Eric Holloway: Why engineering can’t be reduced to the laws of physics

_{News
August 7, 2020

Engineering, Intelligent Design, Mind, Physics

1}_{Categories
Engineering
Intelligent Design
Mind
Physics}

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

When we reduce the engineer’s mind to a computer, the source of innovation disappears:

The fundamental problem of modern science is the problem of innovation. Where does novelty come from? This problem shows up in physics, biology, artificial intelligence, and economics…
The source of this information puzzles the respective fields. The puzzle is due to the fact that, while each field can describe the target precisely, using its axioms, none of the fields can describe how the target came to be hit…
The one area where we do not encounter this mystery is engineering. In engineering, the cause of purposeful arrangements of parts is well known. This cause is engineering innovation. Engineers create the technical inventions that run our economy. However, once we get into the engineer’s mind, the mystery reemerges.
Eric Holloway, “Why engineering can’t be reduced to the laws of physics” at Mind Matters News

He argues that the problem how to account for innovation cannot be solved by anything built upon the laws of physics.

Comments

'Nature' = everything that exists. Therefore, the distinction 'natural' vs 'artificial' is stupid. No 'artificial selection' then. Sorry Darwin, only theists can logically make sense of that difference.Truthfreedom_{August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

JVL
And even, in the past, when ET has been banned he’s come back under a different pseudonym and started up saying the same things in the same way.
Thanks JVL, I wasn’t aware of ET’s history. I take some comfort from the fact that this site does occasionally act on this type of behavior. After all, continuing to allow this type of immature schoolyard behavior detracts from those who try to have serious discussions.Mac McTavish_{August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Humans exist in Nature and are therefore 'natural'. But when a human designs something, that something, misteriously ('poof'), becomes 'unnatural'. Magic anyone?Truthfreedom_{August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Truthfreedom: Beaver constructs a dam = ‘natural’. Man designs a car = ‘unnatural’. What? I would consider a beaver dam designed as I would a car. They may both be natural but that's not really the point is it? Humans exist in Nature and are therefore ‘natural’. But when a human designs something, that something, misteriously (‘poof’), becomes ‘unnatural’. ????? Magic anyone? Well, I guess you're more interested in 'scoring points' than having a discussion about such things. Therefore, the distinction ‘natural’ vs ‘artificial’ is stupid. I thought the important difference was designed vs undesigned?JVL_{August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

ET: Cars exist in nature and as such are natural. I was seriously trying to respond to Querius's post. What are you trying to do.JVL_{August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Beaver constructs a dam = 'natural'. Man designs a car = 'unnatural'. Lol. According to naturalist 'reasoning', humans are not part of 'Nature'. Pray Darwin.Truthfreedom_{August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Cars exist in nature and as such are natural.ET_{August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

ET: Too funny- JVL doesn’t understand erosion. And JVL thinks that people live underwater. ???? I said I thought it was natural.JVL_{August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Too funny- JVL doesn't understand erosion. And JVL thinks that people live underwater.ET_{August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Querius: Personally, I prefer the design paradigm but for pragmatic reasons. Let me give you a fairly neutral example, the Yonaguni Monument. Take a couple of minutes (2:50 minutes) to watch this video and decide whether it’s a man-made structure or the product of natural processes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYBJnX9AHOg I think it's natural. The video uses a lot of loaded words (like carved and stairs) that are trying to influence those who might have otherwise been undecided. What are the arguments for and against? Againts: no signs of the stones being worked, no joints, no signs of wear, no indications of inhabitation whatsoever. What’s the consensus among scientists? It's natural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Monument Which of the two conclusions is likely to promote additional investigation? Depends on the investigator. A geologist would probably love to figure out how it was formed as much as a design advocate. The important thing is to make all investigations public so that experts on any side can see the work and results.JVL_{August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

#Safespace.Truthfreedom_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

JVL,
Why bother? If the sensible and rational people are buried under a cacophony of shouting.
Since this is written communication, I simply skip over the ones lacking substance. Nobody's voice gets buried.
Who are you referring to?
Posts that primarily contain unsupported assertions and ad hominem attacks. If the shoe doesn't fit, you don't have to wear it. But I assume that not all thinking people will agree on everything. That's why assertions need supporting information. It's highly likely in science that contrary information is often available, and there are often interesting explanations why. Personally, I prefer the design paradigm but for pragmatic reasons. Let me give you a fairly neutral example, the Yonaguni Monument. Take a couple of minutes (2:50 minutes) to watch this video and decide whether it's a man-made structure or the product of natural processes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYBJnX9AHOg What are the arguments for and against? What's the consensus among scientists? Which of the two conclusions is likely to promote additional investigation? No, this is not a trap. I'm undecided. -QQuerius_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

"Illusory People"- another great name for a band or a Reggae song :cool:ET_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Wow. 'Illusory' people get REALLY angry. How strange. And they cry REALLY bitter tears (though I find them sweee-t). Well, not really strange, since materialism = lunacy. I 'robotically' wrote that. My bad. :) Circuses have almost disappeared. But we have materialists to laugh at. And that's good. 10 Reasons Why Atheists are Delusional https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/11-reasons-why-atheists-are-delusional/Truthfreedom_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Based on your criteria.
Based on facts, truth, logic and reasoning. That is my criteria.
There is never any admittance that another point of view might be correct.
Not when/if it-this hypothetical other point of view- contradicts the facts, truth, logic and reasoning.ET_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

ET: And yet all alleged shouting occurs in response to irrational and nonsensical posts. Based on your criteria. There is never any admittance that another point of view might be correct.JVL_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

And yet all alleged shouting occurs in response to irrational and nonsensical posts.ET_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Querius: Why not just ignore the noise and respond to the OP? Why bother? If the sensible and rational people are buried under a cacophony of shouting. Noise includes unsupported assertions and ad hominem attacks. Noise is the opposite of information. Who are you referring to?JVL_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Why not just ignore the noise and respond to the OP? Noise includes unsupported assertions and ad hominem attacks. Noise is the opposite of information. -QQuerius_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

LoL! @ JVL! If I tell lies, equivocate or bluff I expect to be called on it. There cannot be a dialog with people who lie, equivocate and bluff. The anti-ID mob don't want a dialog. JVL doesn't want a dialogET_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Mac McTavish: There is no point in trying to bring ET to heal. The site owner and the regular contributors agree with him so they let him get away with lots of behaviour you and I would be banned for. It's a double standard and you just have to learn to live with it or leave. In my experience. And even, in the past, when ET has been banned he's come back under a different pseudonym and started up saying the same things in the same way. Uncommon Descent isn't about having a dialogue, it's about 'serving' the Intelligent Design community which seems to mean agreeing with any and all design advocates and shouting down any dissenters.JVL_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Hmmm. Back on topic . . . Engineering involves designing with requirements and constraints. The laws of physics provide some constraints. Some the the latest technologies involve something called "generative design," in which a computer program takes a brute force approach to applying millions of solutions to a design and filters out all but those that match certain physical and design constraints such as size, stresses, weight, and so on. The result is often organic in appearance (do a search on images of generative design). These techniques can also be applied to city planning, prosthetics, and other disciplines. But . . . A great design often challenges unstated assumptions and constraints by asking questions. "Why does the motor have to be on top?" "Can we combine these two functions by . . .?" "What would happen if we used this other material instead?" Furthermore, good designs are often compromises between several optimized designs. For example, a Leatherman multitool is not very comfortable to hold, but it combines many tools into a very portable package. In biology, when organisms become too specialized, they risk extinction should the environment change, and highly adaptable organisms won't likely be very specialized. -QQuerius_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Gotta love how 'illusory' people (atheists/materialists/ridicul-ists) take offence.Truthfreedom_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Mac and cheese is an insipid troll:
A mature person certainly doesn’t call the other guests names because they disagree with them.
That isn't what is happening. Clearly you are just a loser punk who needs to grow up and stop lying.ET_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Oh my- Mac and cheese supports lying, equivocating and bluffing. Respect for the owners would mean no one lies, equivocates or bluffs. People who lie, equivocate and bluff do not have any respect and behave like insipid trolls. This isn't your site, mac and cheese.ET_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

ET, this isn’t your site. A mature individual would show some respect for the owner(s) of the site and behave with a degree of civility. When I am invited into someone else’s house, I remove my shoes and treat the owners, their other guests and their possessions. A mature person certainly doesn’t call the other guests names because they disagree with them. You would be wise to take this advice.Mac McTavish_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Pound sand, mac and cheese, you cowardly quote-mining loser. As I said I will always call out liars, BS artists, which includes cowardly equivocators. If you cannot handle that then you are part of the problem. That, and your ignorance.ET_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

ET
So seversky is also an equivocating coward.
Grow up.Mac McTavish_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

So seversky is also an equivocating coward. Earth to seversky- ID is NOT anti-evolution. The laws of physics are incapable of producing coded information processing systems. And living organisms are ruled by them. Seversky loses, again. That must be what drives his desperationET_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Seversky, you were given a reference for exactly what the 'free will' loophole entails. Your failure to read and acknowledge the reference is not my problem. It's yours. As to your claim that I believe Darwinism implies strict determinism, I, nor any of my references, implied that Darwinism implies strict determinism. The criticism is that, as Murray Eden put it, "if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” – Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
More specifically, all other theories of science are based on known physical laws, only Darwinism is based on a randomness postulate, and that randomness postulate, in and of itself, is "highly implausible",,, In fact, the randomness postulate is what, in and of itself, renders Darwinian evolution unscientific. Although the word “chance” is usually defined as the mathematical probability of something happening, such as the chance involved in flipping a coin, when Darwinists use the word ‘chance’, they are not appealing to any known probability of something happening but are in fact appealing to an unknown cause which, as Wolfgang Pauli himself pointed out, is more or less synonymous with the word 'miracle'.
Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/234f/4989e039089fed5ac47c7d1a19b656c602e2.pdf
Likewise, as Talbott points out in the following article, the way in which Darwinists use the word 'random' is more or less synonymous with the word 'miracle'.
Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011 Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.” In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness
Thus, whenever you hear a Darwinist say that something happened randomly, or that it happened by chance, he is not appealing to any realistic mathematically defined probability but is in fact appealing to an unknown cause which is more or less synonymous with the world miracle. i.e. The Darwinist, when he uses the word chance, is, in fact, appealing to his ignorance of the actual cause. Which, (postulating an unknown cause as an actual cause), is just about as unscientific as can one possibly get. Even Darwin himself admitted that when he appealed to 'chance' he was in fact appealing to our ignorance of the known cause.
"I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation." Charles Darwin - Origin - Chapter V http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1860/1860-131-c-1859.html
As I've stated many times before, Darwinian evolution is not even a real and testable science, but is more realistically classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience, even a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real science. Why atheists, such as Seversky, would fight tooth and nail against the, (overwhelmingly obvious), inference to Design, I have no idea. But Seversky's vehement anti-Theistic beliefs are certainly not based on science.bornagain77_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply