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

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 7, 2020

Engineering, Intelligent Design, Mind, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

Bornagain77 @ 7
Seversky is basically claiming that human beings arose via the laws of physics, (“albeit indirectly”)
Certainly wouldn't be here without the laws of physics being what they are, would we?
Yet Darwinian evolution itself is not based on any known law of physics,,
Again, evolution would not be happening at all if the laws of physics weren't what they are. Nor does it have to be based on a single law. Besides, a physical law is really just an observed regularity in the behavior of some aspect of the natural order. We observe living things to reproduce themselves and change bit by bit over time, although the rate might vary. Whether that counts as a law or nor is really just semantics.
Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “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.”
The Salem Hypothesis almost qualifies as a law.
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
Which is ironic given that you are desperate to prove that the Universe behaves in accordance with your religious beliefs. And what do you think Weinberg means by the "instrumentalist approach"?
Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists (such as Seversky) may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”
Why don't you explain to us exactly what you understand this "free will loophole" to be? And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain Darwin's theory of how species might have evolved implies strict determinism?Seversky_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

Seversky claims:
Human engineering wouldn’t exist without human beings. Human beings (and this Universe) wouldn’t exist without the laws of physics. So you could say that engineering does arise from the laws of physics, albeit indirectly.
Seversky is basically claiming that human beings arose via the laws of physics, ("albeit indirectly") Yet Darwinian evolution itself is not based on any known law of physics,, As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”
The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf
In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468
Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “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. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf
Moreover, aside from Darwinian evolution itself, since it is not based on any known physical law, being outside the purview of physical sciences, Quantum Mechanics itself also proves that humans did not arise via the laws of physics ("albeit indirectly") As Steven Weinberg, an atheist himself, states in the following article, In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave. For instance, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019 Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”. https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html Experimental test of local observer-independence - 2019 Excerpt: The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether these realities can be reconciled in an observer-independent way has long remained inaccessible to empirical investigation, until recent no-go-theorems constructed an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers that allows us to put it to the test. In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realise this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by 5 standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf
Moreover, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014 Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics. “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of approx. 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists (such as Seversky) may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.” In short and in conclusion, as far as the science itself is concerned, Seversky does not have a clue what he is talking about when he falsely claimed that humans arose via the laws of physics ("albeit indirectly").bornagain77_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

This universe and the laws of physics wouldn't exist without an Intelligent Designer.ET_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Human engineering wouldn't exist without human beings. Human beings (and this Universe) wouldn't exist without the laws of physics. So you could say that engineering does arise from the laws of physics, albeit indirectly.Seversky_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

I notice the same thing with mathematical proofs. Sometimes a mathematical proof is easy to find and easy to understand, sometimes it is difficult to find and difficult to understand, and sometimes a proof is difficult to find but easy to understand. But never is a proof easy to find but difficult to understand.EvilSnack_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Naturalism and materialism only have those laws to work with, along with sheer dumb luck. Those laws are incapable of producing coded information processing systems. Living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems. Naturalism and materialism FAIL, miserably, to account for the existence of living organisms. It is beyond the time to move past materialism and naturalismET_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

With engineering I see the laws of physics as setting the boundaries. Human ingenuity works within these bounds, stretching them when possible, to create things.Mac McTavish_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

One telling word: CREAT-ivitykairosfocus_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply