ID sympathetic peer reviewed paper accepted

_{Salvador Cordova

March 9, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

When Bill posted Debugging the Universe, it reminded me to post that an ID sympathetic paper had been accepted in the journal of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Volume 25, Issue 4 , August 2005, Pages 845-859: Computational Universes by Karl Svozil of Institut fÃƒÂ¼r Theoretische Physik, Vienna, Austria:

Suspicions that the world might be some sort of a machine or algorithm existing Ã¢â‚¬Å“in the mindÃ¢â‚¬Â of some symbolic number cruncher have lingered from antiquity. Although popular at times, the most radical forms of this idea never reached mainstream. Modern developments in physics and computer science have lent support to the thesis

….
discrete computational physics certainly represents an interesting, speculative and challenging research area. Many ideas from system science, interface design, to dualism (e.g., the Eccles Telegraph) enter. The issue has metaphysical connotations.

Comments

Good question. The general answer is yes, it is just those phrases, and it is enough in my view. This cosmic computer was explored in Barrow and Tipler work which I mentioned here: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/852

The significance of the paper was that it paved the way for Albert Voie's paper which I mentioned here:
https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/722

Voie wrote:

It is therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans or symbolic number cruncher referred to by [25].

Reference [25] was to Svozil's paper.

Given how daring Voie's paper was, Svozil's paper certainly helped pave the way for Voie's paper, imho. Of course, that is just my opinion.
scordova_{March 12, 2006
March
03
Mar
12
12
2006
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

What is it in Svozil's paper that makes it 'sympathetic' to ID? Just the phrases 'in the mind' and 'the issue has metaphysical connotations'? Or is there more? I've tried posting this question before, and it didn't appear, so maybe it's not worthy of discussion. If not, please at least tell me so.Kipli_{March 12, 2006
March
03
Mar
12
12
2006
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Salvador, thanks for all you're doing. Woody, your second example of the Guardian article as quoted by Sal is misleading? Are you familiar with the Guardian? NYTs looks tame in comparison of outright bias. If you read the article carefully they never defined ID and pursue wrapping a Creationist Cloak around it. Misleading is Guardian's Masked Motto. Salvador made things clear: 1) Stated his displeasure, "IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m personally disappointed to hear some creationist students mingling religious ideas into their scientific views..." He was kind to the Guardian for its ineptitude and guilt by association without representation. They wrapped all groups together for behavior(flyers) and beliefs. They did not quote from ID experts. It was a smear article. Rational side science, irrational side we have Creationist, Muslims, Baptist, and oh yes - ID. 2) Salvador provided a Link so you could read the entire article and make your own judgement. Unlike the Guardian, he allowed you to think for yourself without superfluous innuendo. "...it's a bit like the southern states of America." These are "trigger points". Germany's Der Spiegel tosses them out all the time in relation to America so their readers may feel above the dumb, stupid Americans while they anguish away with 12% unemployment which btw, happens to be ugly American's fault as well. You would not believe the magazines covers anti-American rants. The Guardian is similar. All things American, all things dumb and anyone associated with us especially along religious lines are treated accordingly trivial. With regards to this specific post.... 3) He stated from the beginning, "ID sympathetic paper had been accepted...". Note: "sympathetic", no superlatives of subjective quality - greatest ID paper yet accepted! 4) He quoted, "discrete computational physics certainly represents an interesting, speculative and challenging research area." Note: "speculative" speaks for itself and inhibits empirical data leading to the very next line. Unless sympathetic and speculative are non-normative ways to imply empirical data, he did not mislead you and again, he gave you the link. 5) Back to the Guardian article. They misrepresent ID and Scientist by their tactics. At the bottom they state: "The doctrine of creationism holds that the origins of humanity and the Earth are recent and divine as related in the book of Genesis. Strict creationists believe Adam and Eve are the mother and father of humanity and God created the Earth in six days. Support for creationism in the UK has traditionally lacked real vigour but in the US a recent poll found 45% of Americans believed God created life some time in the past 10,000 years. Recently American creationists suffered a setback when Ohio's board of education threw out a model biology lesson plan which gave credence to creationism. Not all creationists believe in a strict six-day creation." Do you see what Salvador, Behe, Demski, Berlinski, et alii are up against? They're being defined not by their own criteria, but in far away places by someones bias. The reporter wraps ID in with YEC. Whatever Salvador's views, Behe, etc., regarding creation(age, Genesis, Adam and Eve) ID does not approach these subjects from what I've read. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. So Woody, what you have is fear mongoring, misrepresentation and terrible journalism. Salvador was overly kind to the Guardian in my estimation. Guardian again misrepresents and puts down here: A link at bottom of the article you referenced again by you Woody - "Q&A Intelligent Design" only shows more misinformation, misleading conclusions or seriously bad journalistic standards. http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolsworldwide/story/0,,1582043,00.html a verbose statement of inconsequential magnitude and waste of time, which in the end kneels to sarcastic screeds of spaghetti monster and his 'followers around the world'. They do not quote ID from any of its top proponents or any established criteria by ID. And you want to call Salvador misleading? Salvador simply pointed out 1) a sympathetic ID article and 2) in the UK "this report canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be happy news for Richard Dawkins. :=)" He's correct on both accounts. Dawkins instead of informing the public is beating them over the head and the article is sympathetic to ID. You fail to show differently and you entirely missed the bias of Guardian journalist who exploit irrational fears and sidestep information for snide commentary. You seem reasonable, but I'm not sure how you could miss all the tell-tale signs in the Guardian for bias while correcting Salvador.Michaels7_{March 11, 2006
March
03
Mar
11
11
2006
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Woody,

"Salvador has carefully excised the religious references and the comparison to southern-state creationism, giving an impression that is quite different from the one the teacher is attempting to convey."

I cut out the references to students religious views because the press is obsessed with associating a persons scientific views as being overly influence by religious views. The truth is, the reason it is possible for students to believe in special creation is that the physical evidence for Darwinian evolution as the major cause of biological innovation is lacking. The news reports continue to fail to highlight that important point. If Darwinian theory were as sure as gravity, then there wouldn't be any creationists.

Salvador
scordova_{March 11, 2006
March
03
Mar
11
11
2006
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

dougmoran wrote: "Not to be nit-picky, but attaching the amputated limb only seems to lend more support to the point Scordova is making." Doug, How so? The amputated clause indicates that empirical evidence is lacking for the computational universe. How does a lack of evidence lend support to the thesis? And why would Salvador cut the sentence at that awkward point, if not to softpedal the meaning? There are three blank lines afterward, so it surely wasn't to save space. I point this out because I've noticed that Salvador does this repeatedly, on this blog and elsewhere. The most recent example is this post on Uncommon Descent: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/862 He quotes an article from the Guardian: "'The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism,' she said, 'and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. Ã¢â‚¬Â¦. Many Ã¢â‚¬Â¦were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists." Here is the unexpurgated quote: "'The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism,' she said, 'and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. They have extensive booklets on creationism which they put in my pigeon-hole ... it's a bit like the southern states of America.' Many of them came from Muslim, Pentecostal or Baptist family backgrounds, she said, and were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists." Salvador has carefully excised the religious references and the comparison to southern-state creationism, giving an impression that is quite different from the one the teacher is attempting to convey. I understand that as an enthusiastic proponent of ID, Salvador wants to make the message as palatable as possible to supporters and potential "converts". But this sort of misleading editing diminishes his credibility more than it enhances the appeal of the message.woody_{March 10, 2006
March
03
Mar
10
10
2006
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Woody: ID, like the idea of a computational universe, is a philosophically possible idea, but empirical evidence is needed before it can begin to replace our contemporary world view. Is "our contemporary world view" built on empirical evidence? What "empirical evidence" would you accept as data FOR ID? Behe, Minnich, Gonzalez all speak of empirical evidence that supports ID...Joseph_{March 10, 2006
March
03
Mar
10
10
2006
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

woody: Not to be nit-picky, but attaching the amputated limb only seems to lend more support to the point Scordova is making.dougmoran_{March 9, 2006
March
03
Mar
9
09
2006
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Anti-matter was proposed long before there was empirical validation. I view this paper as exploring a possiblity. That is where we are. Salvadorscordova_{March 9, 2006
March
03
Mar
9
09
2006
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

scordova quotes this sentence, but cuts it off abruptly: "Modern developments in physics and computer science have lent support to the thesis " Here is the rest of the sentence: " but empirical evidence is needed before it can begin to replace our contemporary world view." Quite a different connotation when the amputation is undone. So scordova is right that there is a parallel: ID, like the idea of a computational universe, is a philosophically possible idea, but empirical evidence is needed before it can begin to replace our contemporary world view.woody_{March 9, 2006
March
03
Mar
9
09
2006
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply