Intelligent Design Mathematics Origin Of Life

Granville Sewell on origin of life as a provably unsolvable problem

Spread the love

Mathematician Granville Sewell uses a concept from mathematics by which a problem is proved to be unsolvable:

All one needs to do is realize that if a solution were found, we would have proved something obviously false, that a few (four, apparently) fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into libraries full of science texts and encyclopedias, computers connected to monitors, keyboards, laser printers and the Internet, cars, trucks, airplanes, nuclear power plants and Apple iPhones.

Is this really a valid proof? It seems perfectly valid to me, as I cannot think of anything in all of science that can be stated with more confidence than that a few unintelligent forces of physics alone could not have rearranged the basic particles of physics into Apple iPhones. In the first half of my video “Why Evolution Is Different” I argue with a bit more scientific sophistication, and a bit more scientific detail, that problem #3 has no solution, but my arguments are still very simple. Unfortunately, most biologists don’t seem to be impressed by such simple proofs; they don’t believe it is possible to reject all solutions to a difficult problem without looking at the details of each. But mathematicians know that sometimes it is possible.

Granville Sewell, “Some Problems Can Be Proved Unsolvable” at Evolution News and Science Today

It’s been said that many biologists are poor mathematicians.

Here’s a vid where he makes the case:

43 Replies to “Granville Sewell on origin of life as a provably unsolvable problem

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Yup. Like the origin of the entire universe, both are untestable and unquantifiable. Not worth bothering about.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    All one needs to do is realize that if a solution were found, we would have proved something obviously false, that a few (four, apparently) fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into libraries full of science texts and encyclopedias, computers connected to monitors, keyboards, laser printers and the Internet, cars, trucks, airplanes, nuclear power plants and Apple iPhones.

    Is this really a valid proof? It seems perfectly valid to me, as I cannot think of anything in all of science that can be stated with more confidence than that a few unintelligent forces of physics alone could not have rearranged the basic particles of physics into Apple iPhones.

    I agree, but then that is not what is being claimed, is it? The claim is that life-forms arose from inanimate chemical precursors and they evolved into increasingly complex creatures that could eventually design and build Apple iPhones.

    As for complexity emerging from simplicity, in Big Bang cosmology the four fundamental forces are thought to have emerged from a unified state in the very early stages of expansion. As the universe cooled, hydrogen formed and from that simple start the 94 naturally-occurring elements formed and everything else we observe has formed from them.

    Complexity can emerge from simplicity. Even mathematicians should be able to see that in the stunning beauty of fractal patterns. And if the claim is that biologists make poor mathematicians then the counter-claim is that mathematicians make poor biologists but make up for that short-coming with, in some cases, a well-earned reputation for arrogance.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    The belief that life will someday be proven to come from non-life, (i.e. spontaneous generation), though directly contradicting known science and the law of biogenesis as laid out by Louis Pasteur and others,,

    Law of biogenesis
    Excerpt: The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from already established life. This very important and fundamental scientific law can be credited to the work of Louis Pasteur and others. The findings rooted in repeated scientific experimentation and observation can be summarized as follows, Omne vivum ex ovo, which is Latin for, “all life is from life.”
    https://creationwiki.org/Law_of_biogenesis

    Louis Pasteur on life, matter, and spontaneous generation – June 21, 2015
    “Science brings men nearer to God.,,
    Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.,,
    I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life? You move from matter to life because your current intelligence, so limited compared to what will be the future intelligence of the naturalist, tells you that things cannot be understand otherwise. If you want to be among the scientific minds, what only counts is that you will have to get rid of a priori reasoning and ideas, and you will have to do necessary deductions not giving more confidence than we should to deductions from wild speculation.”
    [en francais, Pasteur et la philosophie, Patrice Pinet, Editions L’Harmattan, p. 63.]

    ,,, The belief that life will someday be proven to come from non-life, though directly contradicting known science and the law of biogenesis, seems to be an irrational belief that is unique to Darwinists.

    After all, physicists, mainly due to the laws of thermodynamics, no longer believe in perpetual motion machines.

    The Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machines
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rckrnYw5sOA

    Yet, Darwinists essentially believe wholeheartedly in perpetual motion machines, in that they believe unguided material processes, as long as they have access to energy, can generate all the information necessary to overcome the second law of thermodynamics in order to have life in the first place,

    Molecular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
    Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/18hO1bteXTPOqQtd2H12PI5wFFoTjwg8uBAU5N0nEQIE/edit

    ,,, 10^12 bits is the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica.

    Moreover, Darwinists also believe that unguided material processes, (again as long as they have access to energy), can, all by their lonesome, continue to generate the information in order to create all life on earth,

    The information content of the human body,,,,,”the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.”

    In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017
    Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,:
    [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/

    And Darwinists also believe that unguided material processes can continue to generate the information for all future life on earth and the universe into perpetuity (again, as long as unguided material processes have access to energy).

    The Future of Human Evolution in Space
    August 2, 2020
    What will humans look like in the distant future? The future of human evolution in space could mean both biological and technological changes for our species.
    https://thecosmiccompanion.net/the-future-of-human-evolution-in-space/

    Sage Against the Machine By Tunku Varadarajan – Aug. 31, 2018
    Excerpt: if you believe that “machines can re-create new machines in a steady cascade of greater capabilities that are beyond human comprehension and control, you really believe that’s the end of the human race.”
    Mr. Gilder rejects the premise. “Machines can’t be minds,” he says. “Information theory shows that.” Citing Claude Shannon, the American mathematician acknowledged as the father of information theory, Mr. Gilder says that “information is surprise. Creativity always comes as a surprise to us. If it wasn’t surprising, we wouldn’t need it.” However useful they may be, “machines are not capable of creativity.” Human minds can generate counterfactuals, imaginative flights, dreams. By contrast, “a surprise in a machine is a breakdown. You don’t want your machines to have surprising outcomes!”
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sage-against-the-machine-1535747443

    In effect, Darwinists believe in a form of perpetual motion machines that make all of the other absurd claims for perpetual motions machines look sane in comparison.

    , Darwinists not only believe that unguided material processes can, (all by their lonesome), create perpetual motion machines in the first place, but they also believe that these perpetual motion machines can then create, (again by completely unguided material processes), even greater and more complex perpetual motion machines, which then go on to create, (again via completely unguided material processes) even greater and more complex perpetual motion machines,,, and on and on ad infinitum. (again, just so long as these unguided material processes have access to energy)

    It is a virtual perpetual motion machines, making other perpetual motion machines, making other perpetual motion machines, madhouse that Darwinists live in! 🙂

    Willy Wonka would be amazed and in awe!

    Might it be too obvious to suggest that Darwinists, rather than basing their assumptions on any known science, are actually living in a “Alice in Wonderland” of pure poppycock?

    Darwinists, directly contrary to what their, apparently, unrestrained imaginations are willing to believe, simply have no evidence whatsoever that unguided material processes can generate the immaterial information that is necessary for life to overcome the second law of thermodynamics.

    Evolutionary Computation:
    A Perpetual Motion Machine for Design Information? By Robert J. Marks II
    Final thoughts.
    Search spaces require structuring for search algorithms to be viable. This includes evolutionary search for a targeted design goal. The added structure information needs to be implicitly infused into the search space and is used to guide the process to a desired result. The target can be specific, as is the case with a precisely identified phrase; or it can be general, such as meaningful phrases that will pass, say, a spelling and grammar check. In any case, there is yet no perpetual motion machine for the design of information arising from evolutionary computation.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20080429222714/http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2903953/k.26C8/Evolutionary_Computation_A_Perpetual_Motion_Machine_for_Design_Information__Apologetics.htm

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Period. By “model,” we mean definitive simulations or foundational mathematics required of a hard science.,,,
    We show that no meaningful information can arise from an evolutionary process unless that process is guided. Even when guided, the degree of evolution’s accomplishment is limited by the expertise of the guiding information source — a limit we call Basener’s ceiling. An evolutionary program whose goal is to master chess will never evolve further and offer investment advice.,,,
    There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,
    Models of Darwinian evolution, Avida and EV included, are searches with a fixed goal. For EV, the goal is finding specified nucleotide binding sites. Avida’s goal is to generate an EQU logic function. Other evolution models that we examine in Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics likewise seek a prespecified goal.,,,
    The most celebrated attempt of an evolution model without a goal of which we’re aware is TIERRA. In an attempt to recreate something like the Cambrian explosion on a computer, the programmer created what was thought to be an information-rich environment where digital organisms would flourish and evolve. According to TIERRA’s ingenious creator, Thomas Ray, the project failed and was abandoned. There has to date been no success in open-ended evolution in the field of artificial life.5,,,
    We show that the probability resources of the universe and even string theory’s hypothetical multiverse are insufficient to explain the specified complexity surrounding us.,,,
    If a successful search requires equaling or exceeding some degree of active information, what is the chance of finding any search with as good or better performance? We call this a search-for-the-search. In Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics, we show that the search-for-the-search is exponentially more difficult than the search itself!,,,
    ,,,we use information theory to measure meaningful information and show there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.,,,
    ,,, if the fitness continues to change, it is argued, the evolved entity can achieve greater and greater specified complexity,,,
    ,,, We,, dub the overall search structure ‘stair step active information’. Not only is guidance required on each stair, but the next step must be carefully chosen to guide the process to the higher fitness landscape and therefore ever increasing complexity.,,,
    Such fine tuning is the case of any fortuitous shift in fitness landscapes and increases, not decreases, the difficulty of evolution of ever-increasing specified complexity. It supports the case there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.,,,
    Turing’s landmark work has allowed researchers, most notably Roger Penrose,26 to make the case that certain of man’s attributes including creativity and understanding are beyond the capability of the computer.,,,
    ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    seversky:

    The claim is that life-forms arose from inanimate chemical precursors and they evolved into increasingly complex creatures that could eventually design and build Apple iPhones.

    That claim is right up there with leprechauns and a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. So I understand why you would accept it even though there isn’t any evidence to support it nor is there a way to test it.

    As for complexity emerging from simplicity, in Big Bang cosmology the four fundamental forces are thought to have emerged from a unified state in the very early stages of expansion.

    The universe and those fundamental forces were intelligently designed. There isn’t any evidence that they just happened to happen.

    Evolutionary biologists cannot support the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. And thanks to evolutionary biology no one knows what determines biological form. Biologists can’t even answer the basic questions of life.

    That said, scientists will have an easier time showing how Stonehenge arose via blind and mindless processes than they will showing the same for life.

  5. 5
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev, you don’t seem to understand your own position very well Sev. This is not surprising, because if you did understand it, you probably would stop espousing it. Let me sort it our for you.

    GS: The claim that “a few (four, apparently) fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into” Apple iPhones is provably unprovable.

    Sev: I agree, but then that is not what is being claimed, is it? The claim is that life-forms arose from inanimate chemical precursors and they evolved into increasingly complex creatures that could eventually design and build Apple iPhones.

    Let me clue you in Sev. That is exactly what is being claimed. It is nothing short of astonishing that after having debated in this area for many years, you don’t seem to understand that under materialist principles there is no fundamental ontological difference between “inanimate chemical precursors” and the “animate chemical products” that evolved from them.

    Guess what Sev. With the words “I agree” you just gave away the entire evolutionary store.

    BTW, the next time you get the urge to call someone arrogant, maybe you should check yourself, because in this instance you wound up looking like a buffoon when it turned out GS understands the basic proposition on the table and you do not.

  6. 6
    paige says:

    BA77

    The belief that life will someday be proven to come from non-life, (i.e. spontaneous generation), though directly contradicting known science and the law of biogenesis as laid out by Louis Pasteur and others,,

    Just a small correction. Pasteur did not prove that life could not arise from non-life. He proved that complex life already found on earth cannot arise from non-life.

    But I do agree that the origin of life is an unprovable question. Even if scientists find a natural way in which life can arise, and demonstrate it, we will never know if this is how life on earth arose.

  7. 7
    johnnyb says:

    Haven’t had time to watch the video, but a proof along the lines that Sewell seems to be indicating has actually been peer-reviewed.

    Biological Function and the Genetic Code are Interdependent.

    You can also see an engineering perspective in this three-part series:

    Developing Insights into the Design of the Simplest Self-Replicator (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) (find it in print)

    Finally, another information-theoretic approach which gives a maximum bound on the probability:

    The Possibility of Spontaneous Generation of Self-Replicating Systems

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    From a thermodynamic perspective, the origin of life is impossible. as Dr Brian Miller stated, “No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.”

    “‘Professor Dave’ argues that the origin of life does not face thermodynamic hurdles. He states that natural systems often spontaneously increase in order, such as water freezing or soap molecules forming micelles (e.g., spheres or bilayers), He is making the very common mistake that he fails to recognize that the formation of the cell represents both a dramatic decrease in entropy and an equally dramatic increase in energy. In contrast, water freezing represents both a decrease in entropy but also a decrease in energy.
    More specifically, the process of freezing releases heat that increases the entropy of the surrounding environment by an amount greater than the entropy decrease of the water molecule forming the rigid structure.
    Likewise, soap molecules coalescing into micelles represents a net increase of entropy since the surrounding water molecules significantly increase in their number of degrees of freedom.
    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. – MIT
    – Episode 0/13: Reasons // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour
    https://youtu.be/71dqAFUb-v0?t=1434

    And as Dr. Miller also stated in this fairly recent article, “The only plausible explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency.”

    Thermodynamic Challenges to the Origin of Life – Brian Miller – March 27, 2020
    Excerpt: The thermodynamic barriers to the origin of life have become decidedly more well defined since this book’s first publication. The initial challenges described in the original edition still stand. Namely, spontaneous natural processes always tend toward states of greater entropy, lower energy, or both. The change of entropy and energy are often combined into the change of free energy, and all spontaneous processes move toward lower free energy. However, the generation of a minimally functional cell on the ancient Earth required a local system of molecules to transition into a state of both lower entropy and higher energy. Therefore, it must move toward dramatically higher free energy. The chance of a system accomplishing this feat near equilibrium is astronomically small.,,,
    The only plausible explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/thermodynamic-challenges-to-the-origin-of-life/

    And as if the second law of thermodynamics was not bad enough for Darwinists in regards to explaining the origin of life(OOL), Dr. James Tour, one of the top ten synthetic chemists in the world, recently (March 2021) gave a tour de force lecture on the many insurmountable problems facing OOL researchers.

    James Tour PhD. A Course on Abiogenesis – video playlist (March 2021)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-RvMStTkx4&list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr
    Topics covered
    0 – Reasons for this Series:
    1 – Introduction to Abiogenesis:
    2 – Primordial Soup:
    3 – Hype:
    4 – Homochirality:
    5 – Carbohydrates:
    6 – Building Blocks of Building Blocks:
    7 – Peptides:
    8 – Nucleotides:
    9 – Intermediate Summary & a Call to Colleagues:
    10 – Lipids:
    11 – Chiral-induced Spin Selectivity:
    12.1 – Cell Construction & The Assembly Problem, Part 1:
    12.2 – Cell Construction & The Assembly Problem, Part 2:
    13 – Summary & Projections:

    In a nutshell, the main insurmountable problem, (impossibility), facing OOL researchers is information. Specifically, the origin of immaterial information from material processes.

    Only immaterial minds have ever been observed generating immaterial information.

    Darwinists, with their ‘bottom up’ materialistic processes, are approaching the problem of generating immaterial information from the completely wrong conceptual level.

    As the old joke goes, ‘you can’t get there from here!’

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  9. 9
    Bob O'H says:

    All one needs to do is realize that if a solution were found, we would have proved something obviously false,

    Is this really a valid proof? It seems perfectly valid to me, as I cannot think of anything in all of science that can be stated with more confidence…

    I haven’t studied mathematical logic for a long time, so is this a Proof by Assertion or Proof by Incredulity?

  10. 10
    martin_r says:

    150 years of Darwinism and there is a zero progress in origin of life research. A typical lay Darwinist e.g. Seversky will reply – ahhhh, what are 150 years, give us more time and blah blah blah….. so how much longer do you need Seversky to accept that life was created? Thousands years? Ten thousands of years? I bet that if we give Darwinian scientitsts 1 Mil years and there still wont be any success in OOL research, Seversky would say- ahhhhhh, the universe is 14 billions of years old, one million years for OOL research is nothing, give us more time….

  11. 11
  12. 12
    EDTA says:

    Sev,
    >Complexity can emerge from simplicity. Even mathematicians should be able to see that in the stunning beauty of fractal patterns.

    You have been with us how long? Fractals appear complex, but the rules for generating them are simple. And they don’t do anything on their own. They would have to be instantiated in matter to be capable of anything. They are not evidence that life can form spontaneously.

  13. 13
    martin_r says:

    Seversky: “>Complexity can emerge from simplicity…. stunning beauty of fractal patterns. ”

    Seversky, as EDTA asked you, for how long have you been with us?
    With you Darwinists it is always the same … you keep repeating these stupid arguments …

    Fractals, snow flakes and other non-sense…

    Seversky, you misunderstand as much as a Darwinist can ….

    ID DEFINITION OF DESIGN/COMPLEXITY = thousands of parts working together for a purpose

    Now Seversky focus and explain to us, in what way are fractals and snow flakes complex?

  14. 14
    Gordon Davisson says:

    BA77 @ 8:

    […] 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. – MIT
    – Episode 0/13: Reasons // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour
    https://youtu.be/71dqAFUb-v0?t=1434

    I haven’t looked at Miller and/or Tour’s argument much, but if this is an example, it’s pretty bad. The claim here is either completely false or completely irrelevant.

    For example, do you consider ultraviolet light to qualify as “assistance”? Because if you don’t, then the formation of ozone (O3 gas) in the upper atmosphere is a counterexample, since O3 has both higher energy and lower entropy than the O2 it forms from. On the other hand, if you do consider UV light to be “assistance”, then it’s hard to see how this is relevant to the origin of life.

    (I should maybe clarify that the formation of ozone actually occurs in two steps, each of which individually conforms to Miller’s claim: In the first step, a UV photon hits an O2 molecule, splitting it into two oxygen atoms, which increases both energy and entropy. In the second step, the two oxygen atoms attach to other O2 molecules, forming O3, which decreases both energy and entropy. But the energy increase in the first step is bigger than the decrease in the second, and the entropy increase in the first is smaller than the decrease in the second, so the overall process winds up increasing energy and decreasing entropy.)

    This doesn’t violate the second law, because it’s driven by an outside source of nonequilibrium energy (the UV from the sun). The second law still applies to systems with incoming nonequilibrium energy, but it has very different implications. For instance, perpetual motion is entirely possible if there’s an external source of nonequilibrium energy. Take winds in the Earth’s atmosphere as an example of that. They may get stronger and weaker from time to time and place to place, but they don’t run down overall; the Earth’s atmosphere is perpetually in motion. Thermodynamically, this is totally normal, because the winds are powered by nonequilibrium heat from the sun.

    If you want to claim that there’s a conflict between the second law and evolution and/or abiogenesis, you need to show a conflict with the actual second law, not some misunderstood or imaginary version of it. And I’ve never seen anyone do that.

    And BTW if you did manage to show a conflict, it wouldn’t point to intelligent design, because intelligent designers cannot overcome the limitations of the second law. In fact, that’s how the second law was discovered — people designing things like steam engines found that there were limits to the efficiency of their engines that they just couldn’t get past, no matter how clever their designs were.

  15. 15
    martin_r says:

    Gordon D,

    i understand that you wanted to point out something different, but using UV light as an example in regards to origin-of-life was very unfortunate.

    UV light kills cells by destroying DNA and other life’s molecules as well.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-ultraviolet-ligh/#:~:text=Ultraviolet%20(UV)%20light%20kills%20cells%20by%20damaging%20their%20DNA.&text=The%20resulting%20thymine%20dimer%20is,nucleotides%2D%2Dis%20fairly%20efficient.

    Another very unfortunate example would be water.

    It is called the WATER PARADOX. You surely heard from Darwinists like 1000 times – look for water you will find life. But Darwinists somehow ignore the fact that water destroys DNA molecule and other life’s molecules as well. They know that, but keep repeating this WATER-OOL non-sense.

    Here you go, published in NATURE:

    https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-020-03461-4/d41586-020-03461-4.pdf

  16. 16
    martin_r says:

    Gordon D,

    you mentioned Dr. James Tour. I took the time and watched all 13 parts of his lecture on OOL research.

    13 very entertaining hours, because Dr. James Tour is a very good teacher/lector, moreover, i like his style, passion and sarcasm (i wish i had such a teacher/professor when i went to my university)

    Anybody, who is SERIOUSLY interested in OOL should watch these lectures. I always knew that Darwinists are fraudsters and have been misleading lay public for 150 years. But after watched Dr. Tour’s lecture i realize how fraudulent Darwinian OOL-research is.

    Among other things, these researchers use purchased (premade, stabilized, out-of-freezers) chemicals, extracted from LIVING!!! organisms to simulate blind unguided process of origin of life on early Earth … This is absurd … It is like in some mental hospital…. is this called science???
    (not to mention these Darwinian researchers use various man-made tools during experiments, e.g. vacuum pumps for degassing the environment etc.)

    Darwinists cheat and lay public should know that… fortunately for Darwinists, these things are so complex, that lay public will never understand that Darwinists cheat … Darwinists have been cheating and misinterpreting the evidence for decades…

  17. 17
    JVL says:

    Martin_r:

    Just curious . . . how would you research the origin of life on Earth? What sorts of experiments would you carry out? What particular questions would you focus on first?

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Gordon Davisson states,

    For example, do you consider ultraviolet light to qualify as “assistance”? Because if you don’t, then the formation of ozone (O3 gas) in the upper atmosphere is a counterexample, since O3 has both higher energy and lower entropy than the O2 it forms from. On the other hand, if you do consider UV light to be “assistance”, then it’s hard to see how this is relevant to the origin of life.

    GD, I suggest that you write Dr. Miller, via the Discovery Institute, and get into the specific details with Dr. Miller to see why Ozone formation, like water freezing or soap molecules forming micelles (e.g., spheres or bilayers), does not represent a system moving towards ‘lower entropy and higher energy.’

    As Dr. Miller noted in refuting the Darwinian claim that water freezing or soap molecules forming micelles represented a ‘local’ violation of the second law, the entropy decrease was always ‘paid’ for:

    “More specifically, the process of freezing releases heat that increases the entropy of the surrounding environment by an amount greater than the entropy decrease of the water molecule forming the rigid structure.
    Likewise, soap molecules coalescing into micelles represents a net increase of entropy since the surrounding water molecules significantly increase in their number of degrees of freedom.”
    – Brian Miller

    Gordon, you stated that “it’s hard to see how this is relevant to the origin of life.”

    Yet by the same token, it is exponentially harder to see how Ozone formation is remotely relevant to the origin of life (OOL).

    As the following site points out, Ozone itself is very thermodynamically unstable. To quote the article, “most of the O3 generated in the stratosphere is constantly destroyed.”

    “Hence most of the O3 generated in the stratosphere is constantly destroyed”.
    “O3 in the stratosphere is constantly being formed, decomposed and reformed during daylight hours by a series of reactions. Rates of these reactions differ depending upon altitude.”
    “Ozone effectively absorbs the most energetic ultraviolet light, known as UV-C and UV-B, which causes biological damage”
    – Stratospheric Chemistry: The Ozone Layer – January 2013
    • UV radiation and its impact
    • Chemical reactions induced by light • The Ozone Layer
    • Review/Thermodynamics Principles
    https://www3.nd.edu/~pkamat/pdf/lecture2.pdf

    Ozone being constantly destroyed, as should be needless to say, is certainly not indicative that material processes have the capacity within themselves to overcome the second law in order to explain why life is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. If anything, constant ozone destruction clearly reiterates the point that they don’t have the capacity within themselves.

    However your discussion with Dr. Miller turns out, (if you even decide to honestly ask him about the thermodynamics of ozone formation, and see if it really does present a challenge to his claim that “No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.”), it seems to me, as a layman, that it is highly disingenuous for you to point to such a thermodynamically unstable particle as ozone and say, basically, “Aha, you see thermodynamics does not present any difficulty for naturalistic OOL scenarios at all.”

    If anything, your example of the highly unstable ozone molecule highlights the extreme difficulty facing OOL researchers. i.e. Exactly, how do you get a thermodynamically stable system, i.e. ‘simple’ life, that represents both a dramatic decrease in entropy and an equally dramatic increase in energy?

    But anyways, be that as it may, Gordon goes on to state that, “perpetual motion is entirely possible if there’s an external source of nonequilibrium energy.”

    Gordon I mentioned the requirement for a constant source of energy in order for perpetual motion machines to be theoretically feasible in post 3. But I also pointed out in post 3 that you, as a Darwinist, also believe, in effect, that unguided material processes, all by their lonesome, can construct highly sophisticated perpetual motion machines, that greatly outclass anything man has thus far created in terms of machines, and that these highly sophisticate perpetual motion machines can then go to create even greater and more sophisticated perpetual motion machines, and on and on, ad infinitum.

    If you do not see even a minor problem with that Darwinian scenario, might I suggest that you go try to build, via your own intelligence, a simple mechanical perpetual motion machine. Once you have done that, multiply the difficulty you experienced in building the device by at least a million. Then you will have a small inkling as to the impossibly of unguided material processes, all by their lonesome, ever creating a ‘simple cell’.

    The simplest life ever found on earth, even the simplest realistically feasible life on earth, is far, far, more complex than anything man has ever built.

    To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers – July 2012
    Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That’s a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,,
    The bioengineers, led by Stanford’s Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What’s fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell’s lifecycle processes.,,,
    ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore’s Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that’s only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,,
    http://www.theatlantic.com/tec.....rs/260198/

    Minimal Cell Challenges Naturalism – March 26, 2016
    Excerpt: “If we’re already playing God, we’re not doing a particularly good job of it,” Elfick says. “Simply streamlining what’s already in nature doesn’t seem very God-like and, if anything, is a very humbling exercise.”
    Venter also felt the humility vibes, according to Live Science:
    “We’re showing how complex life is even in the simplest of organisms,” said Craig Venter, founder and CEO of the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), where the study was completed. “These findings are very humbling in that regard.”
    http://crev.info/2016/03/minim.....aturalism/

    Are you beginning to get a small inkling as to just how impossible the problem facing OOL researchers actually is Gordon?

    Gordon concludes his comment with this claim,

    And BTW if you did manage to show a conflict, it wouldn’t point to intelligent design, because intelligent designers cannot overcome the limitations of the second law. In fact, that’s how the second law was discovered — people designing things like steam engines found that there were limits to the efficiency of their engines that they just couldn’t get past, no matter how clever their designs were.

    Funny you should mention that, I read a Quanta article yesterday in which they said, in effect, that Maxwell’s demon, (i.e. a causal agent), can locally violate the second law as long the Maxwell’s demon does not erase the information he used to ‘locally’ violate the second law. It is only when the demon erases the information that he used to violate the second law that the second law is ‘paid for’.

    How Maxwell’s Demon Continues to Startle Scientists – April 2021
    Excerpt: A thought experiment devised by the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1867 stumped scientists for 115 years. And even after a solution was found, physicists have continued to use “Maxwell’s demon” to push the laws of the universe to their limits.,,,
    In 1982, the American physicist Charles Bennett put the pieces of the puzzle together. He realized that Maxwell’s demon was at core an information-processing machine: It needed to record and store information about individual particles in order to decide when to open and close the door. Periodically it would need to erase this information. According to Landauer’s erasure principle, the rise in entropy from the erasure would more than compensate for the decrease in entropy caused by the sorting of the particles. “You need to pay,” said Gonzalo Manzano, a physicist at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information in Vienna. The demon’s need to make room for more information inexorably led to a net increase in disorder.,,,
    Then in the 21st century, with the thought experiment solved, the real experiments began. “The most important development is we can now realize Maxwell’s demon in laboratories,” said Sagawa.
    In 2007 scientists used a light-powered gate to demonstrate the idea of Maxwell’s demon in action; in 2010, another team devised a way to use the energy produced by the demon’s information to coax a bead uphill; and in 2016 scientists applied the idea of Maxwell’s demon to two compartments containing not gas, but light.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-maxwells-demon-continues-to-startle-scientists-20210422/

    In fact, theoretically the information used by the demon to locally violate the second law can be erased without using any energy at all.

    As the following article explains,“theoretically, information can be erased without using any energy at all.,,,Landauer said that information is physical because it takes energy to erase it. We are saying that the reason it (information) is physical has a broader context than that.”

    Scientists show how to erase information without using energy – January 2011
    Excerpt: Until now, scientists have thought that the process of erasing information requires energy. But a new study shows that, theoretically, information can be erased without using any energy at all.,,, “Landauer said that information is physical because it takes energy to erase it. We are saying that the reason it (information) is physical has a broader context than that.”, Vaccaro explained.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

    In fact Gordon, such experimental realizations of the Maxwell demon thought experiment, as well as advances in Quantum information theory, have forced researchers to realize that entropy is a property of an observer, not of the system.

    As the following article states, “when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer”

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    And as the following article states, “James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    To repeat that last statement, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Gordon, simply put, these recent experimental realizations of the Maxwell demon thought experiment, as well as advances in quantum information theory, have directly falsified your belief that “intelligent designers cannot overcome the limitations of the second law”.

    In short, it is possible for intelligent agents, via imparting immaterial information into a system, to locally circumvent the second law of thermodynamics in order to bring a system out of thermodynamic equilibrium to a state that is of lower entropy and higher energy.

    As the following 2010 experiment found, “they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.”

    Maxwell’s demon demonstration (knowledge of a particle’s position) turns information into energy – November 2010
    Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

    As Christopher Jarzynski, who was instrumental in formulating the ‘equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information’, stated, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

    The Maxwell demon thought experiment has now even been extended to build a refrigerator that is powered by information. The implications are immense. As the following 2016 article states, “Recently came the most startling demonstration yet: a tiny machine powered purely by information, which chilled metal through the power of its knowledge. This seemingly magical device could put us on the road to new, more efficient nanoscale machines, a better understanding of the workings of life, and a more complete picture of perhaps our most fundamental theory of the physical world.”

    New Scientist astounds: Information is physical – May 13, 2016
    Excerpt: Recently came the most startling demonstration yet: a tiny machine powered purely by information, which chilled metal through the power of its knowledge. This seemingly magical device could put us on the road to new, more efficient nanoscale machines, a better understanding of the workings of life, and a more complete picture of perhaps our most fundamental theory of the physical world.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-physical/

    In short, advances in science have shown us that, “information, entropy, and energy should (now) be treated on equal footings.”

    Information: From Maxwell’s demon to Landauer’s eraser – Lutz and Ciliberto – Oct. 25, 2015 – Physics Today
    Excerpt: The above examples of gedanken-turned-real experiments provide a firm empirical foundation for the physics of information and tangible evidence of the intimate connection between information and energy. They have been followed by additional experiments and simulations along similar lines.12 (See, for example, Physics Today, August 2014, page 60.) Collectively, that body of experimental work further demonstrates the equivalence of information and thermodynamic entropies at thermal equilibrium.,,,
    (2008) Sagawa and Ueda’s (theoretical) result extends the second law to explicitly incorporate information; it shows that information, entropy, and energy should be treated on equal footings.
    http://www.johnboccio.com/rese.....mation.pdf
    J. Parrondo, J. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa. Thermodynamics of information.
    Nature Physics, 11:131-139, 2015.

    These recent experimental findings are simply devastating for reductive materialists who believe immaterial information is simply ‘emergent’ from some material basis.

    How much information is needed to explain the origin of a ’simple’ cell? Well, the information needed to be imparted into a system, by an intelligent ‘observer’, in order to bring the system far enough out of thermodynamic equilibrium in order to sustain life, is found to be immense.

    The information content of a ‘simple cell’ when working from the thermodynamic perspective is found to be on the order of 10^12 bits,

    Molecular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
    Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/18hO1bteXTPOqQtd2H12PI5wFFoTjwg8uBAU5N0nEQIE/edit

    ,,, Of note: 10^12 bits is equivalent to 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

    And while we are on the subject, how much information is required to build a human? Well, “the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.”

    In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017
    Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,:
    [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, to show that it is God who is imparting this massive amount of immaterial information into the first life, as well as imparting it into each individual human, (in order to ‘locally’ circumvent the second law with immaterial information), I can appeal to advances in quantum biology.

    Specifically, Quantum Entanglement/Coherence, and/or Quantum Criticality, is found to be ubiquitous within life. It is found within every important biomolecule of life.

    As the following 2015 article entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules”, stated, “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    And as this follow up article in 2018 stated, “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”

    Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018
    Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,,
    Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,,
    WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....l-proteins
    Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015);
    Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)

    As well, DNA itself does not belong to the world of classical mechanics but instead belongs to the world of quantum mechanics. In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why the high temperatures of biological systems do not prevent DNA from having quantum entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    The interesting thing about quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is that it is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence.

    As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Darwinian materialists simply have no beyond space and time cause to appeal to. Whereas I, as a Christian Theist, do readily have a beyond space and time cause that I can appeal to.

    As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    Moreover, quantum information, like energy, is conserved. As the following article states, “In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.”

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, (i.e. beyond space and time), and ‘conserved’, (i.e. cannot be created nor destroyed), quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
    That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing)
    https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/

    Verse:

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    Supplemental note:

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

  21. 21
    martin_r says:

    JVL @17 “how would you research the origin of life on Earth? What sorts of experiments would you carry out? What particular questions would you focus on first?”

    i am glad you asked….

    Dr. James Tour answers your questions in the final 13/13 part of his OOL-lecture.

    Here you go, just click this URL, the video starts at 20:40, (you don’t need to FF)
    https://youtu.be/71GTCHkId6M?list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr&t=1242

    Let me know what you think…if does it make sense … but i doubt you will understand a single word unless you are a chemist. I have to admit, I am not a chemist, but i am pretty familiar with what Dr. Tour is talking about, because i do study …

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    GD:

    This [a case of UV injection] doesn’t violate the second law, because it’s driven by an outside source of nonequilibrium energy (the UV from the sun). The second law still applies to systems with incoming nonequilibrium energy, but it has very different implications. For instance, perpetual motion is entirely possible if there’s an external source of nonequilibrium energy. Take winds in the Earth’s atmosphere as an example of that. They may get stronger and weaker from time to time and place to place, but they don’t run down overall; the Earth’s atmosphere is perpetually in motion. Thermodynamically, this is totally normal, because the winds are powered by nonequilibrium heat from the sun.

    If you want to claim that there’s a conflict between the second law and evolution and/or abiogenesis, you need to show a conflict with the actual second law, not some misunderstood or imaginary version of it. And I’ve never seen anyone do that.

    This reinforces my longstanding point that we need to recognise the functionally Specific, highly complex, organised, information-rich entity we are speaking of, i/l/o what physical work is. That is forced, ordered motion, often used to organise entities in functional ways, which are highly aperiodic but shaped and fitted together to achieve a specific configuration-based, functional outcome. For telling example, the PC I am typing on uses various subsystems to generate text messages resting on 7-bit code, ASCII data strings.

    Where, consideration on strings is WLOG, as description languages [think, AutoCAD etc] exist that allow suitable entities — machines or sociotechnical systems etc — to synthesise 3-d functional entities on the information. That is, information can be implicit in functionally specific complex organisation [FSCO] hence, my extension, FSCO/I.

    This allows us to spot a pattern that, though commonly present, is suppressed by a dominant paradigm that is too often domineering. You speak of convection loops, which at planetary scale gives rise to wind systems, with reasonably high consistency. That’s a clue on lawlike necessity at work.

    A far more relevant example is jet engines.

    Yes, mass and energy flow through can enable a sustained [but not perpetual] process.

    The turbo-jet and its now more common sister, the turbofan, show our pattern, inlet > compressor and/or fan > combustion zone where fuel is injected, mixed and ignited, raising temperature dramatically, then > the exhaust involving a turbine that drives the compressor, and perhaps > an after-burner that in effect adds a ramjet phase, boosting thrust.

    All of which depends on highly precise organised structures and support systems such as the fuel supply. Onward, there is a sociotechnological architecture that brings the fuel to the engine, tied to the energy source – refining – transformation — transmission/transport — energy using technological systems — desired work and energy based services framework.

    And of course, the SR71 reminds us that an engine already moving fast enough can simply feed in and ignite fuel, with an unlimited upper end, save as constrained by highly sophisticated materials. (Recall, the CIA stunts to source the required Ti from the intended target, the USSR.)

    This pattern is in plain sight all across the world of technology, and thermodynamics is a closely integrated aspect of design.

    The world of electric motors (and generators) is similar, with the same basic rotor-stator architecture. Indeed, gas turbine plants bring the two together. Which also brings to bear, steam turbines and even wind or water turbines etc.

    Now, compare two molecular rotor-based cellular machines: the turreted enzyme that makes ATP (an energy carrier for cellular life processes analogous to fuel or batteries or capacitors for the living cell) and the bacterial flagellum. These are using highly specific materials based on smart polymers assembled in a cellular NC machine, the Ribosome, and are rotor-stator machines.

    There is a lot of FSCO/I involved, and frankly it is NOT fallacious pseudoscience but simple fact to note that FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits has just one actually observed — not inferred on some imagined deep past of origin of life etc — causal source, intelligently directed configuration. Similarly, and highly relevantly, coded — linguistic! — information beyond the relevant threshold has precisely the same sole observed causal source, design.

    The reason for that is manifest.

    Information leading to search-challenge.

    One bit has two possible states, often 1/0 or T/F or Hi/Lo or N/S etc. Two bits have four states as b1 is 1/0 for EACH of b2’s 1/0 pairs tied to b1: 00/01/10/11. It is not a coincidence that cells use a 4-state string structure, AGCT/U. As in D/RNA. For n bits, there are 2^n states forming a configuration space 000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1 inclusive. for n+1 bits, there therefore are 2 x 2^n states, i.e. every additional bit doubles the configuration space. Yes, this is simple stuff but sometimes we need to see that A is itself, A i/l/o its core characteristics. At 500 bits the c-space is 3.27*10^150 states and for 1,000 it is 1.07*10^301.

    That means that blind search on chance and/or mechanical necessity on the scope of sol system, 10^57 atoms, or the observed cosmos, 10^80 atoms, with chem interactions typically 10^-12 to 10^-15s, will be deeply search challenged to find deeply isolated islands of configuration based function. Where that isolation comes from precisely the deep constraints of specific configuration. There is wiggle room but not enough to form the imagined, implicit well behaved continent of function for OOL and origin of body plans. We can see this by starting with the deep isolation of fold domains in AA sequence space, much less that of wider organic chemistry.

    There is a reason why cellular metabolism uses key process units such as ribosomes driven by mRNA tapes and effected through tRNA AA carriers with the CCA universal joint tool tips and a bevy of loading enzymes. And of course, enzymes, thousands of them. FSCO/I is deeply embedded in the system.

    I need not more than note something BA77 pointed to, UV is notoriously actinic radiation, something that is damaging to cell processes. This illustrates how opening up a system to uncontrolled energy and/or material dumps is so often ruinous. Foreign object damage is a jet engine killer, for just one illustration. In short, we must be sensitive to systems architecture.

    That is, yes, some simple systems can occur spontaneously, but others that are FSCO/I rich are going to require an information and work generating engineering source. Where, incrementally filtered lucky noise — thanks to search challenge — is simply not a credible source.

    No, the system is open, does not adequately explain FSCO/I based function.

    Ask a certain Mr Whittle or a certain Mr Tesla.

    KF

    PS: Nigh on 50 years ago, Orgel — it is high time due note was taken:

    living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . .

    [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:]

    These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.

    [–> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken “wiring diagram” for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here,

    here and

    here

    — (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]

    One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [–> so if the q’s to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions.  [–> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [–> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 – 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]

  23. 23
    JVL says:

    Martin_r:

    So, given what Dr Tour says . . . What sorts of experiments would you carry out? What particular questions would you focus on first? I’d just like to hear your research agenda. As Dr Tour admits, he can’t say science will never figure these things out so what would you tackle first?

  24. 24
    martin_r says:

    JVL,

    first of all, and by now you should know me, i would not carry out any experiments on OOL. Further research on OOL is monkey business. Not to mention, it is only time/money wasting.

    When you follow molecular biology, cell biology and i don’t know what else, it is clear that life was designed. The only mystery is why Darwinism is still accepted …

    To be honest, i don’t understand, what these OOL-Darwinists expect to find out? Do they expect, that they will pour in and mixing some chemicals and suddenly these chemicals start working together for a purpose??? Thousands/millions of molecules suddenly start co-operating ???
    I really don’t understand what these Darwinian scientists expect to prove … even a ‘stupid’ cell division in extremely complex process, let me quote a mainstream source:

    “Perhaps the most amazing thing about mitosis is its precision, a feature that has intrigued biologists since Walther Flemming first described chromosomes in the late 1800s (Paweletz, 2001). Although Flemming was able to correctly deduce the sequence of events in mitosis, this sequence could not be experimentally verified for several decades, until advances in light microscopy made it possible to observe chromosome movements in living cells. Researchers now know that mitosis is a highly regulated process involving hundreds of different cellular proteins. The dynamic nature of mitosis is best appreciated when this process is viewed in living cells.”

    So i am not sure what do you want from me … i can’t imagine what kind of experiment could create a system where thousands of parts work together for a purpose… i just can’t.

    But, if you insist, i think that Dr. Tour summarized pretty well where to start when you want to waste other people money and continue with OOL research. What Dr. Tour suggests at least makes sense, first you have to solve the fundamental OOL-research problems… Now it is clear why OOL-researchers use purchased out-of-freezers chemicals extracted from living organisms. If not, they won’t be even able to start doing any experiments on OOL

    And even when they use purchased chemicals extracted from living organisms, it won’t help that much, obviously, because after decades of research they have got nothing. Because they trying to develop a smartphone by heating / cooling / mixing some chemicals… this can’t be done… never… life was created… 100%…no doubts…. that is the reason why after 150 years of Darwinism there are no results in OOL-research.

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    JVl, the relevant experiments are those of genetic engineering, which now proceed apace through Venter et al. Yes, intelligent design of life forms is already a fact, albeit at relatively simple and crude level. Of course, molecular nanotech work such as by Tour et al — he is the molecular car guy — are also relevant, and point to the emerging world of nanotech. (NB: Potentially highly dangerous but also a gateway to a different future.) Those who wish to fund and pursue OOL experiments can do so [preferably on their own dime] but on nearly 100 years of work since Oparin, there is no reason to be confident that a realistic exercise of that type will succeed. KF

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: There is reason to believe that life from Earth would seed to planets and moons out to the gas giants.

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL at post 23 asks Martin_r:,

    So, given what Dr Tour says . . . What sorts of experiments would you carry out? What particular questions would you focus on first? I’d just like to hear your research agenda. As Dr Tour admits, he can’t say science will never figure these things out so what would you tackle first?

    Not to presume to speak for Martin_r, or for Dr. Tour, but ‘science’, (operating under naturalistic presuppositions), also can’t rule out the possibility that any one of us could, this instant, spontaneously combust.

    Thermodynamics, by itself, simply does not rule that remote possibility out.

    “Any one of us could this instant spontaneously combust if all the most rapidly moving air molecules in our vicinity suddenly converged on us. Such an event, however, is highly improbable, and we don’t give it a second thought.”
    [Dembski, 98]

    And that is the context in which Dr. Tour was saying that he could not, using science alone, prove with 100% certainty that a naturalistic origin of life (OOL) will never be found.

    Dr. Tour, from presently known science, knows that a naturalistic OOL is extremely improbable, but science, all by its lonesome, simply never rules anything out with 100% probability.

    For instance, working from thermodynamic considerations, it is known that the probability against the naturalistic origin of a ‘simple’ bacterium is “ONLY” one chance in 10^100,000,000,000.

    DID LIFE START BY CHANCE?
    Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Harold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias)
    http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html
    Of note: Harold Joseph Morowitz was an American biophysicist who studied the application of thermodynamics to living systems. Author of numerous books and articles, his work includes technical monographs as well as essays. The origin of life was his primary research interest for more than fifty years.

    So yes, science can’t rule out that a naturalistic OOL will someday be found with 100% certainty, but science can say that it is so extremely improbable, i.e. 1 chance in 10^100,000,000,000, that it is a very, very, unlikely that a naturalistic OOL will ever be found.

    Speaking of probabilities, nor can ‘science’, operating under naturalistic presuppositions, rule out the possibility that you are merely a Boltzmann Brain with false memories.

    In fact, due to thermodynamic considerations, (and given the veritable infinity of other possible universes that atheists have postulated to try to get around the beginning, and fine-tuning, of this universe), ‘science’, operating under naturalistic presuppositions, actually predicts it is far more likely that you are a Boltzmann Brain with false memories rather than being a ‘real’ person with a real past,

    Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs? – 2008
    It could be the weirdest and most embarrassing prediction in the history of cosmology, if not science.
    If true, it would mean that you yourself reading this article are more likely to be some momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space than a person with a real past born through billions of years of evolution in an orderly star-spangled cosmos. Your memories and the world you think you see around you are illusions.,,,
    If you are inclined to skepticism this debate might seem like further evidence that cosmologists, who gave us dark matter, dark energy and speak with apparent aplomb about gazillions of parallel universes, have finally lost their minds. But the cosmologists say the brain problem serves as a valuable reality check as they contemplate the far, far future and zillions of bubble universes popping off from one another in an ever-increasing rush through eternity. What, for example is a “typical” observer in such a setup? If some atoms in another universe stick together briefly to look, talk and think exactly like you, is it really you?
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html

    GORDON: Hawking irrational arguments – Washington Times – 2010
    Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale.
    For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    The point being is that if Atheistic Naturalism and/or Atheistic Materialism is held to be true as the starting philosophical presupposition in science, (as it is held to be true in most Universities today), then we have no philosophical basis for believing the universe to be rational, nor our cognitive faculties to be reliable.

    Is Sean Carroll a Boltzmann Brain? – Michael Egnor – July 31, 2017
    Excerpt: Carroll can’t appeal to laws of physics to adjudicate a debate on whether we are capable of knowing the laws of physics. The Boltzmann brain argument dovetails in some respects with Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism. Materialism fatally undercuts the reliability of our perceptions and concepts if we are indeed merely material evolved beings.
    If you are an isolated Boltzmann brain floating in chaotic soup, you have no way of really knowing that you are (or are not) a Boltzmann brain. Quantum mechanics won’t get you out of the jam, because if you are a Boltzmann brain, you are deluded about nature and you have no reason to trust your conception of quantum mechanics. Materialistic explanations for man are always, in the final analysis, self-refuting.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/is-sean-carroll-a-boltzmann-brain/

    Apparently, we are forced to use something that escapes science, (namely common sense), to say, “Hey, I don’t care what your scientific theory says, I know for a 100% fact that I ain’t no friggin’ brain is a vat being fed false memories’!”

    Science, all by its lonesome, and operating under naturalistic presuppositions, simply can’t rule the possibility out that you are a brain in a vat being fed false memories. In fact, and to repeat, operating under naturalistic presuppositions, science actually predicts that it is vastly more likely that you are brain in a vat being fed false memories rather than you being a ‘real’ person with real memories.

    In fact, under the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution, this irresolvable ‘epistemological’ problem gets exponentially worse for the Atheistic Naturalists.

    Because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    We simply take it on faith that the universe is not absurd and that we have reliable cognitive faculties that can understand the universe around us.

    In fact, the belief that we live in a rational universe, since it was created by the Mind of God, and the belief that we have reliable cognitive faculties that can understand the universe, since we were made in the ‘image of God, were 2 of the 3 necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science.

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour

    Via Stephen Meyer’s book, here are the three necessary presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.

    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”

    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler

    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.”
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

    Science simply can’t prove with 100% certainty that those Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science are 100% true. We simply take it on faith that those presuppositions are true. (And indeed, holding those Christian presuppositions to be true, has been very, very, fruitful for man).

    And Paul Davies commented in his Templeton address, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

    Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995
    Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

    All of this puts the committed atheist in quite an embarrassing situation.

    In order to even have a rational basis from which to argue against God in the first place, the atheist is forced to believe that he lives in a rational universe, but in order to believe he lives in a rational universe, the atheist is forced to believe in God.

    As Cornelius van Til put the dilemma facing atheists, “A little child may slap his father in the face, but it can do so only because the father holds it on his knee.”

    “The ultimate source of truth in any field rests in him. The world may discover much truth without owning Christ as Truth. Christ upholds even those who ignore, deny, and oppose him. A little child may slap his father in the face, but it can do so only because the father holds it on his knee. So modern science, modern philosophy, and modern theology may discover much truth. Nevertheless, if the universe were not created and redeemed by Christ no man could give himself an intelligible account of anything. It follows that in order to perform their task aright the scientist and the philosopher as well as the theologian need Christ.”
    – Cornelius Van Til, The Case for Calvinism p.147-148

    Verse and quote:

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

    ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic

  28. 28
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: So i am not sure what do you want from me … i can’t imagine what kind of experiment could create a system where thousands of parts work together for a purpose… i just can’t.

    I don’t ‘want’ anything from you; I just wondered if you thought any piece of the origin of life research was worth pursuing. Which you’ve answered.

  29. 29
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Those who wish to fund and pursue OOL experiments can do so [preferably on their own dime] but on nearly 100 years of work since Oparin, there is no reason to be confident that a realistic exercise of that type will succeed.

    Perhaps.

    Do you feel the same way about pursuing a unified field theory in physics? They’ve been at that for a while . . .

  30. 30
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: we have no philosophical basis for believing the universe to be rational,

    Isn’t it possible to check out the universe’s rationality without assuming how it came about?

    nor our cognitive faculties to be reliable.

    I don’t think they are 100% reliable, it’s very easy for us to fool ourselves. That’s why I don’t change my mind about a well-established scientific ‘truth’ until the dissenting evidence has been checked, rechecked, repeated and repeated again at least. Especially these days with the pressure to publish.

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL: “Isn’t it possible to check out the universe’s rationality without assuming how it came about?”

    Well, interestingly, in so far as the fundamental constants of the universe don’t change, the universe remains rational for us.

    Atheistic Naturalists simply have no clue why the universal constants should remain constant.

    Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber – 2006
    Excerpt: “There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,” says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. “These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.”,,,
    The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge (if they hold up): The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.”,,,
    The speed of light, for instance, might be measured one day with a ruler and a clock. If the next day the same measurement gave a different answer, no one could tell if the speed of light changed, the ruler length changed, or the clock ticking changed.?
    http://www.space.com/2613-scie.....-laws.html

    Whereas Christian Theists, on the other hand, ‘predict’ that there never will be found to be any variance in the laws of nature since they come from God, (Who is unchanging).

    C. S. Lewis, in his clear no nonsense style, put it like this

    “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it.”
    Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

    James 1:17
    Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

    JVL, in regards to your comment on our cognitive faculties, it is not that Atheistic Materialism predicts our cognitive faculties are somewhat reliable. Shoot even Christian Theism does that, (i.e. finite, fallible, humans). It is that Atheistic Materialism, in the end, ends up predicting that ALL our cognitive faculties are totally unreliable. (see Donald Hoffman in the following link)
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728598

    Your worldview, is so far as you are clinging to atheism, is not for me since it simply can provide no coherent and rational basis for our ability to practice science in the first place.,,, (Not to mention the nihilism that is inherent within atheism)

  32. 32
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Atheistic Naturalists simply have no clue why the universal constants should remain constant.

    We don’t even know if they CAN change. This whole notion that the universe’s physical constants can be altered is just baseless speculation.

    Whereas Christian Theists, on the other hand, ‘predict’ that there never will be found to be any variance in the laws of nature since they come from God, (Who is unchanging).

    Um . . . is that correct? I mean the God of The Bible seems to have changed their tune quite a bit over the centuries. Maybe it’s just me but I find it hard to reconcile the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill with the Israelites slaughtering the men, woman and children of Jericho. And what was that bit about collecting the foreskins of Philistines? That is just really weird. And didn’t God themself kill most of the human population on the Earth (Noah), in Sodam and Gemorrah (apologies for bad spelling) whereas Jesus said we should love our neighbour as ourselves?

    It is that Atheistic Materialism, in the end, ends up predicting that ALL our cognitive faculties are totally unreliable.

    I’m going to disagree on that point.

    Your worldview, is so far as you are clinging to atheism, is not for me since it simply can provide no coherent and rational basis for our ability to practice science in the first place.,,, (Not to mention the nihilism that is inherent within atheism)

    I really don’t see how the ability to notice and remember and study patterns observed has anything to do with theism but I know you think it does. Even a dog notices and remembers patterns!! And even though ‘dog’ is ‘god’ backwards I don’t think dogs are theists.

    If you observe a pattern, that one things seems to generally follow another thing, then I think you’ve got the beginning of being able to think scientifically. I don’t see what the God Hypothesis adds to that. But that’s just me.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:
    “I don’t see what the God Hypothesis adds to that. But that’s just me.”

    Well, I guess you are right, the elephant in the living room does sort of blend in with the wallpaper.
    https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/elephantinthelivingroomfixed_2517.jpg
    I guess it would be easy for someone to miss it.
    🙂

    As to:

    “And even though ‘dog’ is ‘god’ backwards I don’t think dogs are theists.”

    And you think that is actually a rational argument against my position? 🙂

    I think you just should have said “I’ve got nothing”, and saved yourself some embarrassment.

  34. 34
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: And you think that is actually a rational argument against my position? ?

    No, I was making a joke.

    I think you just should have said “I’ve got nothing”, and saved yourself some embarrassment.

    I don’t think I’ve got nothing. But I also realise you have heard everything I have to say many times over. So, is there a point in spelling it all out again?

    Here’s a question: why do you keep responding?

  35. 35
    Gordon Davisson says:

    Hi, BA77. Thanks for your responses. I won’t have time to respond to everything you’ve written (I tend to write slowly, and like to mull my responses for a while first) but I need to discuss my argument against what Dr. Brian Miller said.

    I need to start with a mea culpa: my ozone counterexample doesn’t really work. While ozone production from O2 would be an entropy decrease at some pressures (and temperatures), under the conditions in the actual ozone layer the low partial pressure of ozone boosts its entropy above that of the O2 it forms from, so the reaction actually winds up producing an entropy increase.

    Before I go back and try to salvage my point (and dignity), let me summarize the math that led me to this conclusion. Someone posted the relevant section of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics here, so I’ll use the figures from that. It gives the molar entropy of O2 gas as 205.2 J/K and that of O3 as 238.9 J/K. The entropy of O3 is higher per mole (and hence per molecule), but the reaction 3 O2 => 2 O3 turns three molecules of O2 into two of O3, and the entropy of O3 is less than 1.5x that of O2, the reaction corresponds to a decrease in entropy.

    But those are their entropies at standard temperature (298.15 K = 25° C = 77° F) and pressure (100 kPa = about sea-level atmospheric pressure), and the conditions in the ozone layer are different. For one thing, the temperature is only around 220 K, so that’s going to decrease the entropy of everything involved. For ideal gasses (which I’m pretty sure is a good enough approximation here), the entropy decrease is C_p * ln(T_high/ T_low), where C_p is the heat capacity of the gas at constant pressure. The CRC tables gives that as 29.4 J/mol K for O2, so the molar entropy of O2 is decreased by 8.8 J/K. C_p for O3 is 39.2 J/mol K, so its molar entropy is decreased by 12 J/K. This doesn’t make much difference.

    Pressure is what does make a difference, especially since it’s the partial pressure of each of the gasses that matters. Decreasing pressure increases the entropy of an ideal gas by R * ln(P_high / P_low), where R is the ideal gas constant, 8.3 J/mol K. The total pressure in the ozone layer depends on the exact altitude you look at (it’s significantly lower at the top than the bottom), but about 7.5 kPa seems reasonable. O2 makes up about 20% of that, so its partial pressure will be around 1.5 kPa. Plugging that into the ideal gas formula gives an increase in the molar entropy of O2 of 34 J/K. Add that to its standard molar entropy, and subtract the decrease due to temperature, and you get about 230 J/K for O2.

    The partial pressure of O3 is much much lower; if I’m reading the graphs right, it peaks around 16 mPa. Plugging that in gives an entropy increase of about 130 J/K (!). Adding that and the standard entropy and subtracting the temperature correction gives a total molar entropy of 360 J/K for O3. That is more than 1.5x the entropy of O2, so the reaction gives a net entropy increase.

    I therefore withdraw the example.

    But I still maintain that Dr. Miller is wrong, and there are plenty of other counterexamples available. But before I give another (better) one, let me explain the problem with his reasoning. He said:

    More specifically, the process of freezing releases heat that increases the entropy of the surrounding environment by an amount greater than the entropy decrease of the water molecule forming the rigid structure.

    Likewise, soap molecules coalescing into micelles represents a net increase of entropy since the surrounding water molecules significantly increase in their number of degrees of freedom.

    No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.

    The first two paragraphs here are correct; he’s describing examples where there’s a heat flow from the system to its surroundings. Heat flows have an associated entropy flux, so essentially when there’s heat flowing from the system to its surroundings, there’s also entropy flowing in the same direction. This entropy flux increases the entropy of the surroundings, and also allows an entropy decrease in the system. Note that it doesn’t guarantee an entropy decrease in the system, because entropy can also be produced by thermodynamically irreversible processes inside the system; if entropy is produced inside the system faster than it leaves the system, the system’s entropy will increase anyway (which is basically what happened in the ozone example). And if there’s also entropy entering the system, you of course also need to take that into account.

    Now, that heat flow out of the system is going to decrease the energy of the system, as in the examples he gave. But he hasn’t allowed for the possibility that there might be some other, non-thermal, energy entering the system. If there is more energy entering than heat leaving, and the energy entering doesn’t have an associated entropy flux (what’s known as “work” in thermodynamics), or even just has a lower entropy flux (like heat at a high enough temperature), then the system’s energy will increase while still allowing that entropy decrease.

    So, any system with high-entropy energy (e.g. low-temperature heat) leaving, and a larger amount of low- or no-entropy energy entering (work or heat at high temperature), and there isn’t enough entropy produced inside the system to make up the difference, you’ll get something that contradicts Miller’s claim. That’s a kind of specific combination of factors, but it’s actually not all that uncommon. And note that there’s nothing that even slightly violates the second law of thermodynamics here, just ordinary heat and energy transfers.

    So, let me take another stab at an example to illustrate this. How about compressing a semi-insulated gas? To understand this example, let me first explain the cases of compressing completely insulated and completely un-insulated gases.

    The completely insulated situation is what’s known as adiabatic compression. This is one of the processes that gets covered in any intro to thermodynamics. It’s one of the phases of the Carnot cycle, so if you’ve studied any thermo at all you should’ve seen it. Since it’s completely insulated, there’s no entropy flux in or out of the gas. If it happens reasonably slowly, there’ll be no (or very little) entropy produced by it (i.e. it’ll be thermodynamically reversible). That means the entropy of the gas will remain constant during the process (or maybe go up a tiiiiny bit if it’s not quite reversible). But the energy of the gas does increase — the compression does work on the gas, and that energy remains in the gas (and raises its temperature). Note that this isn’t a counterexample to Miller’s claim, since there’s an energy increase but no entropy decrease.

    Now consider the completely un-insulated situation, specifically compressing a gas that’s in good thermal contact with a very large heat reservoir. This one’s known as isothermal compression, and again it’s something you’ll run into in basic thermo classes (and it’s another phase of the Carnot cycle). Here, rather than getting warmer, the gas dumps heat to its surroundings (the heat reservoir). This heat flow decreases the entropy of the gas but increases that of the reservoir. This is very similar to the examples Miller described in the first two paragraphs I quoted, with one exception: the energy of the gas stays at least roughly constant. If this were an ideal gas, it’d be exactly constant (since the energy of an a given amount of an ideal gas depends only on its temperature). What’s happening is that the energy added to the gas by the work of compressing it is balanced by the energy it loses as heat. Again, not a counterexample, since there’s an entropy decrease but no energy increase.

    But now consider the case where only some of the energy added by compression work escapes as heat. The energy that doesn’t escape increases the energy of the gas. The energy that does escape as heat decreases the entropy of the gas (and increases that of its surroundings). This can happen if the gas is partially insulated, or if its surroundings don’t have infinite heat capacity (and therefore heat up along with the gas), or if there’s some isothermal compression followed (or preceded) by some adiabatic compression (which is exactly what happens in the compression phases of the Carnot cycle).

    Again, this doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics at all. Trust me, if the compression phases of the Carnot cycle violated the second law, someone would have noticed by now. If you think this does violate the second law, then you need fix your understanding of the second law.

    Ok, that’s enough writing for a bit. I’ll try to get back to you more about the connection between thermodynamics and information, but in the meantime I recommend reading this essay that I wrote back in 2000 on the subject. Really short summary: I agree that entropy is closely related to information, but I disagree that this means it has something to do with intelligence (it’s more-or-less what Dembski would call complex information, but not complex specified information), and it’s completely physical (it’s literally the information in the physical state of a system). (Quantum mechanics is a whole other can of worms; suffice to say it’s fundamentally weird, but I don’t see any reason to think it’s weird in the way that you propose.)

    Oh, and as far as I can see, the Maxwell’s Demon experiments you cited look pretty much like what I described as theoretical possibilities back in 2000. I said:

    1) The Shannon-entropy of a physical system can increase freely, but can only decrease if there’s a compensating thermo-entropy increase involved. But the required thermo-entropy increase — 9.57e-24 J/K per bit, or 8.42e-11 J/K per terabyte — is so miniscule that it’d be difficult to even detect it.

    2) Thermo-entropy in non-information forms can decrease, at the cost of an increase of Shannon-entropy. But by the time you’ve filled up your terabyte store, you only have a 8.42e-11 J/K thermo-entropy decrease to show for it. It hardly seems worth the bother.

    …they’re basically demonstrating variants of what I described in point 2 (which is seriously cool, but still really just confirm what I already knew). These also don’t violate the second law, because they’re just converting entropy between different forms, not actually destroying it.

  36. 36
    Gordon Davisson says:

    P.s. I think I’d better clarify an important point, before I’m misunderstood: my example of compressing a semi-insulated gas is not in any way shape or form intended to be an analogy for how life might’ve started. It’s intended as a counterexample to Dr. Miller’s claim about energy and entropy changes, and that is all.

    The only similarity I can see is that it’s taking in low-entropy energy, and emitting high-entropy energy; any plausible abiogenesis process will almost certainly also involve a low-to-high-entropy energy flow, but it’d be a very different form of energy (probably chemical and/or high-temp heat energy), and that energy would power completely different processes. And maybe most importantly, my compressed-gas example stays as close as possible to thermodynamic equilibrium; life is a far-from-equilibrium phenomenon, so any process that produces it must necessarily involve driving something far away from equilibrium.

    So, it’s just a counterexample, not an analogy. Don’t read any more into it.

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    Gordon Davisson, thank you very much for honestly admitting your mistake with your ozone example. It is (very) refreshing to see someone who believes in Atheistic Naturalism to honestly admit when they have made a mistake. And to then move on and try to make their case from another angle.

    It is very rare, at least on UD, for Atheistic Naturalists to ever honestly admit they have made a mistake.

    In fact, I’ve seen Atheistic Naturalists here on UD, such as Seversky, continually repeat their same scientific mistakes over and over again for years, even though they have been corrected on their misunderstanding of the science behind their mistake(s) many times.

    And not only on UD, but this lack of honesty and humility on the part of Darwinists is a huge problem with the supposed ‘science’ of Darwinian evolution in general.

    Jonathan Wells has written two books, (‘Icons of Evolution’ and ‘Zombie Science’), on the fact that, even though the science is known to be wrong behind their examples, Darwinists continually republish, year after year, scientifically false examples of evolution in Textbooks to illegitimately promote Darwinian evolution.

    ‘Icons Of Evolution’ – Tenth Anniversary – video clip playlist:
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS2RPQAPifs6t__mIAqITpYy

    Jonathan Wells Presents Zombie Science at National Book Launch – video – 2017
    https://youtu.be/I2UHLPVHjug?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1rO4HiEiRBLalzTx-TaKYC

    Personally myself, when I make a scientific mistake, and when that mistake is pointed out to me, I, like you, like to honestly admit my mistake as soon as possible and to then move on and try to, if I can, make my case from another angle. Or, If I can’t make my case from another angle, to then honestly admit that I was completely wrong in my presupposition about the science.

    I am far more interested in discovering the truth about reality than I am in maintaining some sort of false pride in myself to be infallible in my scientific beliefs.

    Science itself, shoot even ordinary everyday honest discussions themselves, are very much dependent on such honesty and humility. Science simply could not proceed, nor could honest discussions even happen, if one side of the discussion simply lacked the humility and honestly necessary to tell the truth even when it is inconvenient to do so.

    Not to say that Christians have been shining examples of honesty and humility (far from it, even though confessing our sins, i.e. our mistakes, to God and to one another is suppose to be a very big, even central, part of being a Christian), but I have been literally shocked many times over by the complete lack of honesty and humility on the Darwinian side in regards to being honest with the science at hand.

    So thanks again for your honesty and humility. It is very refreshing to see!

    Cargo Cult Science – Richard Feynman
    Excerpt: “But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
    I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”
    https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

    Verse:

    Matthew 18:21-22
    Then Peter approaching asked him, “Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus answered, “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    Gordon Davisson, as to your new example of “compressing a semi-insulated gas” being a refutation of Dr. Miller’s claim that, “No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell”, again I suggest that you contact Dr. Miller, via the Discovery Institute, to see if your new example really does refute his claim.

    As for my part, I simply lack the technical expertise, especially in mathematics, in order to defend Dr. Miller’s claim in any great detail. Dr. Miller, from what I can tell, is a man of integrity, and will honestly admit if your new example refutes his claim, or show you, in detail, why you are wrong in believing that it refutes his claim.

    Please let me know how your conversation turns out. (If the conversation happens, it would be very interesting to see what he says about your example).

    But, even though I can’t comment on your new example, I can comment on two other claims that you made in your post

    You claimed,

    I agree that entropy is closely related to information, but I disagree that this means it has something to do with intelligence (it’s more-or-less what Dembski would call complex information, but not complex specified information), and it’s completely physical (it’s literally the information in the physical state of a system). (Quantum mechanics is a whole other can of worms; suffice to say it’s fundamentally weird, but I don’t see any reason to think it’s weird in the way that you propose.)
    – Gordon Davisson

    In regards to your claim that “it’s (information is) completely physical”.

    In refuting your claim that information is completely physical, first it is important to point out that there is a profound difference in what you mean, and what I mean, when we say that ‘information is physical’.

    When you say that information is physical, you are saying that information is physical in the same sense that Rolf Landauer claimed that ‘information is physical’

    “Information is Physical” – 1991
    Rolf Landauer (February 4, 1927 – April 28, 1999)
    http://physicstoday.scitation......3/1.881299

    When I first heard that Landauer said ‘Information is Physical’, I first thought that Landauer was directly implying that information is physically real and therefore independent of matter and energy. Yet on closer examination I found out that my first impression of what Landauer meant by his statement ‘Information is Physical’ was wrong. Landauer was actually implying that information is physical simply because it is inevitably inscribed on a physical medium. i.e. Landauer believed that information did not have an independent existence apart from its representation on a physical medium.

    In fact Landauer said that Roger Penrose’s contention that information has an existence independent of matter and energy was a quote unquote ‘quaint notion’.

    Information is a Physical Entity – Rolf Landauer
    Excerpt: Information is inevitably inscribed in a physical medium. It is not an abstract entity. It can be denoted by a hole in a punched card, by the orientation of a nuclear spin, or by the pulses transmitted by a neuron. The quaint notion that information has an existence independent of its physical manifestation is still seriously advocated [6],,,
    [6] R. Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989.
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v.....8;type=pdf

    Yet, when I say that ‘information is physical’ I, like Rodger Penrose and Norbert Weiner (and many others), specifically mean that information has a physically real existence that is separate from matter and energy.

    The simplest way to prove that ‘information is physical’ in the sense that I am claiming that ‘information is physical’ is with quantum teleportation.

    As the following article states. “scientists have successfully teleported information between two separate atoms in unconnected enclosures a meter apart,,, information,,, is transferred from one place to another, but without traveling through any physical medium.”

    First Teleportation Between Distant Atoms – 2009
    Excerpt: For the first time, scientists have successfully teleported information between two separate atoms in unconnected enclosures a meter apart – a significant milestone in the global quest for practical quantum information processing.
    Teleportation may be nature’s most mysterious form of transport: Quantum information, such as the spin of a particle or the polarization of a photon, is transferred from one place to another, but without traveling through any physical medium. It has previously been achieved between photons over very large distances, between photons and ensembles of atoms, and between two nearby atoms through the intermediary action of a third. None of those, however, provides a feasible means of holding and managing quantum information over long distances.
    Now a team from the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) at the University of Maryland (UMD) and the University of Michigan has succeeded in teleporting a quantum state directly from one atom to another over a substantial distance
    https://jqi.umd.edu/news/first-teleportation-between-distant-atoms

    And as the following article states, “the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,,”

    Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016
    Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world.
    Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,,
    This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,,
    ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another.
    https://www.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/19/quantum-teleportation-enters-real-world/#.V-HqWNEoDtR

    Gordon, as should be obvious, the experiments that have teleported information without traveling through any physical medium would simply be impossible if information were ‘merely’ physical in the sense that you and Landauer have implied.

    As the citation I cited previously stated, “the reason it (information) is physical has a broader context than that.”

    Scientists show how to erase information without using energy – January 2011
    Excerpt: Until now, scientists have thought that the process of erasing information requires energy. But a new study shows that, theoretically, information can be erased without using any energy at all.,,, “Landauer said that information is physical because it takes energy to erase it. We are saying that the reason it (information) is physical has a broader context than that.”, Vaccaro explained.
    – per physorg

    In short, the empirical demonstration, via quantum teleportation, that information has a physical existence that is separate from matter and energy is a direct empirical falsification of your, and Landauer’s, contention that information does not exist apart from its representation on a physical medium.

    Gordon, I’ll try to pick up your other claim later on today and address it, but suffice it now for me to hold that you, and Landauer, are empirically shown to be wrong in your core belief that information does not have an existence apart from its representation on a physical medium.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, there is no unified field theory research programme as such today. there is stuff that studies high energy physics and that studies — mostly theoretically — strings and onward ideas. None of these is basically asking us to try to find the statistical equivalent of perpetual motion in violation of 2 LOT. Big difference, hunting fluctuations like that. KF

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    GD, strawman, again. The issue remains as Orgel put it in the early 70’s, account for complex functional organisation and associated information, some of which is algorithmic code. We can compress systems and get phase changes, we can cool systems and get phase changes with higher structure, we can export heat to something at lower temperature and see half of the expression on entropy – d’Q/Thot –> + d’Q/Tcols, so add up and net ds is positive but obviously one half of the system has ds negative, etc etc. None of that answers to spontaneous — theromodynamically driven — origin of complex functional organisation. KF

    PS: Again, Orgel:

    living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . .

    [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:]

    These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.

    [–> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken “wiring diagram” for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here,

    here and

    here

    — (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]

    One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [–> so if the q’s to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions.  [–> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [–> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 – 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]

    Fifty years later . . .

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    Gordon Davisson, to repeat the claims you made that I feel I am capable of dealing with,

    “I agree that entropy is closely related to information, but I disagree that this means it has something to do with intelligence (it’s more-or-less what Dembski would call complex information, but not complex specified information), and it’s completely physical (it’s literally the information in the physical state of a system). (Quantum mechanics is a whole other can of worms; suffice to say it’s fundamentally weird, but I don’t see any reason to think it’s weird in the way that you propose.)”
    – Gordon Davisson

    Gordon, by the way you said, “it’s (Quantum Mechanics is) fundamentally weird I don’t see any reason to think it’s weird in the way that you propose”, and since you are defending the position of Atheistic Naturalism, I am assuming that you are defending the ‘weird’ realist interpretation of Quantum Mechanics’ and are shunning the ‘weird’ Instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics.

    Gordon, since ‘weird’ is very much a matter of personal subjective opinion, it is good to point out just how weird the Atheist’s realist interpretation of quantum mechanics actually is when compared to the Theist’s instrumentalist interpretation,

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 2017
    Excerpt: Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches,9 which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways. For reasons I will explain, neither approach seems to me quite satisfactory.10,,,,
    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,,,,
    In the realist approach the history of the world is endlessly splitting; it does so every time a macroscopic body becomes tied in with a choice of quantum states. This inconceivably huge variety of histories has provided material for science fiction. 12
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    Gordon, do you, in defending the Atheist’s ‘realist’ interpretation, actually believe that you live in an infinite number of parallel universes? If so, I definitely think it goes far beyond merely a ‘pot calling the kettle black’ for you to call the instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics ‘weird’ while you yourself believe you actually exist in an infinitude of different universes.

    In the instrumentalist approach humans are ‘merely’ brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level, (and OK, that is ‘weird’, I will grant that). But in the realist approach you are literally creating an infinitude of universes and an infinitude of humans ad hoc just in order to ‘explain away’ quantum wave collapse.

    Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015
    Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way.
    That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,,
    http://aeon.co/magazine/scienc.....a-fantasy/

    If you do not find that to be far weirder that humans ‘merely’ being brought into the laws of nature at their most fundamental level, might I humorously suggest that it is way past time for you to get your ‘weird’ measuring device fully recalibrated? It is seriously out of wack 🙂

    Moreover Gordon Davisson, even if you don’t own up to the full weirdness of ‘many worlds’ that is inherent in the Atheist’s ‘realist’ interpretation of quantum mechanics, (I can hardly blame anyone for trying to distance themselves from such insanity), I can still appeal to the fact that the setting independence, and/or the ‘freewill’, loophole has now been experimentally closed, and thus the instrumentalist interpretation has now been experimentally confirmed as being the true interpretation of quantum mechanics.

    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

    As Anton Zeilinger commented in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    In other words Gordon, no matter how ‘weird’ you and Steven Weinberg, (who is an atheist himself), may find the instrumentalist interpretation to be, experiments now confirm that humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at their most fundamental level.

    Sure you can appeal to ‘superdeterminism’ like Sabine Hossenfelder did, to try to get around the closing of the free will loop hole, but I point out that, if you choose to do so, you are basically saying we cannot trust what our experimental results are telling us.

    Basically, with the closing of the setting independence and/or ‘free will’ loop hole, by Zeilinger and company, the Atheistic naturalist is now reduced to arguing 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.”

    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?”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....112515.htm

    In other words, instead of believing what the experimental results of quantum mechanics are actually telling us, (i.e. that free will is a real and tangible part of reality),, the Determinist, and/or Atheistic Naturalist, is now forced to claim, via ‘superdeterminism’, that the results of the experiments were somehow ‘superdetermined’ at least 7.8 billion years ago, (basically all the way back to the creation of the universe itself), and that the experimental results are now ‘conspiring’ to fool us into believing that our experimental results in quantum theory are trustworthy and correct and that we do indeed have free will.

    As should be needless to say, if we cannot trust what our experimental results are actually telling us about reality, then science is, for all practical purposes, dead.

    Atheistic Naturalists, in their appeal to superdeterminism, and in their rejection of experimental results that conflict with their a-priori philosophical belief in determinism and/or atheistic materialism, have basically become ‘science deniers’ in the truest sense of the term ‘science denier’,,,

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    Gordon Davisson, as to this claim that you made in particular,

    “I agree that entropy is closely related to information, but I disagree that this means it has something to do with intelligence (it’s more-or-less what Dembski would call complex information, but not complex specified information), and it’s completely physical (it’s literally the information in the physical state of a system). (Quantum mechanics is a whole other can of worms; suffice to say it’s fundamentally weird, but I don’t see any reason to think it’s weird in the way that you propose.)”
    – Gordon Davisson

    Gordon Davisson, in so far as you disagree that entropy has something to do with intelligence, you are disagreeing with known science.

    To repeat what I have cited previously in this thread, and as the following article states, “when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. ”

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    And this is far more than just theoretical posturing. This claim has know been experimentally confirmed,

    As the following 2017 articles states, “James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
    ,,, a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm,,,
    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    To repeat that last statement, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    To point out the obvious, these experimental realizations of “,,, a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge,, that have now proven that “entropy is not a property of a system, but is a property of an observer who describes a system” directly contradict your claim that entropy does not have anything to do with intelligence.

    In short, you are disagreeing with empirical science.

    To further solidify the claim that entropy in not a property of a system, but is a property of an observer who describes a system, I can also appeal to the quantum Zeno effect.

    An old entry in wikipedia described the Quantum Zeno effect as such “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.”

    Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox – 2018
    Excerpt: The quantum Zeno effect is,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/196/1/012018/pdf

    Atheistic materialists have tried to get around the Quantum Zeno effect by postulating that interactions with the environment (i.e. decoherence) are sufficient to explain the Quantum Zeno effect.

    Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox – 2018
    Excerpt: The references to observations and to wavefunction collapse tend to raise unnecessary questions related to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Actually, all that is required is that some interaction with an external system disturb, (i.e. decoherence), the unitary evolution of the quantum system in a way that is effectively like a projection operator.
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/196/1/012018/pdf

    Yet decoherence is experimentally known to be wrong as an explanation in quantum mechanics by ‘interaction-free’ measurements.

    As physics professor Richard Conn Henry explains, “A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, (i.e. interaction-free measurements), the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing.”

    The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    In fact, the following interaction-free measurement of the Quantum Zeno effect verified that the presence of the Quantum Zeno effect can be detected without interacting with a single atom.

    Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015
    Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom.
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2.....S-20150415

    In short, decoherence is experimentally shown to be false as the explanation of the quantum Zeno effect, and thus the original wikipedia statement of, “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay”, stands as being a true statement.

    The reason why I am very impressed with the preceding experiments demonstrating that “entropy is a property of an observer who describes the system” is that entropy has broad explanatory power in science and in considered one of our most powerful theories in science.

    As the following article states, “Entropy explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,”,, “Even gravity,,,, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy.,,,”

    Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012
    Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,
    Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy.,,,
    The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,,
    http://crev.info/2012/10/shini.....rk-energy/

    On top of the fact that “(Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe”, entropy is also, by a very wide margin, the most finely tuned of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Finely tuned to an almost incomprehensible degree of precision, 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. As Roger Penrose, (an agnostic), himself stated that, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”

    “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
    Roger Penrose – How special was the big bang? – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

    “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”
    Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?

    In fact, entropy is also the primary reason why our own material, temporal, bodies grow old and eventually die in this universe,,,

    Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both – 2007
    Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,,
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....en.0030220

    And yet, to repeat the last sentence from the quantum information paper I cited, “we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”

    That statement is simply fascinating!

    Why in blue blazes should the finely tuned entropic actions of the universe, entropic actions which also happen to explain time itself, even care if I am consciously observing them, and/or describing them, unless ‘conscious observation’ really is more foundational to reality than the finely tuned 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe is?

    To state the obvious, this finding of entropy being “a property of an observer who describes a system.” is very friendly to a Mind First, and/or to a Theistic view of reality.

    Indeed, the Bible ‘predicted’ entropy to be foundational to the universe all along.

    As Psalm 102 states, “they, (the heavens and earth), will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed.”

    Psalm 102:25-27
    Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.

    As as Sir William Thomson himself stated, “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’…. Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’”

    “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’….
    Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’”
    Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

    Moreover Gordon, with the falsification of decoherence as a viable explanation for the Quantum Zeno effect, Atheistic Naturalists simply have no clue why an unstable particle should even care if I am observing it or not whereas Christian Theism pretty much predicted this ‘weird’ Zeno effect from human observation all along.

    For instance Romans chapter 8: verses 20 and 21 itself states, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”

    Romans 8:20-21
    For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

  43. 43
    kairosfocus says:

    GD, kindly explain to us how machine language, string data structures, executing units and algorithmic processes of significant complexity per actual empirical observation — a key criterion of doing science — can and do arise beyond 500 – 1,000 bits of complexity, through blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. We routinely empirically know just one source for the king of work of configuration implied, language using intelligence. BTW, there is a whole informational approach to entropy, which can be quantified on missing information to specify microstate, on the degree of information specified by macrostate. KF

Leave a Reply