391, and not about 4-5 in 391Viola Lee
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
TAMMIE LEE HAYNES/349
In my statements I claimed that THIS is a fact: “ALL the scientific evidence shows that life began through Divine inervention.” If you disagree with that claim, please tell us what the contrary evidence is.
I replied that an unsubstantiated claim is not a fact. If you want to persuade others that life arose as a result of divine intervention then you need to provide evidence to support that claim, just as you would if you were arguing a case in court. Of course, if you aren't bothered by what other people think then you don't have to do anything.
You asked for “an example of a biology text-book which presents abiogenesis as a well-established theory or scientific fact” Here it is: Miller and Levine “Biology”Pearson Education, Inc 2010, pgs 553 to 555
Where does that claim that abiogenesis is a "well-established theory or scientific fact"?
As a typical example of how prominent Scientists in Biology textbooks discuss the origin of life, Dr Miller makes this deceitful statement regarding the Miller Urey experiment. “The results were spectacular. They produced produced 21 amino acids – building blocks of proteins.”
How was that deceitful? In the original analysis, Miller was only able to identify five amino acids but later research with better technology found over 20 amino acids. Miller had done much better than he originally thought. That was a spectacular success.
As Dr Miller (and his 18 senior faculty “Science Rewiewers) certainly know, the Miller Urey experiment did NOT make building blocks of proteins.
Amino acids can be reasonably described as the building blocks of proteins.
Proteins are homochiral, while the amino acids that Miller and Urey were racemic. Today, 70 years after Miller and Urey, Scientists are still unable to overcome this problem. And to hide this failure from millions of students.
Are you saying that there is no ongoing research into the issue of homochirality and that this is being hidden from students?Seversky
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
KF: SG, that approach has been a commonplace, along with masny other speculative hypotheses on origin of body plans etc. KF
What the hell is this in response to? It certainly doesn’t address anything I have said in the last decade or two. But I guess when you can’t mount a good argument, spewing nonsense is better than nothing.Sir Giles
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
VL, BTW, "rules of right reason" is not a phrasing I would use intentionally. If I did so, it is by accident. First [incorrigible] facts, first truths, first principles, first duties, yes. Rules give an impression of arbitrary imposition. My thought is, we have some first entities and accurate descriptions [= truths] that are so in every distinct possible world W, these are fabric to any world that is possible and are of utterly universal character. Moving beyond the in common, we have particular distinctives that distinguish W from an arbitrary close neighbour W', so W = {W' + A} thence a partition W {A|~A} which yields | --> 0, A --> 1, ~A --> 1c [complex unity] , A with ~A --> 2, thence per von Neumann, {0,1,2} --> 3 etc to w. Where, note that A and ~A are both units of distinct identity, the latter being complex involving various things in a coherent whole that can be designated . . . a concept that extends to many issues and considerations. The adequate frame of propositions defining W specifies it as a logic model world that can then be elaborated and inferred upon, including by defining successive states or chains including of inference. Thus, both deriving proofs and simulations of a phase space of dynamic unfolding. Where we have confirmed necessary entities the results are universal, e.g. for ZFC extended to core math or the like. In other cases we explore particular model worlds that may be of abstract interest or may be close enough to our own to yield reliable results. Thus, computed models and simulations and thus axiomatised domains of math etc. The distinction self evident, necessary, particular is important. KFkairosfocus
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Interesting post at 388, KF. First, it is in response to my question, “When you say “rules of right reason” are you just referring to the triad LOI-LEM-LNC?” I see from your response that you see right reasoning as encompassing much more than the LOI-LEM-LNC. Let me break your long paragraph into parts, and re-order some points. (All quote are from your post.) (I amy not be in total agreement about every point, but I want to highlight the essentials in my comments. 1. “As self-evident first truths of reasoning, I do have that traditional long recognised triad primarily in mind.” Yes, that is established. 2. “Beyond, lie other logical truths that are not immediately apparent on understanding the subject and are part of a wider axiomatic structure of logic. I would argue truth tables are intuitive and the seventeen axioms of Boolean Algebra are of general validity but require some study. Similarly, modal logic is part of extending logic to being ...” So this is a second level of logic, so speak: not self-evident and thus foundational as is LOI-LEM-LNC, but still part of logic and a necessary part of right reason. It is this broader context that I have been referring to when I say I accept the laws of logic. 3. “However, there are connected truths that are just as necessary though not self evident, e.g. core math that grows from distinct identity applied to structure and quantity. Yes which literally yields an infinity of truths that are necessary and constrain all possible worlds. Logic constrains set theory and proof in mathematics, including proof by reduction to absurdity and proof by finite and transfinite induction [hence in part my insistence on R*], etc.” Yes. All math is part of an interconnected logical system. Godel’s theorems point to some important ways it is lacking, but that does negate of virtually all of the math that we actually use and accept as mathematically and logically true. 4. “Similarly, there are first moral principles of right reason [the term is ancient], which are of branch on which we sit nature, to truth, to prudence and warrant, to follow the first principles of reason etc.” This is where, as we have often discussed, I think you make an unwarranted jump to assertions that are not logically connected to points 1-3 above, but are beliefs and value judgments from your worldview as to how people ought to behave, using words like truth, prudence, warrant etc. don’t help with specific beliefs when people disagree about what is true, prudent or warranted. 5. You continue, “Logic is inextricably entangled with being [think of how a square circle is impossible of being], epistemology and the moral government of reason so ethics. Entanglement with epistemology and moral government leads to a frame for argument by support, inductive logic including warrant to degrees of certainty and particularly moral certainty thus many duties of prudence etc. And more. KF” Yes, logic is entangled with everything we assert, given the necessity to be consistent with math and logic as outlined in 1-3 above. That does not mean that logic by itself can be expanded to provide certain truths about all those other things you mention, because the application of logic always involves assertions of various kinds that are not themselves part of logic. So, as a significant conclusion, I accept the laws of logic and math, as in 1-3 above, but I do not accept “right reasoning” if that means accepting the extensions mentioned in 4-5 above as necessarily following from 1-3.Viola Lee
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
JVL to TLHaynes @367:
Thirdly, your logic is faulty. PyrrhoManiac1 has given a paraphrase of your logic in his reply above. Here’s another simple example: . . . . … UNLESS, the ‘designer’ decides to release their research notes and such. IF we got an explanation of how and when, specifically, that would be a game changer.
So, you are saying: 1) The origin of life was either naturalistic or supernaturalistic. That is a dichotomy. In a dichotomy, any evidence against one claim is evidence for the other claim. 2) We have not received any research notes and such from the ‘designer’. 3) This is evidence that the origin was naturalistic. So by the logic of dichotomy, the evidence says that the origin of life was naturalistic. This familiar line of reasoning strikes me as very similar to what you and PM1 consider “faulty.” It seems to me that TLHayens turns the table on you guys and that you don’t like it. I note that @371 is relevant.Origenes
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
PPS, a debate on turing machines applied to proof construction and verification https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1717779/automatic-proof-verification-by-a-turing-machinekairosfocus
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
VL, as self-evident first truths of reasoning, I do have that traditional long recognised triad primarily in mind. However, there are connected truths that are just as necessary though not self evident, e.g. core math that grows from distinct identity applied to structure and quantity, which literally yields an infinity of truths that are necessary and constrain all possible worlds. Logic constrains set theory and proof in mathematics, including proof by reduction to absurdity and proof by finite and transfinite induction [hence in part my insistence on R*], etc. Similarly, there are first moral principles of right reason [the term is ancient], which are of branch on which we sit nature, to truth, to prudence and warrant, to follow the first principles of reason etc. Beyond, lie other logical truths that are not immediately apparent on understanding the subject and are part of a wider axiomatic structure of logic. I would argue truth tables are intuitive and the seventeen axioms of Boolean Algebra are of general validity but require some study. Similarly, modal logic is part of extending logic to being and even s5 is arguably a necessary theorem. I suspect logic as a study of algebraic character may well have an incompleteness issue, too. Computing is in large part an extension of logic to process and has its many sound results and known limitations, e.g. halting. Logic is inextricably entangled with being [think of how a square circle is impossible of being], epistemology and the moral government of reason so ethics. Entanglement with epistemology and moral government leads to a frame for argument by support, inductive logic including warrant to degrees of certainty and particularly moral certainty thus many duties of prudence etc. And more. KF PS, an argument https://richardzach.org/2006/04/incompleteness-of-second-order-logic/kairosfocus
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
“We were taught that Miller-Urey replicated the early conditions of the earth, which when exposed to electrical discharge in the early atmosphere created examples of complex organic molecules.” Mary Shelly’s estate should have sued the both of them. Vividvividbleau
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
SG, that approach has been a commonplace, along with masny other speculative hypotheses on origin of body plans etc. KFkairosfocus
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 16

Leave a Reply