Guest Post: Design Detection

_{Barry Arrington

December 10, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Paul Giem provides the following guest post today:

The following three pictures were made to represent trays with 560 coins with either white (heads) or black (tails) showing. At least one of them was created by shaking coins and then spreading them out on a table (actually multiple shakes of 20 or so coins) and copying the pattern of heads and tails produced. Which one or ones are they, and why? Were the ones, if any, that were not done by this process designed, and if so by whom, and using what method?

Comments

fifthmonarchyman: Are you claiming that you must have a materialistic worldview to do science Z: No. You can be a Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist and be a scientist. Your motivation can be religious or secular or simple curiosity. But scientific claims have to be independent of your worldview. Non-scientific claims are not so bound. fifthmonarchyman: or are you claiming that the only evidences that can be considered scientific are those that don’t challenge your materialistic worldview? Z: Not sure much of anything can challenge a view we don’t hold. fifthmonarchyman: or are you claiming that the only evidences that can be considered scientific are those that don’t challenge {a} materialistic worldview? The scientific method requires that hypotheses have empirical entailments that can be objectively tested. If you posit ghosts, and those ghosts have empirical entailments that can be objectively tested, then you can scientifically study ghosts. See Stantz et al., Effects of Ectoplasmic Residue, 1984. fifthmonarchyman: I believe the evidence is convincing you believe the investigations have been Scientifically fruitless. You may be convinced, and it may satisfy your spiritual needs, but ID hasn't been scientifically fruitful. fifthmonarchyman: recently you demanded mathematical proof that an algorithm could not produce something before you would consider the possibility that it’s production was unlikely by algorithmic means. That is incorrect. We suggested several methods to demonstrate your point. Mathematical proof was just one of those methods. fifthmonarchyman: I would want actual evidence that an algorithm was capable of producing something before assuming that it was produced by algorithmic means The problem with that discussion was that you kept redefining terminology to match your preconceptions. ETA: You are correct that you can't conclude whether it was capable or not without evidence or proof.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

That brings us back to the original question Are you claiming that you must have a materialistic worldview to do science or are you claiming that the only evidences that can be considered scientific are those that don’t challenge your materialistic worldview? This is a serious question. I believe the evidence is convincing you believe the investigations have been Scientifically fruitless. what exactly accounts for our starkly different perceptions in your view? For example recently you demanded mathematical proof that an algorithm could not produce something before you would consider the possibility that it's production was unlikely by algorithmic means. On the other hand I would want actual evidence that an algorithm was capable of producing something before assuming that it was produced by algorithmic means Why is your view scientific and mine not? peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: from wikipedia None of that contradicts that they shared the observation of the Sun's relative movement across the sky. The observation was not dependent on the person making the observation, and others could confirm the observation, just as they could confirm the movements of the Jovian satellites. fifthmonarchyman: Fruitless according to your worldview pretty convincing according to mine. Scientifically fruitless.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Zac said, Indeed, not. They shared the observation of the Sun’s relative movement across the sky. They disagreed as to the explanation for the observation. I say, from wikipedia quote: Bellarmine found no problem with heliocentrism so long as it was treated as a purely hypothetical calculating device and not as a physically real phenomenon, but he did not regard it as permissible to advocate the latter unless it could be conclusively proved through current scientific standards. This put Galileo in a difficult position, because he believed that the available evidence strongly favoured heliocentrism, and he wished to be able to publish his arguments. end quote: You say now, Sure you can. However, those investigations have been fruitless. I say Fruitless according to your worldview pretty convincing according to mine. By the way what would qualify as "fruit" given your worldview? peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: That was the view of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. Another view of Ballarmine was that Church doctrine trumped scientific observation.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: That was the view of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. Galileo had a problem with it however. Indeed, not. They shared the observation of the Sun's relative movement across the sky. They disagreed as to the explanation for the observation. fifthmonarchyman: It means we can investigate the claim that certain things in the universe are best explained by Intelligent Design even if you think intelligent design or the designer is an illusion in the metaphysical sense. Sure you can. However, those investigations have been fruitless.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Zac says, If you agree that you see the Sun at the horizon, then we have an objectively shared observation —even if you think it is an illusion in the metaphysical sense. I say, That was the view of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. Galileo had a problem with it however. I'm actually happy to hear you agree with the Cardinal. It means we can investigate the claim that certain things in the universe are best explained by Intelligent Design even if you think intelligent design or the designer is an illusion in the metaphysical sense. So that means that ID is definitely a scientific enterprise. Glad we finally cleared that up peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Many people have agreed that they observed bigfoot. It must be objective and bigfoot exists...Joe_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: There is no shared observation independent of the individual mind. So you're saying that if two people agree that they see the Sun is at the horizon, it's not an observation independent of the individual minds? fifthmonarchyman: what if my worldview entails that measures of distance are illusions? That's fine. If you agree that you see the Sun at the horizon, then we have an objectively shared observation —even if you think it is an illusion in the metaphysical sense. Many Buddhists think the world is an illusion, but as long as they report what they observe, then they can do science.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Your lack of imagination is not evidence
I knew Zachriel thought imagination was evidence.Joe_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Objectivity means based on shared observation independent of the individual mind.
And that is why evolutionism and materialism are subjective. Thank you, ZachrielJoe_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Zac say, Objectivity means based on shared observation independent of the individual mind. I say, There is no shared observation independent of the individual mind. I have no objective way of knowing that other minds even exist. You say. Objective: Jupiter is larger than Earth. I say, what if my worldview entails that measures of distance are illusions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Paul
That is why, after I had created image 1, I didn’t even bother to check to see if the binary digits of pi, or any of those other numbers, could be found in it. I am mildly surprised to note that Silver Asiatic found a variant (not perfect–there are 2 white separators at one point) of 3.141 at the beginning.
I find that amazing. Yes, the probability is 1/512 for that series but wouldn't we add some additional factors? Once we know that the search string is pi, is it even more unlikely that those four numbers show up as the very first numbers in the series? True, those 4 numbers are more likely to appear than anything >5 in the set, but seemed pretty clear to me that you placed those there by design (once I knew we were looking for pi). It's another thing to search the entire character set (in any direction, left, right, up, down) for some sequence of pi but to see the first digits in the very first four coins of image #1 seems a lot more unlikely than 1/512. I'm just not sure how to add the additional improbability to it. Also, regarding the use of pi as an indicator of design - I don't think it's a question of repeating digits but that pi already appears in nature as the ratio of any circle's circumference to diameter. It's definitely a specified mathematical outcome but it's similar (more complex obviously) to the geometry of a triangle, for example. Could a random dispersion of stones falling from a cliff, for example, end up in a circular pattern and thus exhibit pi? It doesn't seem that hard to imagine if the ground was elevated in a circle (although a perfect circle might appear as designed). The idea that randomly assorted coins could spell out pi is more obviously an indicator of design, but it's less clear than something like the binary translation of a well-known English language text or something like image #3.Silver Asiatic_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: How can a claim about reality be made that is independent of how we see reality? Objectivity means based on shared observation independent of the individual mind. Subjective: Led Zepplin is the best rock band of all Objective: Jupiter is larger than Earth.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Zac says, But scientific claims have to be independent of your worldview. Non-scientific claims are not so bound. I say, Worldview is simply the lens by which we see reality. How can a claim about reality be made that is independent of how we see reality? I see reality as following the law of non-contradiction. How could I possibly make a claim (scientific or otherwise) that was independent of that? peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: Worldview trumps everything. And if the claim is dependent on the worldview of the observer, then the claim is not objective, but subjective — by definition. fifthmonarchyman: Are you claiming that you must have a materialistic worldview to do science? Not at all. You can be a Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist and be a scientist. Your motivation can be religious or secular or simple curiosity. But scientific claims have to be independent of your worldview. Non-scientific claims are not so bound. fifthmonarchyman: Or are you claiming that the only evidences that can be considered scientific are those that don’t challenge your materialistic worldview? Not sure much of anything can challenge a view we don't hold. Paul Giem: I cannot conceive of a universe in which pi is different Your lack of imagination is not evidence. Pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, can be different in non-Euclidean geometries.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem #79
Could you perhaps explain to me the metaphysical presuppositions that will give, create, or support a context in which we should legitimately argue that image 3 is not designed?
I did. I gave some presuppositions based on which all three can be designed or none of them designed. And you replied to it too. Paul Giem #79
You are trying to tell me, and onlookers, that I didn’t design image 3, and that computers, and therefore computer-generated images, aren’t designed? That virtual webspace isn’t highly designed? That “any perception of structure, colour, words, etc. is objectively not there in the fundamental constituents of the images, but read into them by the observer”? Wow!
Obviously, I am saying that it depends on the perspective. The bits and bytes are invisible and they are not letters. If you tell me that letters, words, etc. are designed, then you are taking a whole different level for your analysis - the level of English grammar and orthography - and you will have to specifically justify your selection of the level of analysis. As long as you have not done it - and you have not - the noise of basic bits and bytes is just as good as any other level.E.Seigner_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus (#78), I am not sure to what you have reference when you mention a random doc search that has hit on 24 ascii characters. Could you enlighten me?Paul Giem_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

Yes, after looking up binary pi compression, I can not conceive of how it is not a neat parlor trick. If a number can be "compressed" in binary pi and not be larger than the original number itself (not to mention the result of other actual compression methods) it must either be not that big of a number or a rare but interesting "happenstance"/curiosity. I would imagine. I apologize if this has already been beaten to death up above, but I don't have time to read it all before bed.MrMosis_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

E.Seigner (#65), You said,
I have been saying nothing else but that context is everything, and context includes the metaphysical presuppositions of the observer.
Could you perhaps explain to me the metaphysical presuppositions that will give, create, or support a context in which we should legitimately argue that image 3 is not designed?
Mung #19
Note also that all of a sudden who designed #3 doesn’t seem to be an issue. Hidden and mysterious powers of the putative designer seem to be irrelevant all of a sudden. The motive? Also not relevant. Their religion? Not relevant. Do they have a Wedge document? Not relevant. Are they a secret admirer of the Discovery Institute? Not relevant.
Note also that, partly because of lack of answers to these questions, the exercise of the OP is scientifically irrelevant and philosophically uninteresting
Yes, so uninteresting that you had to read all the way down into the comments, read Mung's comment, and then spend time commenting on it. (The lady doth protest too much, methinks.)
All answers seem to be applicable to the OP. Yes, all three are designed because they are all made of designed coins or they all have a structured distinction of black and white sides.
You are correct. There can be layers of design. In fact, it is even possible (some of us actually think it is correct) that the entire universe is designed, and that in the "random" parts, it is designed to look random, but is not actually so. After all, even in random collections of atoms, the atoms themselves are anything but random. They are digitized and all have discrete sizes. The detection of design in some objects does not preclude undetectable design in other objects. I just illustrated that point to the satisfaction of most of the readers with image 2.
No, none of the three is designed because they are computer-generated images consisting of bits and bytes in virtual webspace, and any perception of structure, colour, words, etc. is objectively not there in the fundamental constituents of the images, but read into them by the observer.
You are trying to tell me, and onlookers, that I didn't design image 3, and that computers, and therefore computer-generated images, aren't designed? That virtual webspace isn't highly designed? That "any perception of structure, colour, words, etc. is objectively not there in the fundamental constituents of the images, but read into them by the observer"? Wow! I've got one thing to say; you haven't gone over to the dark side. ;)Paul Giem_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

PG: While I understand the 1 in 10^50 odds, I note that a random doc search has hit on 24 ascii characters, which is of that order. 500 bits is a safe solar system scale threshold. KF PS: That variant of pi in no 1 is indeed interesting. I repeat, the design inference process is not a universal puzzle solver or decoder.kairosfocus_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem (#76) Okay thanks. I should read the comments perhaps. I will have to think about or look into how "binary pi" is not a sleight of hand. Am not familiar.MrMosis_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

MrMosis (#73), You are actually not quite correct. Image 2 can be compressed into "binary pi", which is shorter than the compression of image 3.Paul Giem_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

(follow-up) So one is perfectly free to "believe" (that is, find rest in) the prospect of the "power of chance" underlying precise changes in precisely defined biological systems, but... One is also required to come to an understanding that believing in such can in no way be different from tossing the tray of coins and going from image #3 to image #4 (which says "CHANCE=POWER", let us say) to image #5, which says something wholly different, etc. etc... within 5 tosses of the tray of coins. (Or 55 million or however many) And of course these are purposely maximally small increments- so search is blind- each toss of the tray that misses the target must be reset to the preceding image before the next toss. *(for each subsequent image that needs to be arrived at, substitute something else with equivalently low entropy out of the probability space- which doesn't even need to be symbols we like to use- it just needs to model in probabilistic terms the changes that the given bio-system has undergone as a matter of record.) The people in denial must be forced to reconcile biology with contexts they can not hide from (to avoid having to get their arms around.) You will be no longer be able to believe in biology magic while denying coin magic at the same time. Of course, this magic is logically consistent and thusly doesn't necessarily warrant invoking the "supernatural". But it does warrant being absurd. And people of course are free to find their rest in absurd ideas. But they will no longer be able to hide from others or even themselves the fact that they are doing so.MrMosis_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

PaV (#70),
Quickly: is “pi” designed? Or is it the residue of “design”?
I am inclined to assume that pi is the result of natural mathematical law. I can conceive of a universe in which the law of gravity is different; I cannot conceive of a universe in which pi is different, any more than I can conceive of a universe in which 1 + 1 = 3. But I think the question misses the point. I chose to copy the digits of pi (or at least the alleged digits of pi; I did not calculate out more than the first about 10 digits myself), and the match is, AFAIK, perfect. That makes image 2 specified, and thus meets a design criterion. If someone else repeats the same procedure I did, I expect his/her image 3 and especially image 2 to look like mine, but if image 1 matched mine, I should make a design inference (I was copied) even though my original image was random, as his/her image 1 now matches an independent specification. The source of the image is not as important as the fact that it can be independently specified.
Going back to Dembski’s example of the first 100 prime numbers (IIRC), there the point would be that there is, indeed, a “pattern,” IOW, if I catch onto the “pattern” after the number ’23,’ then I’d expect the next number to be ’29?. Thus, there is a kind of confirmation of the ‘pattern’ within the pattern itself. Like your #3, I can see how all the elements fit into an ‘overall’ pattern. So, if “pi” had ‘repeat sections,’ then I would be more accepting of it as “design.”
Again, the misunderstanding is that the issue is not whether pi itself repeats; the issue is whether at any given digit pi has a definite value, and whether the coin value of image 2 at that place matches pi at that place. And pi can be calculated to any desired number of places; see Wickipedia under pi for examples. In fact, if you were a math nerd and had memorized the first 20 or so binary digits of pi, and you look at image 2, you would go, "that looks like pi", and check the rest of it out, and image 2 would look just as designed as image 3 does to you now.
But pi= Cirdumference/Diameter. Is a ‘circle’ designed? Are Saturn’s rings “designed” or a residue of natural forces.
Again, the issue is not whether the circle is designed; it may or may not be. What is designed is the copying of the binary digits of pi.
I’m just not comfortable saying a non-repeating irrational number is “designed.” You “designed” #2, but that doesn’t mean I can necessarily ‘discover’ it using Dembski’s method. Why don’t we just say that non-repeating irrational numbers fall outside of design-detection?
Repeating numbers may or may not be designed. Copying them where physical necessity does not require that copy is designed. It may be hard for us to find that design, but the detection of design is different from the existence of design. I hope that helps.Paul Giem_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Not sure if it has been said, but image 3 is the most compressible. So there are more possibilities for #3 to devolve into. (like images #1 and #2) What is interesting is the prospect of showing that in very precisely specified contexts (with generous bounds/constraints even) such and such biological system's undergoing a particular necessary change (that can be deemed to have been necessary in order for the living system to have transitioned from point A to point B) is precisely like image #3 being converted to a fourth image depicting differing text within X number of coin tosses. (In this case there would be no search and no target- as the smallest increment of change within the system and its context is the phenomenon under consideration.) (Emphasis on arrival, so survival is as of yet of no concern.)MrMosis_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

gpuccio (#64) and logically_speaking (#68), Thanks. fifthmonarchyman (#69), Thanks. You almost have it. You stated that "Apparently the strength of the inference in some cases does depend on knowledge of the intent of the designer." In one sense (IMO) it always does, and in another sense it rarely or never does. An intelligent designer always has to intend to create the designed object in order for us to detect intelligent design. It could be argued that this is a trivial requirement, or even a tautology. On the other hand, it is not necessary to understand why the designer chose to execute that particular design. I meant number 3 to illustrate some points. Someone else may have meant it as a joke, and someone else may have even meant to convey a message that was intended to be believed (although if so it is not very effective). You may not know simply by looking at the product which underlying motive (or some other one) is correct. But you can be sure that someone intended that the product exist, and took steps to make that happen. Seqenenre (#71), I will address your posts once. Your first sentence is an unsupported claim which I know to be false. So the conclusion you draw is not valid. I suspect you know this and are trolling. Without a significant positive change in your behavior, I feel no need to further respond to you.Paul Giem_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

Ofcourse 1 and 2 are designed. They are the final position of a game of go. Not very good players and a strange board, but nevertheless a game of go. So, yes, you have to have some knowledge of the designer or the designed item. But that is not allowed if I understand your policy.Seqenenre_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

Paul: Quickly: is "pi" designed? Or is it the residue of "design"? That's a question I'd ask you to think about some. Going back to Dembski's example of the first 100 prime numbers (IIRC), there the point would be that there is, indeed, a "pattern," IOW, if I catch onto the "pattern" after the number '23,' then I'd expect the next number to be '29'. Thus, there is a kind of confirmation of the 'pattern' within the pattern itself. Like your #3, I can see how all the elements fit into an 'overall' pattern. So, if "pi" had 'repeat sections,' then I would be more accepting of it as "design." But pi= Cirdumference/Diameter. Is a 'circle' designed? Are Saturn's rings "designed" or a residue of natural forces. I'm just not comfortable saying a non-repeating irrational number is "designed." You "designed" #2, but that doesn't mean I can necessarily 'discover' it using Dembski's method. Why don't we just say that non-repeating irrational numbers fall outside of design-detection?PaV_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Paul, I also agree this is good stuff. As for me My reaction went like this 1) I quickly inferred design in block 3 but not in 1 or 2 then after your hint about Pi 2) I inferred design in 3 and 1 because of the (3.1.4)in the first row Then at your prompting to dig deeper 3) I inferred design in 2 and 3 I find this chain of events to be interesting. Apparently the strength of the inference in some cases does depend on knowledge of the intent of the designer. In other more obvious cases knowledge of intent is evidently not necessary. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 13, 2014
December
12
Dec
13
13
2014
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply