At Reasons.org: Is the Universe the Way It Is Because It’s the Only Way It Could Be?

_{Caspian
December 6, 2022

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design

4}_{Categories
Fine tuning
Intelligent Design}

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

Question of the week: How do you respond to the argument against fine-tuning as evidence for God by those who say the universe and its laws of physics are the way they are because that’s the only way they could be?

My answer: As I have documented in my books, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, there are hundreds of independent features of the universe, its laws of physics, and its space-time dimensions that must be exquisitely fine-tuned to make the existence of humans, or their equivalent, possible in the universe. However, that pervasive fine-tuning is not the only way the universe and the laws of physics could be.

From a biblical perspective, the angelic realm has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Similarly, the future home of Christians, the new creation (see Revelation 21–22) has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Readers can see our book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, for the scientific physical evidence for angels and the angelic realm.

As I explain in my books on fine-tuning, the universe can be fine-tuned in a different way to allow for the existence of certain kinds of bacteria but not allow for the existence of animals and humans. I also show how the laws of physics can remain unchanged but the universe structured so that no physical life is possible anywhere, anytime in the universe.
As I demonstrate in Designed to the Core, it is not just the laws of physics and the universe as a whole that are fine-tuned to make the existence of humans possible. All the universe’s subcomponents, from those on the largest size scales to those on the smallest size scales must be fine-tuned for humans to possibly exist.

Unlike the universe, the observed sample size of the universe’s subcomponents is not one. For example, there are a trillion trillion stars in the observable universe. So far, however, astronomers have detected only one star, our Sun, that possesses the fine-tuned history and features that make it possible for the existence of humans on a planet orbiting it. The Sun is not the only way stars can be. The same argument can be made for our Laniakea Supergalaxy Cluster, our Virgo Cluster of galaxies, our Local Group of galaxies, our Milky Way Galaxy, our local spiral arm, our Local Bubble, our planetary system, our planet, and our moon. The fine-tuning of the universe and all its subcomponents also vary according to the intended purposes for humans. As I show in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, the fine-tuning that allows billions of humans on one planet to be redeemed from their sin and evil within a time span of several tens of thousands of years is orders of magnitude more constrained than the fine-tuning that allows for the existence of a tiny population of technology-free humans with lifespans briefer than 30 years.
Reasons.org

Dr. Ross refers to scientific observations that show evidence of fine-tuning, not just for the existence of life, but to sustain life as we know it on Earth, with millions of species of plant and animal life, and a multi-billion population of humans with a technologically advanced global civilization. Often, arguments against intelligent design boil down to bad theology. Dr. Ross provides here a very brief connection between physical design parameters and a biblically-based theology.

Comments

PyrrhoManiac1: The refusal to accept that biosemetic researchers just might think their work supports unguided evolution is particularly amusing in the light of articles such as this: "A semiotic framework for evolutionary and developmental biology" by Eugenio Andrade, published in Biosystems, 2006. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17134823/
This work aims at constructing a semiotic framework for an expanded evolutionary synthesis grounded on Peirce's universal categories and the six space/time/function relations [Taborsky, E., 2004. The nature of the sign as a WFF--a well-formed formula, SEED J. (Semiosis Evol. Energy Dev.) 4 (4), 5-14] that integrate the Lamarckian (internal/external) and Darwinian (individual/population) cuts. According to these guide lines, it is proposed an attempt to formalize developmental systems theory by using the notion of evolving developing agents (EDA) that provides an internalist model of a general transformative tendency driven by organism's need to cope with environmental uncertainty. Development and evolution are conceived as non-programmed open-ended processes of information increase where EDA reach a functional compromise between: (a) increments of phenotype's uniqueness (stability and specificity) and (b) anticipation to environmental changes. Accordingly, changes in mutual information content between the phenotype/environment drag subsequent changes in mutual information content between genotype/phenotype and genotype/environment at two interwoven scales: individual life cycle (ontogeny) and species time (phylogeny), respectively. Developmental terminal additions along with increment minimization of developmental steps must be positively selected.
That is plainly anti-ID. Plainly. But I suspect we will be told why two non-specialists are correct and the actual researchers in field (some with decades of experience) are wrong.JVL_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

@190
No one in semiotic community, including Dr Pattee, has said their work supports ID. Not a single one. If it was as clear as you seem to think then surely someone by now would have broken cover and admitted it. But no one has. Could it be because they really, truly don’t think their work does support ID? Which would me that your conspiracy theory about people being pressured into accepting unguided evolution is not true.
I think it's perfectly obvious what the party line here is going to be: the entire biosemiotics community refuses to acknowledge that biosemiotics is best explained by intelligent design because they all uncritically accept "materialism" as a dogmatic a priori conviction, whereas only Upright Biped lacks this dogmatic conviction and therefore they alone are able to "follow the evidence wherever it leads". Apparently there is little room here for the idea that Upright Biped also has a priori convictions of their own which leads them to follow the evidence differently than how everyone else does.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

Origenes: Your assumption here seems to be that for scientists there is no downside to expressing support for ID. I take it that you won’t take into account the reality that questioning the Darwinian paradigm, let alone advocating for intelligent design, entails facing brute censorship, ridicule and putting one’s professional future on the line? So some people say. But there are very few, if any, examples of such things happening. Look at Dr Behe, one of the most famous and outspoken supporters of ID on the planet. Did he suffer any kind of pressure or discrimination because of his views? What he fired or censored in any way? Is the Discovery Institute persecuted or investigated by any government or academic institutions? I'm not buying the scare story because it doesn't actually seem to be true. By the way, your 'brute censorship' link is broken so I guess you haven't checked it before posting it. If you can name someone who has been persecuted or censored or prevented from doing some kind of research in the last decade that would be interesting. Let's see what you come up with. Pattee has stated that a symbol-code-construction system is necessary for biological information. This system and written human language are the only two systems that operate in this way. It has been argued that such a system is irreducibly complex. No one can even conceive of a step-by-step pathway. You be the judge here. Tell me, do these facts support ID or do they not? It 'has been argued' is not the same as 'it has been established' is it? Just because you can't conceived of a step-by-step process doesn't mean no one can or that no one is working on the problem. And remember the paper by Dr Deacon that was referred to earlier. And, AGAIN, no one in the semiotics community, including Dr Pattee, has said their work supports ID. Not one. IF there really is some kind of conspiracy you'd think someone by now would have broken cover and admitted it. But they haven't. So, it's either a) the semiotic researchers really don't think their work supports ID or b) you're spinning a conspiracy theory to justify your interpretation of their work. Let's see . . . what does the actual evidence based on research, publications and the publicly made statements of the semiotic researchers say?JVL_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: In 1969 did Howard Pattee set off on a five decade analysis of the gene system, confirming it as symbolic control of a dynamic process? Yes. Do the encoded descriptions of the constraints have to be physically coherent with all the other descriptions (i.e. self-referent) in order to successfully function? Yes. Is the gene system and written human language the only two systems known to science that operate in this way? Yes. Is the appearance of an encoded symbol system considered in science to be a universal correlate of intelligence? Yes. What I said is true: No one in semiotic community, including Dr Pattee, has said their work supports ID. Not a single one. If it was as clear as you seem to think then surely someone by now would have broken cover and admitted it. But no one has. Could it be because they really, truly don't think their work does support ID? Which would me that your conspiracy theory about people being pressured into accepting unguided evolution is not true. Could it be that, in fact, you are wrong? And that there is no evidence via experimentation or research or stated opinion of the semiotic researchers that any of that supports ID? That, when it comes down to it, it's just your opinion that semiotics supports ID? What does the preponderance of the actual evidence say?JVL_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

Querius: To make your analogy more realistic, these mechanics assumed that cars were assembled at random and while their business was very successful, they often weren’t able to repair their customer’s cars, leaving out pieces that they assumed were “junk.” Oh dear, the old ID wheeze. NO ONE thinks that human bodies or even cells were assembled at random, yours certainly wasn't. MUTATIONS are random, cumulative selection is not. Of course you've been told this over and over and over again. So, the fact that you keep repeating a fallacy must be because you're a fool or a knave. Which is it? Discrimination against scientists with an ID perspective or even tolerating their publication is well documented. You mean like Dr Behe who was never, ever discriminated against at his university? Funny considering he is one of the most famous ID supporters in the world. Your clip is over 14 years old now. And some of the cases talked about in that movie have been deconstructed. So, let's try this: can you name anyone in the last decade who has been persecuted explicitly for being supportive of ID in an academic environment? The on-going debacle of so-called “junk” DNA, the misnamed “vestigial” organs, classification of organisms based on genotype rather than phenotype, origin of life research (such as the a priori rejection of ideologically unacceptable alternatives such as the Cairns-smith’s Clay theory), the replacement of the blatantly racist and colonialist theory of evolution and promotion of genocide in the name of eugenics, ignoring out-of-place fossils, ignoring how stretchy tissue and blood cells could have survived 60-70 million years without turning to dust due to background radiation, and on and on. Another ID wheeze. Has it ever occurred to you that everything you know about all those topics has come from mainstream scientists doing research and such? Are any pro-ID people doing any of that research? Nope. Let's try this: can you point to a specific case where a researcher was prevented from researching something because it went against the common paradigm? In one of the above areas would be interesting. Out of curiosity, do you still believe the lie that vaccines prevent COVID-19 transmission? Apparently now, big pharma in sworn congressional testimony denies that they ever made any such claim. Well gosh, I know how vaccines work, that is they prime your immune system to help fight off a pathogen when you get exposed to it. Which means you have a lower viral load when you do get infected. Which means you are less likely to infect someone else and you're less likely to have severe symptoms. Everyone knows that. IF anyone said otherwise then they were clearly mistaken. But you know all about vaccines so you would never be taken in by someone mis-speaking or shading the truth would you? So, what's your problem?JVL_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped @186
Pattee: This argument is based on the assumption of the sparseness of functional sequences and the immensity of the search space. The weakness of this argument is that the actual probabilities of the events in question are largely unknown.
And there it is, JVL’s burning critique from Howard Pattee.
So, Pattee questions an element of one specific ID argument that arguably becomes relevant only after his research subject, the gene system, sees the light of existence. Pattee’s critique is based on outdated research largely done in the 20th century. Those old findings are being contradicted by research done over the past several years that shows the sparseness of functional sequences to be extremely real. For those interested, this article on evolutionnews.org offers an overview of recent research; Doug Axe’s paper included. - - - - I note that Patttee does NOT say about his research subject: "ID is wrong to claim that the gene system contains a real code", “ID is wrong to claim that the gene system is irreducible complex” and/or “there is a conceivable unguided, physical pathway towards the gene-system.”Origenes_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @186,
As for all this within the current conversation, it is very much like JVL suddenly addressing me about sociopolitics and theology. I have never commented to JVL about either of those subjects. He simply needs something to say in order to redirect the conversation away from his fallacies and double standards.
Ouch. Unfortunately, this is also true for several other commenters here as well. This also includes condescending analogies to automobile repair to try to reframe an issue in favorable terms.
This is yet another example of the intellectual scam JVL is pulling. He will not stop himself.
The motives for commenters here include a. To inform based on added information or new perspectives, even when not in agreement. b. To simply argue without actually listening to what others have written. c. To make noise, divert the discussion, and waste people’s time. In that light, I think it’s appropriate to a. Respond with appreciation, clarifying questions, or additional points. b. Identify the disingenuous motive and abusive responses. c. Ignore what’s essentially graffiti on the basis of “Do not feed the trolls.” -QQuerius_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

. Origenes, as a quick aside before my day ends… You may already know this, but in Pattee’s 50 years of publishing, he commented as much about pizza toppings as he did about design. When JVL talks about “finding a statement” from Pattee critical of ID, he is talking about just that – finding a statement. Howard Pattee generally eschewed what he considered “undecidable” topics, and design may very well fallen into that hole for him. I have no idea and no desire to guess. In the end, it is unimportant. I don’t “require” Howard Pattee (or anyone else) to personally believe one thing or another about design, and I told JVL that Pattee was not an design advocate at the very top of our conversation, now years ago. More importantly, I know what Pattee’s actual position is, and have told JVL exactly that. In Pattee’s view, genetic symbols are grounded directly by the three-dimensional folded proteins they specify (meaning that no interpretation is required in folding), but he also maintains that the symbol-code-construction system is required for the specification of those amino acid sequences from a transcribable medium. As for all this within the current conversation, it is very much like JVL suddenly addressing me about sociopolitics and theology. I have never commented to JVL about either of those subjects. He simply needs something to say in order to redirect the conversation away from his fallacies and double standards. Same ole same ole. If you’d like to know Pattee’s searing critique of ID that JVL is always promoting, here it is: (Pattee is discussing Von Neumann’s question of “why biological molecules” are the sizes and sorts of things they are:
After asking this question von Neumann remarked that it was “a very peculiar range” for the parts since they were many orders of magnitude larger than the physically elementary particles. He did not discuss this except to suggest that the size had to do with the reliability of control since in automata there is a direct correlation between number and size of parts and reliability. A certain level of reliability is certainly one requirement in order to prevent error catastrophe, but another way to look at the question is in terms of function. How small could an enzyme be and accurately bind a substrate and catalyze a specific single bond. It would have to be a large enough structure to establish a shape with the necessary specificity to recognize a substrate by folding up a linear chain. Simple models suggest that of the order of 100 amino acids is necessary. This size creates two fundamental problems. The first problem is that the number of copolymer sequences of such lengths is immense, well beyond actual enumeration. One of the oldest, non-religious arguments against Darwinian evolution is the apparent improbability of chance mutations producing any successful protein, let alone a species. This is still an argument of “intelligent design” advocates. This argument is based on the assumption of the sparseness of functional sequences and the immensity of the search space. The weakness of this argument is that the actual probabilities of the events in question are largely unknown.
And there it is, JVL’s burning critique from Howard Pattee. Of course, mentioning he has found a negative statement of ID from Howard Pattee serves his purposes, but actually talking about the content of that statement doesn’t, and that is why he always mentions it, but never goes in any detail. Now you know why. It is much more effective for JVL to just set up the negative image, and then talk about how I am interpreting Pattee’s core findings so differently than Pattee himself. This is yet another example of the intellectual scam JVL is pulling. He will not stop himself. He has no intention of it. I suspect he may not even conceive of it as a problem.Upright BiPed_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

JVL @174
You both acknowledge that no one in the semiotics community has stated that their work supports ID. And I did find a statement by Dr Pattee in one of his papers explicitly criticising ID. You both acknowledge that no one in the semiotics community has stated that their work supports ID. And I did find a statement by Dr Pattee in one of his papers explicitly criticising ID. You both say you are sure that their work does support ID. Despite the fact that no who does actual research in the field seems to agree with you.
Your assumption here seems to be that for scientists there is no downside to expressing support for ID. I take it that you won’t take into account the reality that questioning the Darwinian paradigm, let alone advocating for intelligent design, entails facing brute censorship, ridicule and putting one’s professional future on the line? Pattee has stated that a symbol-code-construction system is necessary for biological information. This system and written human language are the only two systems that operate in this way. It has been argued that such a system is irreducibly complex. No one can even conceive of a step-by-step pathway. You be the judge here. Tell me, do these facts support ID or do they not?Origenes_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

. JVL at 182, Still no errors in the history of documented experimental results? No demonstrations of symbolic control arising from dynamics? Why do you think your concerns over social issues (or me) have any bearing on that fact? - - - - - - - - - And once again, almost comically unaware of yourself, all the strife in history that you lament derived almost exclusively from the insistence of authority over evidence - the very fallacy you commit every time you deny what you know to be documented and true. The same fallacy that you intend to defend at all costs. In 1948 did John Von Neumann take a page from Alan Turing’s 1933 Machine and give a series of lectures predicting that a quiescent symbol system and a set of independent constraints would be required for autonomous open-ended self replication? Yes. In 1953 did Francis Crick, along with Watson, discover the sequence structure of that symbol system, calling it a code? Yes. And in 1955 did he further predict that an unknown set of protein constraints would be found working in the system, establishing the necessary code relationships? Yes. In 1956-1958 did Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Zamecnik experimentally confirm Crick’s (and Von Neumann’s) predictions. Yes. In 1961, did Marshal Nirenberg have to demonstrate the first symbolic relationship in the gene system in order to know it? Yes. In 1969 did Howard Pattee set off on a five decade analysis of the gene system, confirming it as symbolic control of a dynamic process? Yes. Do the encoded descriptions of the constraints have to be physically coherent with all the other descriptions (i.e. self-referent) in order to successfully function? Yes. Is the gene system and written human language the only two systems known to science that operate in this way? Yes. Is the appearance of an encoded symbol system considered in science to be a universal correlate of intelligence? Yes. You see JVL, I didn’t ask anything of you other than to acknowledge what you know to be true. You refused. You refused to acknowledge what you know to be true.Upright BiPed_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

JVL @178,
Well, let’s say your car was acting a bit funny and you took it to a mechanic with over 20 years of experience with a very successful car repair business . . .
To make your analogy more realistic, these mechanics assumed that cars were assembled at random and while their business was very successful, they often weren’t able to repair their customer’s cars, leaving out pieces that they assumed were “junk.” In contrast, my new mechanics believe that cars were intelligently designed and they used manuals. Any unknown parts were assumed to be there for a purpose.
Oh here we go again: ID isn’t accepted so THERE MUST be some kind of conspiracy or plot to keep it out of the textbooks and the classrooms.
Discrimination against scientists with an ID perspective or even tolerating their publication is well documented. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsU4styZ52Y
And which scientific progress is languishing? Be specific please.
What, again? The on-going debacle of so-called “junk” DNA, the misnamed “vestigial” organs, classification of organisms based on genotype rather than phenotype, origin of life research (such as the a priori rejection of ideologically unacceptable alternatives such as the Cairns-smith’s Clay theory), the replacement of the blatantly racist and colonialist theory of evolution and promotion of genocide in the name of eugenics, ignoring out-of-place fossils, ignoring how stretchy tissue and blood cells could have survived 60-70 million years without turning to dust due to background radiation, and on and on. https://sites.google.com/site/originsoflifecarlmont/clay-theory
It’s about considering all the data and evidence as generated by lots and lots of people working in the pertinent fields over decades or even generations.
I wish. No, it’s currently all about politics and ideology. Even in the field of medicine, leaks and new findings are starting to destroy the bureaucratically imposed narrative of COVID-19 and the attempt to hide the evidence of vaccine injuries and increased mortality as a result. Not to mention the totally ineffectiveness of the mask requirements. Out of curiosity, do you still believe the lie that vaccines prevent COVID-19 transmission? Apparently now, big pharma in sworn congressional testimony denies that they ever made any such claim. -QQuerius_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Quickly, once again … no errors in the documented history supporting the design inference, eh JVL? I'd say you made an error in how you choose to interpret the works of semiotic researchers as supporting ID when they, themselves, do not see their work in that way. But that's them saying you made a mistake, not me. You really are grasping here aren't you? We've established that you are really on a fringe, going against the opinion of the actual researchers and thinkers in the semiotic discipline but you keep claiming you know better than they do. Maybe you do but I shan't be betting on you. All correct then? Again, none of the people who generated the work you cite came to the same conclusion you did. I'd say that seems to indicate you made a mistake based on their criteria. I own that book. You know what else is not in it? The unguided rise of a symbol system. You mean the research is still ongoing? Like Dr Deacon's paper which is more recent than that book? You seem to be desperately trying to uphold a pre-held belief, i.e. that life and the universe were designed by God. And you think you've found some sort of scientific justification in that belief in the work of semiotic researchers. But they disagree with your interpretations of their work. So, what are you left with? I have no problem with you believing that life was designed with a purpose by a loving, personal god. I'm sure, very sure, you find that concept sustaining and comforting. But that doesn't mean that there is any actual scientific data or evidence to support that belief. And I don't understand why you are so desperate to find some. Why not just bathe in the warm glow of your theology and let the scientific argument go? There's no real ideological war going on; we can all just learn to live and let live I think. You know, love your neighbour as yourself? Think about it this way: would you rather be alive now or 500 years ago (in Europe) when most people were Christian? Do you think you would find more acceptance back then than now? Do you think your views would have been tolerated back then? What if you had been determined to be heretical? These days . . . who cares? Live and let live. Back then, you could have found it tough going if you disagreed with the current authority. Remember the conflicts in England during the 1500s when the country vacillated between Protestant and Catholics, she wasn't called Bloody Mary for nothing you know.JVL_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

. JVL at #175 I own that book. You know what else is not in it? The unguided rise of a symbol system. - cheersUpright BiPed_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

. UB: JVL, your position is that the documented history and physical evidence supporting the design inference at the OoL is rendered invalid because the proponents of an unguided OoL don’t believe it and don’t write about it in their papers. JVL: No No that’s not true! Why must you misrepresent me! UB: Yes, it is true, and it’s a common logical fallacy that biases authority above empirical evidence. JVL: (next comment, #174) You have zero evidence that semiosis experts support ID. Pyro: That’s right, ignore the fallacy, UB owes us an explanation! (good grief)Upright BiPed_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

‘ Quickly, once again … no errors in the documented history supporting the design inference, JVL? No errors in the listings of actual experimental results? No demonstrations of symbolic description arising from dynamics? All correct then?Upright BiPed_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Querius: Ooh, an appeal to authority! It’s been at least a week since the last one appeared. Well, let's say your car was acting a bit funny and you took it to a mechanic with over 20 years of experience with a very successful car repair business and they told you one thing. But a couple of people you've never met who are not actually car mechanics but have read a couple of books about it have a different opinion. Which of those two opinions are you more likely to take seriously especially if the successful mechanic can explain to why they think the way they do based on past cases? Is that an appeal to authority? Perhaps. But it doesn't make the argument put forward by the 'authority' incorrect. Of course not. Science apparently now operates on the consensus of experts squatting on each discipline and that only after all potential ideological and political issues have been vetted. Oh here we go again: ID isn't accepted so THERE MUST be some kind of conspiracy or plot to keep it out of the textbooks and the classrooms. A 'scientific' discipline with few published papers, no active journal (none, zero) and no research agenda deserves equal time? Really? As a result, scientific progress languishes in several related fields, replaced with lavishly funded science fantasy signifying nothing–as amply demonstrated with the occasionally lamented flood of irreproducible results in journal submissions. And which scientific progress is languishing? Be specific please. Aristotle once has a similar effect on science. You’re not under any illusions that you’re smarter than Aristotle, are you? I benefit from a lot of knowledge that Aristotle did not have access to at the time (over 2400 years ago . . . about). I don't think it's about me or any other particular person. It's about considering all the data and evidence as generated by lots and lots of people working in the pertinent fields over decades or even generations. I don't have to be smarter than Aristotle to benefit from the collective knowledge of thousands upon thousands of researchers who share their work and criticise work they consider substandard. There is no such culture or structure in ID. It's NOT an active field of science or research. It's a political and ideological stance that desperately wants to be taken seriously. And it should be amongst theologians and philosophers because of the kind of argument it offers. But to be taken seriously as a science requires a different kind of effort. Also, I must add, that some of the 'authorities' I appealed to are semiotic researchers with glowing research and publication records. The kind of people Upright BiPed references but I don't think he ever expected anyone to check out what those people are saying beyond his selective interpretation of their work. I don't remember anyone having pushed back against his proclamations before.JVL_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

JVL @175, Ooh, an appeal to authority! It's been at least a week since the last one appeared.
Funny, no ID there either.
Of course not. Science apparently now operates on the consensus of experts squatting on each discipline and that only after all potential ideological and political issues have been vetted. ID proponents need not apply. As a result, scientific progress languishes in several related fields, replaced with lavishly funded science fantasy signifying nothing--as amply demonstrated with the occasionally lamented flood of irreproducible results in journal submissions. Aristotle once has a similar effect on science. You're not under any illusions that you're smarter than Aristotle, are you? -QQuerius_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

@174 and 175 I don't believe Upright Biped or anyone else here attributed to Pattee a belief in ID.* I believe they said only that Pattee's work in biosemiotics entails ID, regardless of his own belief that it does not. Granted, Upright Biped does owe us an explanation as to why no one in biosemiotics thinks that their work entails ID, when they believes that it does. And if that's what you're getting at, I agree. Likewise, I agree with you in saying that the vast majority of the biosemiotics research community does not support ID. If Upright Biped wants to argue that they are being irrational or inconsistent in not doing so, that is their prerogative. But I would hope that they would also inquire into why biosemiotics people don't support ID. For all I know, perhaps they don't have good reasons, and it's just an dogmatic, knee-jerk hostility to ID.** But, perhaps they do have good reasons, and Upright Biped should find out what those reasons are, if they don't already know. * I use gender-neutral pronouns whenever a user-name does not indicate preferred pronouns. ** though not, I think, to religious thought in general. Deacon, at any rate, has engaged with theologians. I find this quite fascinating, as it has recently occurred to me that strong emergence naturally lends itself to theological interpretation.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

"Towards a Theory of Evolution of Semiotic Systems " by Kalevi Kull, published in Chinese Semiotic Studies, 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286892978_Towards_a_Theory_of_Evolution_of_Semiotic_Systems No mention of intelligent design there. The whole article is at that link and I did look at the whole article and not just the title. "A semiotic framework for evolutionary and developmental biology" by Eugenio Andrade, published in Biosystems, 2007 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17134823/
This work aims at constructing a semiotic framework for an expanded evolutionary synthesis grounded on Peirce's universal categories and the six space/time/function relations [Taborsky, E., 2004. The nature of the sign as a WFF--a well-formed formula, SEED J. (Semiosis Evol. Energy Dev.) 4 (4), 5-14] that integrate the Lamarckian (internal/external) and Darwinian (individual/population) cuts. According to these guide lines, it is proposed an attempt to formalize developmental systems theory by using the notion of evolving developing agents (EDA) that provides an internalist model of a general transformative tendency driven by organism's need to cope with environmental uncertainty. Development and evolution are conceived as non-programmed open-ended processes of information increase where EDA reach a functional compromise between: (a) increments of phenotype's uniqueness (stability and specificity) and (b) anticipation to environmental changes. Accordingly, changes in mutual information content between the phenotype/environment drag subsequent changes in mutual information content between genotype/phenotype and genotype/environment at two interwoven scales: individual life cycle (ontogeny) and species time (phylogeny), respectively. Developmental terminal additions along with increment minimization of developmental steps must be positively selected.
No ID there either. Nor, it seems, in the book Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs published in 2011. From an overview:
This book presents programmatic texts on biosemiotics, written collectively by world leading scholars in the field (Deacon, Emmeche, Favareau, Hoffmeyer, Kull, Marko?, Pattee, Stjernfelt). In addition, the book includes chapters which focus closely on semiotic case studies (Bruni, Kotov, Maran, Neuman, Turovski). According to the central thesis of biosemiotics, sign processes characterise all living systems and the very nature of life, and their diverse phenomena can be best explained via the dynamics and typology of sign relations. The authors are therefore presenting a deeper view on biological evolution, intentionality of organisms, the role of communication in the living world and the nature of sign systems - all topics which are described in this volume. This has important consequences on the methodology and epistemology of biology and study of life phenomena in general, which the authors aim to help the reader better understand.
Funny, no ID there either. So, unless you can find some other insights from the semiotics community, my view of it not supporting ID is correct based on the research and the statements of those who actually work in that field and are recognised as experts in that field.JVL_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Origenes & Upright BiPed: You both acknowledge that no one in the semiotics community has stated that their work supports ID. And I did find a statement by Dr Pattee in one of his papers explicitly criticising ID. You both say you are sure that their work does support ID. Despite the fact that no who does actual research in the field seems to agree with you. You can't blame me for picking the statements of publicly acknowledged, experienced, published experts over the opinion of two anonymous commenters on a very pro-ID forum. You try to make it look like I am in denial over what the semiotic research says but, in fact, I am in line with what the research says and what the researchers say: their work does not support ID. And, just to deal with a possible follow-on comment from you two: you have zero evidence that Dr Pattee or Dr Deacon or any other semiotic researcher secretly does believe ID is true. There is no reason at all that Dr Pattee who is retired, who's pension cannot be taken away from, should refrain from saying what he really thinks. Maybe I'm wrong about what Dr Pattee thinks in his heart-of-hearts. Maybe. But there is zero evidence that he is a closet supporter of ID. Zero. You can continue to argue but everything I've said is quite true and easy to verify. If you have any evidence regarding the opinion of the semiotics community regarding its support of ID then please present it. If not then I think we've said everything that can be said on the issue.JVL_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

. JVL, Again … if you know of an error on my part regarding the relevant history (predictions and experimental results) then name it. Blurt it on out. I said you can’t. And you didn’t. The physical evidence recorded in the literature (which you happily agree to) confirms that the gene system is a symbol-code-construction system, just as it was predicted to be. Furthermore, the logic of the design inference — that an encoded symbol system is a universal correlate of intelligence — is reasoning that you yourself enthusiastically support. You deal with this double conundrum by 1) hiding behind the ridiculous notion that the recorded physical evidence supporting the design inference is invalid because unguided OoL proponents themselves don’t personally believe it or acknowledge it in their papers, and 2) applying an ad hoc double-standard to the design inference in order to deny it. As for #1: To take the position that recorded physical evidence is invalid because someone doesn’t believe it (and doesn’t acknowledge it in their research) sounds woefully unscientific and irrational on its face. So you respond to this by claiming “that’s not true, that’s not true”. And then, almost comically unaware, in the very same comment you say “I think that point deserves repeating: Dr Pattee and Dr Deacon have NOT said that their work supports intelligent design”. This is the grand centerpiece of your rebuttal (you’ve said it dozens of times) and you’ve been hiding behind it since you and I first walked through the physical evidence and history three + years ago. You then go on to say “Anyone who interprets their work as being in support of ID is interpreting their work in a way they do not”, which is just a smokescreen intended to obfuscate the specific details in question. Let’s play it out – a researcher believes X and not Y, then does research on the particulars, which ultimately fail to demonstrate X. You then jump in to suggest that the particulars (the actual detailed measurements and observations) recorded in their research are now off-base and cannot not to be used to support Y. And the only reasoning you give for this is — wait for it — the researcher doesn’t acknowledge Y in their research. Good grief JVL, you can call that the end of science. No one in their right mind would buy that. And yet, you are actually serious about it, as evidenced by the fact you relentlessly bring it up in your defense. As for #2. We’ve been here before haven’t we. You enthusiastically endorse the exact logic of the design inference, then immediately tack on an ad hoc double-standard when it blows up in your face. You have stated: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available. (…) And after you are asked “Then who is the designer in your signal from space”, suddenly realizing that you cannot answer that question without clearly demonstrating the double-standard in your reasoning, you reply: JVL: There isn’t one. (thud) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - And just to finish out this little crash course in your reasoning … When we finished walking through the design inference and you had concurred with validity of all the experimental results and history, I ask you to merely acknowledge the validity of the inference itself (i.e. that it would not be scientifically unreasonable for someone in contact with the physical evidence and history to infer the presence of a previously unknown intelligence). I certainly did not ask you to believe in ID or anything else for that matter. I asked you to simply correct your statement that there was no valid evidence for design in biology (i.e. “the inference is valid, but I personally believe that someday it will be shown to be false”). You flatly refused, and have studiously hidden behind your obvious fallacy (#1) and obvious double-standard (#2) ever since. JVL, it is truly not my problem that you have become frustrated by my presence here. Frankly, I think it is a bit sad that you are unable to correct yourself of obvious errors. After we walked through the evidence and you launched your fallacies, I commented that if you intended to stay and continue on as if there was no scientific basis to the design inference, then I would reserve the right to occasionally put your words back in front of you – which is where we are today. The nail has been hit on the head. If you think I have made an error in the evidence, then name it. As before, I don’t think you can, and I don’t think you will. I expect you to continue in complete denial of what you know to be true – that is, the design inference is valid.Upright BiPed_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

JVL @171
I don’t see a conflict there at all. There is no evidence as agreed by the cited researcher.
So, if you were to argue against reincarnation, you would be rightly citing the work of this researcher.
Oh, by the way, I have found a statement that Dr Pattee made that was critical of ID and, as stated by Upright BiPed Dr Pattee has a unguided paradigm so he has NOT said that, despite his research, he believes in ID. No where has he ever made such a statement.
Pattee does not support ID, not only in spite of the fact that research has documented not a scintilla of evidence in favor of his preferred unguided paradigm but also in spite of the fact that his own research shows that biological information requires an irreducible complex symbol-code-construction system:
Pattee: “A molecule becomes a message only in the context of a larger system of physical constraints which I have called a ‘language’ in analogy to our normal usage of the concept of message.” A language consists of a small, fixed set of symbols (an alphabet) and rules (a grammar) in which the symbols can be catenated indefinitely to produce an unlimited number of meaningful or functional sequences (messages).
As you are surely aware, irreducibly complex systems are extremely resistant to step-by-step explanations and therefore point to ID. Like with our imaginary reincarnation researcher, we are witnessing a disconnect between evidence and conclusion/belief.Origenes_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Origenes: JVL, suppose you argue against reincarnation by citing a researcher, who confessed that his research spanning several decades has documented not a scintilla of evidence in favor of reincarnation. Now suppose further that this researcher holds the personal belief that reincarnation is true. How would you respond to the claim: “This researcher has NOT said that his work supports the notion that reincarnation does not exist. Anyone who interprets his work as being not supportive of reincarnation is interpreting his work in a way he does not.”? I don't think this is exactly equivalent to my disagreement with Upright BiPed on the interpretation of semiotic research by Dr Pattee as being supportive or not supportive of ID but I'll do my best to answer your question. So, there is a researcher who has done years of research which they admit has produced no support for reincarnation but they believe that reincarnation does happen anyway. I'm not sure how we know that they think that but we'll let that go. My first reaction is, of course, to go with the research assuming it was done soundly and has been scrutinised by others. Then someone says: “This researcher has NOT said that his work supports the notion that reincarnation does not exist. " But, you said he did confess that his research has not found any evidence in favour of reincarnation. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Then the person says: "Anyone who interprets his work as being not supportive of reincarnation is interpreting his work in a way he does not.”? And, again, the researcher has admitted his work gives no support at all for reincarnation. So, he himself has put that possible interpretation onto his work. In the end I would look at the data and work and research, all of it from everyone not just this one person. And then I would say something like: well, we can't say for sure but, so far, there is nothing in the research that supports reincarnation. AND, I'll point out again, the researcher you postulate would agree with that statement because they said so themself. I don't see a conflict there at all. There is no evidence as agreed by the cited researcher. Oh, by the way, I have found a statement that Dr Pattee made that was critical of ID and, as stated by Upright BiPed Dr Pattee has a unguided paradigm so he has NOT said that, despite his research, he believes in ID. No where has he ever made such a statement.JVL_{December 28, 2022
December
12
Dec
28
28
2022
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

JVL@
I think that points deserves repeating: Dr Pattee and Dr Deacon have NOT said that their work supports intelligent design or invention in the development of life on Earth. Anyone who interprets their work as being in support of ID is interpreting their work in a way they do not.
JVL, suppose you argue against reincarnation by citing a researcher, who confessed that his research spanning several decades has documented not a scintilla of evidence in favor of reincarnation. Now suppose further that this researcher holds the personal belief that reincarnation is true. How would you respond to the claim: "This researcher has NOT said that his work supports the notion that reincarnation does not exist. Anyone who interprets his work as being not supportive of reincarnation is interpreting his work in a way he does not."?Origenes_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

JVL @168,
Nope, that is not correct. And you know that is incorrect. Why do you choose to misrepresent things other people have said and clearly support?
Thank you! I've just now added your excellent, non-specific quote above to my Trollbot Trove (tm) of Generic Online Rebuttal Picks (GORP) for use in my AI trollbot. :-) -QQuerius_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: I gave you researcher’s names, the dates of experiments, and the experimental results. You were forced to agree with all of it. I wasn't 'forced' to agree with it; I readily did so. If you’d now like to assert that I’ve made an error in that history, by all means, point it out. The comment you singled out was because I hadn't seen where you had responded to Dr Deacon's paper. You have responded now. And, I noticed, you pointed out that Dr Pattee is not a supporter of 'guided' evolution. I think that points deserves repeating: Dr Pattee and Dr Deacon have NOT said that their work supports intelligent design or invention in the development of life on Earth. Anyone who interprets their work as being in support of ID is interpreting their work in a way they do not. It has to be remembered here that your core position is that the design inference at the origin of life — clearly recorded in the history of science and experiment — is summarily invalidated because the proponents of an unguided OoL simply don’t believe it. Nope, that is not correct. And you know that is incorrect. Why do you choose to misrepresent things other people have said and clearly support? Your position (a well-known logical fallacy) deliberately separates conclusions from evidence and destroys science as a methodological approach to knowledge. Uh huh. Perhaps you find my position illogical because I consider data and evidence you choose not to address or explain. You do tend to only look at certain things. Which is pretty typical of ID proponents: they pick their particular tack and stick with it instead of looking a ALL the data and evidence. The trouble with picking a hill to die on is because there is a mountain that puts that hill in the shade.JVL_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

UB, it is now up, I hope you like my added illustrations and comments. All the best, KF PS, I think I will email you shortly on other matters.kairosfocus_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

. KF, thank you and Merry Christmas. Frankly, I am not certain how much I will be able to participate over the next several days. I am on a tight clock until mid January. But with that caveat…Upright BiPed_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

UB, great to hear from you, hope you knock that thing for six, fast. Sunlight, fresh air, nutrient and vitamin C rich fruit. Try garlic, too. Your remarks on symbol systems vs autocatalysis are so relevant, I am going to headline shortly. You have full privileges, this should be an OP. KFkairosfocus_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

. My apologies to Origenes, he had asked for my comment, but I was away. I had taken several days to do some travel with my wife. On my first day back I tested positive for C19, and now trying to get rid of the lingering effects. My physician tells me he knows from his own staff that some people have a longer row to hoe than others, and I must be one of those lucky ones. I did avoid it for 140-something weeks. :) Origenes, (blush, blush) I am no expert of course, but thank you for asking me to comment. Frankly you didn’t need my opinion anyway. When you ask “What is the error in supposing something?” you likely already know there is no there there. And someone seriously asking you (like some odd prosecution of your logic) to enumerate what exactly is the biological error or the chemical error in the proposition of something that has never before been seen or recorded in either biology or chemistry — well whatever. Deacon begins by asking the question, what is necessary and sufficient to treat a molecule as a sign. He is 50 to 150 years late on that question (depending on how one wants to look at it). In any case (setting aside for the moment his reliance on “uncharacterized” chemistry) he doesn’t get to where he is going, and he tells you as much in his Conclusions. He says his exercise “falls well short” of the origin of the code, but he reckons that his exercise offers something more basic. Regardless of what one might feel about proposing unknown chemistry as a “proof of principle”, his paper doesn’t offer the pathway implied by the title of the paper (a title that Deacon chose to honor the work of Howard Pattee, How does a molecule become a message Pattee, 1969). From my perspective, even with the admitted reliance on unknown chemistry, Deacon still doesn’t get from dynamics to descriptions and doesn’t shed any particular light on the problem. I might suggest you look at Howard Pattee’s own response to Deacon’s paper. I do not know where it is available or if it is behind a paywall somewhere, but I have a copy here in front of me. It has a little bit of a cool tone to it. He begins the paper with (first sentence) “Deacon speculates on the origin of interpretation of signs using autocatalytic origin of life models and Peircean terminology” and in the very next sentence takes a rather direct contrary position. He begins by offering some background:
The focus of my paper “How does a molecule become a message?” (Pattee 1969) that Deacon (2021) has honored, was a search for the simplest language in which messages were both heritable and open-ended. I was trying to satisfy Von Neumann’s condition for evolvable self-replication. He argued that it is necessary to have a separate non-dynamic description that (1) resides in memory, (2) can be copied, and (3) can instruct a dynamic universal constructor. (I replaced “description” with “message” simply for alliteration.) I concluded (Pattee 1969, 8): “A molecule becomes a message only in the context of a larger system of physical constraints which I have called a ‘language’ in analogy to our normal usage of the concept of message.” A language consists of a small, fixed set of symbols (an alphabet) and rules (a grammar) in which the symbols can be catenated indefinitely to produce an unlimited number of meaningful or functional sequences (messages).
… and then goes on to offer some ancillary corrections before addressing Deacons model in full (i.e. “Before discussing Deacon’s main thesis, I need to respond to his misleading history of molecular biology”). He then discusses the (three-dimensional) structuralist and the (one-dimensional) informationalist camps in the OoL field, and then under the heading “Deacon’s Model” he concludes:
There are three well-known problems with autocatalytic cycle models: (1) limited information capacity (What are the symbol vehicles?), (2) instability of multiple dynamic cycles (error catastrophe), and (3) no known transition to the present nucleic acid-to-protein genetic code. The only known way to mitigate problems (1) and (2) is to solve (3), that is, to transition from dynamic catalysts to a symbol-code-construction system. Deacon recognizes these problems and his solution to (3) is to “offload” autogen catalyst information to RNA-like template molecules:
“Offloading (or transfer of constraints) is afforded because complementary structural similarities between catalysts and regions of the template molecule facilitate catalyst binding in a particular order that by virtue of their positional correlations biases their interaction probabilities.”
Deacon’s offloading is the inverse of the Central Dogma’s information flow from inactive one-dimensional sequences to three-dimensional active catalysts. Deacon’s offloading information flow is from three-dimensional active catalysts to one-dimensional inactive sequences. His offloading speculations require many vague chemical steps with unknown probabilities of abiotic occurrence. Deacon claims that these are “chemically realistic” steps, but he gives no example or evidence of this inverse process. Adding to the chemical vagueness of offloading, Deacon applies the Peircean vocabulary, icon, index, and symbol, and the immediate, dynamic and final interpretants. This Peircean terminology does not help explain or support a chemistry of offloading, nor does it make clearer how molecules become signs.
It appears to me that speculation of unknown chemistry, mixed with language like “proofs”, is an recognizable problem among both experts and laypeople alike. Note: Just so no one is mistaken, Howard Pattee is a unguided origin of life proponent, but he strongly believes that the speculation of answers must have a foot in chemical and physical reality. In other words, he believes that genetic symbols have their grounding directly in the folded proteins they specify, but also acknowledges that the triadic sign-relationship (symbol, constraint, referent) is required for the specification of those proteins from a transcribable memory. He doesn’t pretend to have an answer to the problem of the transition from dynamics to descriptions, and he doesn’t write papers like Terrance Deacon. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JVL: “ I’m not sure Upright BiPed will grace us with his opinion. He tends to avoid having to admit he might be wrong. JVL, I gave you researcher’s names, the dates of experiments, and the experimental results. You were forced to agree with all of it. If you’d now like to assert that I’ve made an error in that history, by all means, point it out. I don’t believe you can, and I don’t believe you will. It has to be remembered here that your core position is that the design inference at the origin of life — clearly recorded in the history of science and experiment — is summarily invalidated because the proponents of an unguided OoL simply don’t believe it. Your position (a well-known logical fallacy) deliberately separates conclusions from evidence and destroys science as a methodological approach to knowledge. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - cheersUpright BiPed_{December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply