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

But, again, is there a mistake in his theoretical ideas? Yes or no?
Hahaha! Theoretical ideas are perfect as long as you can't test them. JVL "the science guy" have no clue what science is and what "theoretical ideas" are. PS: I'm not sure how JVL see " Beauty and the Beast"( in the light of darwinism), it's reality or a fairytale? ....because darwinism is insanely more magical than any fairytale I know.whistler_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

"is there a mistake in his theoretical ideas?" You mean other than the fact that Deacon has no discernible experimental connection to reality? :) Well, other than that 'minor' problem, I guess there is no problem in his imaginary conjecture. But then again, going by that standard of having no discernible connection to reality, then there is no problem imagining that pigs can fly, or imagining that you can fly to the moon on a ten speed bicycle, or imagining etc... Just don't call what Deacon is doing experimental science. Call it fiction, call it fantasy, call it sci-fi, call it day-dreaming, call it whatever, just don't call it experimental science. Speaking of which, to even do experimental science in the first place, Atheistic Naturalists are forced to reach over and 'borrow' experimental science itself from the metaphysics of Intelligent Design proponents. Which is to say, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presuppositions of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presuppositions of Atheistic, and/or methodological, naturalism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of Atheistic, and/or methodological, naturalism. Verse and Music:
Colossians 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Nicole C Mullen My Redeemer lives {Official Video} https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QvX4CwSmwY
bornagain77_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

JVL
Surely such things already exists and have been observed?
No, such things have not been observed yet. Since you apparently refuse to scroll up to #102 I will repost the relevant part:
Those who have abandoned the RNA-world hypothesis still seek a self-replicating molecule to qualify as the climax of chemical-origin of life scenarios–the “pre-RNA world.” However, Shapiro observes not only that “no trace of this hypothetical primal replicator and catalyst has been recognized so far in modern biology,” but also that “the spontaneous appearance of any such replicator without the assistance of a chemist faces implausibilities that dwarf those involved in the preparation of a mere nucleotide soup.” The reason that producing such a special self-replicator is so difficult is that a self-replicating molecule would have to incorporate nothing but the right nucleotides (or nucleotide-analog molecules) in a long chain, never splitting into two chains and never incorporating other random organic molecules which would mess up replication. He explains: “There is no reason to presume than an indifferent nature would not combine units at random, producing an immense variety of hybrid short, terminated chains, rather than the much longer one of uniform backbone geometry needed to support replicator and catalytic functions.” Shapiro doesn’t even begin to address the problem of getting the “nucleotides” of this “pre-RNA” molecule in an order such that self-replication is possible. (more)
So, JVL, there is a problem with Deacon supposing the existence of such a [not-RNA] replicating molecule. And that is the first step of his scenario. However, it's all a "model", no real-world problems exist here, so how can you go wrong?Origenes_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Origenes: In #102 I refer to fact that the molecules which Deacon supposes are nowhere to be found in nature. Deacon refers to:
It is modeled after virus structure. In this respect it is not an idealization, just an as yet physically unrealized chemical system. It can be described as a non-parasitic virus that can reproduce autonomously. In this regard it is an autogenic virus, able to autonomously generate copies of itself. A simple virus, like the polio virus, consists of a container or “capsid” shell typically made of protein molecules that assemble themselves into facets of a polyhedral structure that encloses an RNA or DNA molecule. When incorporated into a host cell the viral RNA or DNA commandeers the cell’s systems to make more capsid molecules and more copies of the viral RNA or DNA. Since viral replication requires these complex protein synthesis and polynucleotide synthesis processes, and the molecular machinery to do this involves dozens of molecules arranged in complex structures, viruses replicate parasitically. So a non-parasitic virus would need to use a different and much simpler molecular process to reproduce its parts.
Surely such things already exists and have been observed? I'm not sure Upright BiPed will grace us with his opinion. He tends to avoid having to admit he might be wrong.JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Okie Dokie, the very first experimental step that Deacon needs to accomplish, to get his hypothesized conjecture into the real world of experiment science, is show the origin of a single protein by unguided material processes. But, again, is there a mistake in his theoretical ideas? Yes or no?JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

As to:
"Rather than thinking of the problem from an information molecule first perspective (how nucleic acid structure came to inform protein dynamics), it might be instructive to ask the question the other way around (how protein dynamics came to be reflected in nucleic acid structure). In other words, it might make sense to invert the order of Crick’s central dogma when considering the evolution of the genetic code." - Deacon
Okie Dokie, the very first experimental step that Deacon needs to accomplish, to get his hypothesized conjecture into the real world of experiment science, is show the origin of a single protein by unguided material processes. Yet, there are a few "tiny" problems with that very first step that Deacon needs to experimentally accomplish in order to get his hypothesized conjecture into the real world of experimental science,
Peptides // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hv6KjB0j8Y In this episode, Dr. James Tour teaches the 2nd class of compounds needed for life: peptides. He identifies gross speculatory claims by others, referring to published literature that confirms the implausibility of the sudden emergence of peptides from amino acids. Dr. Tour also walks the viewer through synthesis, showing that without careful activation, side chain protection, and water-free conditions, amino acids do not polymerize into peptides. He then dispels the view that human-made synthesizers, which were not present on prebiotic earth, somehow render polypeptide synthesis as trivial, let alone the fact that amino acids themselves have never been prepared in homochiral fashion using a prebiotically relevant route. Finally, with no solution to the amino acid sequence that comprises functional proteins, Dr. Tour then shows how some ignore the sequence specificity question necessary for the informational code, and how this dilemma is being pushed to the extraterrestrial in a plea to the heavens. Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA Minimal Complexity Relegates Life Origin Models To Fanciful Speculation - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: Based on the structural requirements of enzyme activity Axe emphatically argued against a global-ascent model of the function landscape in which incremental improvements of an arbitrary starting sequence "lead to a globally optimal final sequence with reasonably high probability". For a protein made from scratch in a prebiotic soup, the odds of finding such globally optimal solutions are infinitesimally small- somewhere between 1 in 10exp140 and 1 in 10exp164 for a 150 amino acid long sequence if we factor in the probabilities of forming peptide bonds and of incorporating only left handed amino acids. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/minimal-complexity-relegates-life-origin-models-to-wishful-speculation/ Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the film) Origin Excerpt: The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful. http://www.originthefilm.com/mathematics.php
bornagain77_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Whistler: Everything is just-so stories. As Bornagain already said you can’t point to errors in a fairytale because a fairytale is entirely an error if you watch it with a scientific eye. So, you cannot find a mistake? I'll write that down shall I? If it's a fairytale then what is the mistake? What axiom is incorrect? Point to a particular statement or result in the paper that is incorrect. That's the way science works. Not based on what you think should be true but what can actually be established. Which means that those who disagree with a result have to find an error. Can you find an error? Yes or no? If your view is that Deacon's ideas have not been verified scientifically that's fine BUT can you find a mistake in his theoretical views? AND, if his theoretical views are sound then why shouldn't they be considered as possible explanations for the origin of life on earth? And, if his views are sound and possible then doesn't that cast support for unguided evolution and origin of life?JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Paraphrasing Deacon: ..... suppose a model protein-like molecule, [not RNA because we know there are too many problems with that but something similar] which can replicate itself, and let's further suppose the existence of molecules that spontaneously form model capsids around the copies and next let's suppose further ....
JVL: If you can find any error in the paper please point it out.
What is the error in supposing something? In #102 I refer to fact that the molecules which Deacon supposes are nowhere to be found in nature. However, I would like to read Upright Biped's comments for a more fundamental criticism. I am pretty sure that Deacon's model fails to produce complex functional specified information. But, perhaps, Upright Biped's expertise is required to make this argument rigorously.Origenes_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

JVL Origenes: Do present Deacon’s argument, so it can be refuted. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9 How Molecules Became Signs To explore how molecules became signs I will ask: “What sort of process is necessary and sufficient to treat a molecule as a sign?” This requires focusing on the interpreting system and its interpretive competence. To avoid assuming any properties that need to be explained I develop what I consider to be a simplest possible molecular model system which only assumes known physics and chemistry but nevertheless exemplifies the interpretive properties of interest. Three progressively more complex variants of this model of interpretive competence are developed that roughly parallel an icon-index-symbol hierarchic scaffolding logic. The implication of this analysis is a reversal of the current dogma of molecular and evolutionary biology which treats molecules like DNA and RNA as the original sources of biological information. Instead I argue that the structural characteristics of these molecules have provided semiotic affordances that the interpretive dynamics of viruses and cells have taken advantage of. These molecules are not the source of biological information but are instead semiotic artifacts onto which dynamical functional constraints have been progressively offloaded during the course of evolution. I assume you can read and understand the paper but I shall post the conclusion: The sequence of hypothetical molecular models discussed here falls well short of explaining the origins of the “genetic code.” Indeed, it posits an evolutionary sequence that assumes that protein-like molecules are present long before nucleic acids (possibly arising from the prebiotic formation of hydrogen cyanide polymers; see Das et al. (2019) for a current review). This inverts the currently popular view that replicating molecules intrinsically constitute biological information. This popular assumption has implicitly reduced the concept of information to pattern replication without reference. As a result it begs the question of the origin of functional significance. The logic of the autogenic approach, though not able to directly account for the evolution of the DNA-to-amino acid “code,” provides something more basic. It provides a “proof of principle” of a sort, showing step-by-chemically-realistic-step how a molecule like RNA or DNA could acquire the property of recording and instructing the dynamical molecular relationships that constitute and maintain the molecular system of which it is a part. In short, it explains how a molecule can become about other molecules. Importantly, this analysis inverts the logic that treats RNA and DNA replication as intrinsically informational and instead shows how the information-bearing function of nucleic acids is due to their ability to embody constraints inherited from the codependent dynamics of an open molecular` system able to repair itself. This may point the way to an alternative strategy for exploring the origin of the genetic code. Rather than thinking of the problem from an information molecule first perspective (how nucleic acid structure came to inform protein dynamics), it might be instructive to ask the question the other way around (how protein dynamics came to be reflected in nucleic acid structure). In other words, it might make sense to invert the order of Crick’s central dogma when considering the evolution of the genetic code. If you can find any error in the paper please point it out.
Everything is just-so stories. As Bornagain already said you can't point to errors in a fairytale because a fairytale is entirely an error if you watch it with a scientific eye.whistler_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Can any ID proponent point to a mistake or error in Deacon's paper? He has proposed an admittedly theoretical process by which life might have arose on earth and I accept that it hasn't been experimentally verified but . . . can anyone find a mistake? Which brings up the question: when is a possible and plausible explanation good enough? Considering that the process may have taken a long time?JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Whistler: PS: “just-so” story=an untestable narrative explanation.
That is an excellent description of ID.Sir Giles_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Whistler: Some (..)people think that if a scientist tells a “just-so” story then that just-so story become science. Can you point to a mistake in Deacon's paper? Yes or no?JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

:) Some (..)people think that if a scientist tells a "just-so" story then that just-so story become science. PS: "just-so" story=an untestable narrative explanation.whistler_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77:The issue is simple, Deacon has extraordinary theoretical claims for which he has no experimental proof. If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to provide the experimental proof. It ain’t rocket science. Okay. But, again, you have not pointed out any theoretical mistake he made. We agree on that. So, we have a possible, step-by-step, unguided, biological pathway that creates life as we know it now. Correct? One you'd like to see demonstrated but possible.JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

JVL, LOL, beat that dead horse until it turns to glue for all I care. The issue is simple, Deacon has extraordinary theoretical claims for which he has no experimental proof. If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to provide the experimental proof. It ain't rocket science. So again, call me when Deacon does the experimental work, falsifies ID, and actually collects the 10 million dollar OOL prize, (not to mention collecting the Nobel prize).
Artificial Intelligence + Origin of Life Prize, $10 Million USD Excerpt: What You Must Do to Win The Prize You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without “cheating.” The diagram below describes the system. Without explicitly designing the system, your experiment must generate an encoder that sends digital code to a decoder. Your system needs to transmit at least five bits of information. (In other words it has to be able to represent 32 states. The genetic code supports 64.) You have to be able to draw an encoding and decoding table and determine whether or not the data has been transmitted successfully. So, for example, an RNA based origin of life experiment will be considered successful if it contains an encoder, message and decoder as described above. To our knowledge, this has never been done. https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: it is not about me finding the specific fault(s) in his reasoning, it is about Deacon providing actual experimental proof that his conjectures are true. So, you can't find a fault with his theoretical paper. If you could I'm sure you would have pointed it out. Which makes me wonder if you actually read and understood the paper. I'm betting you didn't read it and couldn't understand it. You have a biased view which says that certain results are not possible so you don't actually have to address the science involved. Which means you don't even bother to read anything which might upset your apple cart. At least we got that settled. but test all things. Hold fast to what is good. But don't test views that disagree with yours by actually reading them and trying to understand them. That is not required apparently.JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

JVL, "I am asking you to find a specific fault in a specific paper which you have said is false." it is not about me finding the specific fault(s) in his reasoning, it is about Deacon providing actual experimental proof that his conjectures are true.. if his theoretical underpinnings for the creation of immaterial information from a material basis are true, then it should be relatively easy enough for Deacon to provide knock-down experimental proof of the creation of immaterial information from a material substrate,,, and to forever silence all doubters. And again, it is not like Deacon does not have more than enough motivation to provide experimental proof to silence those who may question his extraordinary claim for the creation of immaterial information. So again, call me when Deacon does the experimental work, falsifies ID, and actually collects the 10 million dollar OOL prize, (not to mention collecting the Nobel prize).
Artificial Intelligence + Origin of Life Prize, $10 Million USD Excerpt: What You Must Do to Win The Prize You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without “cheating.” The diagram below describes the system. Without explicitly designing the system, your experiment must generate an encoder that sends digital code to a decoder. Your system needs to transmit at least five bits of information. (In other words it has to be able to represent 32 states. The genetic code supports 64.) You have to be able to draw an encoding and decoding table and determine whether or not the data has been transmitted successfully. So, for example, an RNA based origin of life experiment will be considered successful if it contains an encoder, message and decoder as described above. To our knowledge, this has never been done. https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: the burden is not on me to prove that perpetual motion machines are impossible. I'm not asking you about a general, theoretical issue. I am asking you to find a specific fault in a specific paper which you have said is false. If you gave me a paper by a person claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine then I should be able to spot the assumption or mistake in testing they made. Otherwise my objection would be in question. So, again, can you find a specific fault in Deacon's paper? Granted that he is talking about a plausible step-by-step process. Are you saying you can't find a fault but you are not convinced? That's easy enough to say.JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

JVL, the burden is not on me to prove that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The burden is on atheistic naturalists to EXPERIMENTALLY prove that which is physically impossible is possible.
"trying to argue that life originated through natural processes is like trying to create a perpetual motion machine, or to market alchemy. It is a scientific impossibility.",,, - Brian Miller - Thermodynamics, the Origin of Life, and Intelligent Design - video - 24:17 mark https://youtu.be/YAXiHRPZz0s?t=1453 "No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.” – Brian Miller, Ph. D. – – Episode 0/13: Reasons // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour https://youtu.be/71dqAFUb-v0?t=1434 Physicist Brian Miller: Two Conundrums for Strictly Materialist Views of Biology - January 2020 Excerpt: "Nothing in nature will ever simultaneously go to both low entropy and high energy at the same time. It’s a physical impossibility. Yet life had to do that. Life had to take simple chemicals and go to a state of high energy and of low entropy. That’s a physical impossibility." https://evolutionnews.org/2020/01/physicist-brian-miller-two-conundrums-for-strictly-materialist-views-of-biology/
So again, call me when Deacon does the experimental work, falsifies ID, and actually collects the 10 million dollar OOL prize, (not to mention collecting the Nobel prize).
Artificial Intelligence + Origin of Life Prize, $10 Million USD Excerpt: What You Must Do to Win The Prize You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without “cheating.” The diagram below describes the system. Without explicitly designing the system, your experiment must generate an encoder that sends digital code to a decoder. Your system needs to transmit at least five bits of information. (In other words it has to be able to represent 32 states. The genetic code supports 64.) You have to be able to draw an encoding and decoding table and determine whether or not the data has been transmitted successfully. So, for example, an RNA based origin of life experiment will be considered successful if it contains an encoder, message and decoder as described above. To our knowledge, this has never been done. https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
bornagain77_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Origenes: Deacon hypothesizes a model organism and has to explain “self-assembly” and “reproduction.” It seems to me that he is saying: “well, self-assembly is easy to explain” … What specific scientific statement does he make that you think is false? How does this self-assembly of abstract capsids work? Deacon doesn’t say. It seems that this is already ‘explained’ by the reference to crystalization. Do you see my problem with this? And you're really, really sure he doesn't address that somewhere in the paper? Or in his references?JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77:LOL, Yeah right. it also means that I find no fault with Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”. ? Recorded: Bornagain77 registers no specific fault with the paper cited. If something is wrong you should be able to say, specifically, why it is wrong. Can you do that?JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

KF: SG, We duly note that your attempt to evade the force of even Wikipedia’s confessions on what we do not know about how pyramids were built fails. That you are so stoutly insistent on doubling down in the teeth of documented failure shows that you are not a serious participant in discussion, and further Alinski rules for radicals tactics on your part confirm the now regrettably well established pattern on your part. KF
Rather than addressing my point you choose to intentionally lie about what I said so that you can justify assigning malevolent intentions to my comments. That is nothing more than outright and blatant dishonesty. I guess your Christian values only apply to other people. I wonder what your mother would think about your dishonest tactics.Sir Giles_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

JVL @109
Are you saying you don’t understand his argument? That some of the reasoning escapes you? Are you saying that he has made a mistake?
Deacon hypothesizes a model organism and has to explain "self-assembly" and "reproduction." It seems to me that he is saying: “well, self-assembly is easy to explain” …
Self-assembly is essentially a variant of the process of crystalization. Because of the way that the regular geometries and affinities of these molecules cause them to associate with one another they can spontaneously form into sheets, polyhedrons, or tubes.
To me, this comes across as not a real explanation. Think of it, Deacon posits unnamed model “protein-like molecules” which are copying themselves (there are some real-world problems with this; see #102). Next, these unknown abstract self-copying molecules have to be spontaneously encapsulated by model self-assembling “capsids”. How does this self-assembly of abstract capsids work? Deacon doesn’t say. It seems that this is already ‘explained’ by the reference to crystalization. Do you see my problem with this?Origenes_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

"Does that mean that you find no fault with the paper?" LOL, Yeah right. it also means that I find no fault with Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". :)
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." - Through the Looking Glass.
But alas, there is one impossible thing that I just can't bring myself to believe. Namely, that that which is material can be the cause of that which is immaterial,
“The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone's plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.” - George Ellis - Recognising Top-Down Causation How Does The World Work: Top-Down or Bottom-Up? - September 29, 2013 Excerpt: To get an handle on how top-down causation works, Ellis focuses on what's in front of all us so much of the time: the computer. Computers are structured systems. They are built as a hierarchy of layers, extending from the wires in the transistors all the way up to the fully assembled machine, gleaming metal case and all. Because of this layering, what happens at the uppermost levels — like you hitting the escape key — flows downward. This action determines the behavior of the lowest levels — like the flow of electrons through the wires — in ways that simply could not be predicted by just knowing the laws of electrons. As Ellis puts it: “Structured systems such as a computer constrain lower level interactions, and thereby paradoxically create new possibilities of complex behavior.” Ellis likes to emphasize how the hierarchy of structure — from fully assembled machine through logic gates, down to transistors — changes everything for the lowly electrons. In particular, it "breaks the symmetry" of their possible behavior since their movements in the computer hardware are very different from what would occur if they were just floating around in a plasma blob in space. But the hardware, of course, is just one piece of the puzzle. This is where things get interesting. As Ellis explains: “Hardware is only causally effective because of the software which animates it: by itself hardware can do nothing. Both hardware and software are hierarchically structured with the higher level logic driving the lower level events.” In other words, it's software at the top level of structure that determines how the electrons at the bottom level flow. Hitting escape while running Word moves the electrons in the wires in different ways than hitting escape does when running Photoshop. This is causation flowing from top to bottom. For Ellis, anything producing causes is real in the most basic sense of the word. Thus the software, which is not physical like the electrons, is just as real as those electrons. As Ellis puts it: “Hence, although they are the ultimate in algorithmic causation as characterized so precisely by Turing, digital computers embody and demonstrate the causal efficacy of non-physical entities. The physics allows this; it does not control what takes place. Computers exemplify the emergence of new kinds of causation out of the underlying physics, not implied by physics but rather by the logic of higher-level possibilities. ... A combination of bottom-up causation and contextual affects (top-down influences) enables their complex functioning.” The consequences of this perspective for our view of the mind are straightforward and radical: “The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone's plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.” http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/09/29/225359504/how-does-the-world-work-top-down-or-bottom-up
bornagain77_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Origenes: How am I to read this? Is the process of crystalization offered as an explanation for the incredibly complicated information-rich self-assembly of complex molecular structures in the cell? In effect, is Deacon saying here that “self-assembly” doesn’t require any further explanation; it is …. “spontaneous”? Are you saying you don't understand his argument? That some of the reasoning escapes you? Are you saying that he has made a mistake?JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Again, call me when Deacon does the experimental work, falsifies ID, and actually collects the 10 million dollar OOL prize, Does that mean that you find no fault with the paper? Should we ask the local semiotics expert Upright BiPed if you don't understand the argument? Upright BiPed finds semiotic arguments sounds and definitive.JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: The highlighted part is enough to identify key gaps here. The certainly identify gaps in your knowledge. What, specifically, in the highlighted portion, are you saying is incorrect? the paper openly confesses its inconclusive and apparently irrelevant nature to the origin of actual, observed life Uh huh. From the conclusion:
It provides a “proof of principle” of a sort, showing step-by-chemically-realistic-step how a molecule like RNA or DNA could acquire the property of recording and instructing the dynamical molecular relationships that constitute and maintain the molecular system of which it is a part. In short, it explains how a molecule can become about other molecules.
In other words it directly addresses the situation with a step-by-step process. Again, aside from disagreeing with the paper, can you find a specific mistake made in it? Don't wax on and on about some ideal or deeply held conviction; just point to a mistake that we can examine.JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

Asauber: IF I was presented with science, I might respond with a scientific counter-argument. Did you even look at the paper? I think you probably didn't. Also, are you saying semiotics is not science? Since I'm sure you won't actually attempt to read the paper I'm going to mark you down as having no scientific or otherwise counter-argument. I'll be happy to change my mind if I get new evidence.JVL_{December 10, 2022
December
12
Dec
10
10
2022
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

JVL, Thanks for the link. I find this clip tells a key tale:
Ironically, I suggest that one of the most enigmatic unsolved mysteries in biology can provide the best place to look for insight into the physical implementation of interpretation. I am referring to the mystery of the origin of life. Why should this unlikely subject offer a privileged view of the issue? First, because it arose by accident, not design, the first life-forms almost certainly were constituted by quite simple molecular processes. Second, despite its simplicity, this molecular complex must have locally inverted one of the most ubiquitous regularities of the universe: the second law of thermodynamics. Though living functions act to compensate for this increase of entropy internally, organisms accomplish this by doing work that ultimately “exports” entropy to the environment at a rate higher than if they were just dissipating heat as they fell to equilibrium. So the origin of life problem brings together three seemingly incommensurate properties. It involves an extremely simple spontaneously produced molecule system that persists far from thermodynamic equilibrium (unlike almost all other chemical processes), and selectively interacts with its immediate environment in ways that support the persistence of these processes. This latter disposition is what demands a simple form of interpretive competence. To persist and even reproduce its unstable far from equilibrium condition this tiny first step toward life required an ability to re-presentFootnote 1 itself in ever new substrates ultimately borrowed from its environment. In other words, it was adapted to its environment.
The highlighted part is enough to identify key gaps here. KFkairosfocus_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

SG, We duly note that your attempt to evade the force of even Wikipedia's confessions on what we do not know about how pyramids were built fails. That you are so stoutly insistent on doubling down in the teeth of documented failure shows that you are not a serious participant in discussion, and further Alinski rules for radicals tactics on your part confirm the now regrettably well established pattern on your part. KFkairosfocus_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply