Michael Denton on Mathematics and Stardust

_{Gil Dodgen

July 27, 2011

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

I’m not quite sure who Michael Denton is.

I’ve read his two books, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature’s Destiny.

It was Crisis that first inspired me to exclaim to myself, How could you have been so stupid as to have been duped into believing this transparent Darwinian-gradualism-and-random-mutation-natural-selection nonsense?

In Destiny he presents some remarkable insights, not just about the fine tuning of the laws of physics, but about the remarkably fine-tuned properties of water, the carbon atom, light, and much more, for the eventual appearance of living systems.

For Denton’s comments about stardust see here.

For his comments on mathematics see here.

So far, ID theory has addressed two primary domains: cosmology and biology. However, I believe that Denton elucidates another area of ID interest, and that is mathematical ID.

How is it that the laws of physics and so much of physical reality can be represented by mathematics? As Denton explains, humans did not invent math, it is built into the nature of things and was discovered. How is it that random mutations filtered by natural selection produced the human mind that can discover not only the beauty of math, but its application in the description of how things work?

It was as a result of the observations presented above, and many more, that I finally decided I could no longer muster up enough blind faith to be an atheist. The only rational conclusion I could reach is that it’s all the product of design, by an indescribably powerful and creative intelligence.

The reason I say that I’m not quite sure who Michael Denton is, is that he appears to be some kind of “vitalist.” I’m not quite sure what that means, but he certainly has no theological axe to grind.

No matter what you might think about Michael Denton, he is certainly not a mindless, knuckle-dragging, uneducated, science-destroying Christian like me.

Comments

lol She can do it at her blog, but not here. Does this remind anyone of MathGrrl?Mung_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: I said I am happy to do this at my blog. I have given you the link. To say that I have "blown off the simulation" is quite unwarranted. I look forward to your first post at my blog.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Hasn't she demonstrated the generation of information by choosing not to demonstrate the generation of information?Mung_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

With no indication otherwise, it seems Dr Liddle is blowing off the simulation. She has also ignored the retraction of her falsified claim. Nothing else could, nor should, be expected. - - - - - - - (I'm out for the weekend...)Upright BiPed_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Born Again, for once I am really enjoying your links. Before reading this entire thread, which I am probably going to do, I would like to say that I agree with Denton's thinking, and that he has overcome the human tendency to anthropomorphize God. It is obvious that he believes in an awe inspiring eternal mind, but he does not ascribe to human dogmas.avocationist_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

I love olives.Mung_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Olives anyone? Dr Liddle if you would like to test my ability to make my case all over again, I will happily oblige you. If however, you consider a ten-week long conversation as enough, then I am happy to return to the point in this conversation where I accepted your description, and only suggested that we work out a couple of issues. That description is as followes:
LIDDLE: Starting only with non-self-replicating entities in a physics-and-chemistry (plus random kinetics) environment, self-replicating “virtual organisms” can emerge that contain arrangements of virtual matter represented as strings that cause the virtual organism to self-replicate with fidelity, and thus determine the output of that system, namely a copy of that system. The arrangement must produce its output by means of an intermediary “virtual object”. This “virtual object” must take the form of a second arrangement of “virtual matter” that may interact with the strings and with some other “virtual object” that affect the fidelity of the self-replication of the “virtual organisms” without either permanently altering, or being altered by, the interaction.
and my repsonse...
BIPEDIn deference to your many attempts to integrate the requirements of information into your simulation, I suggest that we work from this definition of yours, but I take a couple of exceptions. My priorities have always been to include the existence of specific objects (discrete representations and protocols) and specific dynamics (the discrete-ness of the objects, the break in the causal chain, and the resulting effect – which is the output of the system being the replication of the system itself). As far as your first paragraph above, I have no particular problems. What this tells me is that you will produce a system that is reproducing copies of itself by means of “arrangements of virtual matter represented as strings” which determine the output of the system – a copy of itself. In this paragraph you used the word “represented” which you otherwise objected to when I used it, but I will not throw up a fuss. No one interested in this exercise will misunderstand its use, and if they do, it won’t change the results of your simulation. Therefore, this paragraph establishes my priorities of representations and output, but says nothing of protocols or the break in the causal chain. For this we turn to your second paragraph. In your second paragraph you say: The arrangement must produce its output by means of an intermediary “virtual object”. This “virtual object” must take the form of a second arrangement of “virtual matter” that may interact with the strings and with some other “virtual object” that affect the fidelity of the self-replication of the “virtual organisms” without either permanently altering, or being altered by, the interaction. This paragraph is made up of two sentences. The first of these introduces the protocol as an intermediary virtual object, which is perfectly fine, and leaves only the critical dynamic relationship to be established. This is where I take my exception, and I suggest that we leave the other parameters alone, and focus on dealing with this final piece. The observations regarding the dynamics of the protocol are critical. Without them, nothing else can follow, or in the case of the representation – it couldn’t even exist.
Now as I said, this definiton of yours is acceptable with some fine tuning. It is a bit clunky though, and is certainly no better than the earler one I suggested above. In any case, the ball is in your court.Upright BiPed_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

UPB @ 251, I call that tactic "Argument by Attrition".Ilion_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Perosnally, I think this is a waste of time, given that for the past ten weeks we did this exact same thing, and we will surely end back here at this exact same point - and you f'kin know it. But hey, anything to save you from having to admit a mistake. Hell will freeze over first.Upright BiPed_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

"I’m ready right now UPD." Good. Do nucleotides directly template proteins? If they do not, then from a dynamic point of view, how does the nucleotide input constrain the amino acid output if they have no physical association?Upright BiPed_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Ah, I see we cross posted...Upright BiPed_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, Looking at your positioning statement again, and remembering … after going through all the observations where you repeatedly said things like “Great” and “I Like it” etc etc, you may now need to position me as a ‘kook’ who is out of touch with the evidence, but I think you’ll have a hard time. In any case, the evidence is the last place you want to for an exit from this conversation, so it should be no surprise that I should serve as your scapegoat. That is no one’s decision but your own. Odd, though. Every single point I made in discovery; you fought it, you thought about it, and then eventually organized it into your own understanding. When it was the “representation” you had problems with, we fought our way through it, and it became an “arrangement in matter”. When it was a protocol that stopped the advance, we simply talked our way though it until we had a “physical object”, a facilitator, subject to physical law. Even the terror of having a dynamic “break in the causal chain” was summarily discussed until the pieces came together as a “dissociated link”, as you referred to it. One by one, each of the required objects and their critical dynamic roles came into focus. I can cut and paste every single instance where the objects and dynamics were recognized as both legitimate and accounted for. All I am asking you to do now - is to get on with it. - - - - - - - - - - Or, as a gesture of simply recognizing the obvious, you could retract your mistaken claim that ID proponents can’t make a case for ID. Your very involvement (in trying to build a simulation to refute the case for ID given to you) is a real-time unavoidable falsification of that claim.Upright BiPed_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Any time you are ready to challenge the observations, then I am more than happy to oblige.
I'm ready right now UPD. You provide the observations and I'll challenge them. But I suggest we do it here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1 This thread takes an unconscionable time to load.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Did I come in first, or was it merely an honorable mention?Mung_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_%28genetics%29 Does transcription demonstrate information?Mung_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

"However, I am fairly convinced that you have somehow dug yourself into a belief system whereby you are so convinced that your argument makes sense that rather than examine it for circularities and inconsistencies" Nice positioning statement. Any time you are ready to challenge the observations, then I am more than happy to oblige.Upright BiPed_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
Dr Liddle at 221, Elizabeth, this is becoming (has long since become) an unnecessary struggle to get you to agree to what you already know the observations demonstrate to be the case. This façade where you are trying to get me to agree to a definition, or a methodology, is patently disingenuous – as can be observed from the comments you make here and elsewhere.
So you are back to accusations of dishonesty. Ah well. Disappointing though.
In post 221 you cut and pasted a partial description I gave elsewhere that describes the physical objects and some of the observed dynamics of information transfer, then you turn right around and want me to agree to a model of direct templating as a demonstration of information?
No, UBP, as I have said several times, I accept that you do not accept "direct templating" as a demonstration of information. Which is why I have specified non-direct templating in my specification, i.e. an inert intermediate object that effects the translation from the pattern in the polymer to the functional object.
And I suppose this is the point where I am supposed to rehash the entire description and go point by point as to why the direct templating video is not sufficient as a demonstration of information transfer (even if you can simulate it) – but I am not going to do it. After ten weeks and tens of thousands of words, it is proven to be a fruitless exercise.
What? What "direct templating video"?
In our last exchange I posted some of the working definitions we had gone through and decided to adopt your last description as a valid starting point in order to finish up, and I did so because you captured some of the key points while some others needed to get into the definition with a little more clarity. These other points are not ones that you don’t understand, indeed you understand them completely; they just needed to be made more clear so that your simulation would be a usable demonstration of that which you intend to demonstrate.
Which I did.
Let me ask you a question Dr Liddle. The video of direct templating which demonstrates absolutely nothing of a dissociated representation and absolutely nothing of a dissociated protocol – the model you asked me to accept – would you accept it, Dr Liddle? If you were to succeed, you would have demonstrated for the first time that information (representations inertly coordinated to protocols) can emerge from a system of chance and necessity. Do you think even for one minute that such a demonstration wouldn’t be immediately proven false by the facts?
I have no idea what you are talking about. We seem to have watched different videos.
Look it – there is a description of information transfer that has surfaced in this conversation that you yourself helped to inspire. It gets right to the point with an economy of words and leaves out all the ambiguities that you keep returning to – those same ambiguities you say you want reduced to zero. (And as far as a set of operations to actually verify the presence of information – that methodology was well known before you were born, so that’s not an issue unless you intend to continue to ignore it). That description is this: Starting only with non-self-replicating entities in a physics-and-chemistry (plus random kinetics) environment, self-replicating “virtual organisms” can emerge that contain dissociated representations embedded in the arrangement(s) of matter. These arrangements represent the system that created them, and will determine the output of that system by means of an intermediary “virtual object”. Without becoming incorporated, this object may interact with either the representation or output, or both, but where the two remain whole and physically separated. 1) Dissociated = having no physical relationship to that which it represents. 2) Intermediary = serves the dynamic purpose of allowing the input representations to determine the output while they each remain discrete, a facilitator. This is the description I am willing to stand by. Otherwise I can break off and let this conversation morph into a conversation about CSI, and replication fidelity, and RNA polymerase. You can then visit among those who think as you, and blame it all on me as the one who was afraid to put their money where their mouth is. I am certain you’ll get no push back whatsoever. To the contrary, you’ll be heralded as a queen of empiricism. All you have to do is sleep with yourself.
And you have addressed none of the points I raised with regard to this. Upright BiPed, I am tempted, at this point, to mirror your own attitude to me, and conclude that you are deliberately putting roadblocks in the way of any demonstration of my claim. However, I will not. The reason I will not, is that I genuinely do not believe that you are deliberately setting up road-blocks. However, I am fairly convinced that you have somehow dug yourself into a belief system whereby you are so convinced that your argument makes sense that rather than examine it for circularities and inconsistencies, you jump to the conclusion that someone (me) who does not share your view must be being obtuse or dishonest. So does Ilion, so does Mung. I find the arrogance quite extraordinary. Repeatedly, you, Ilion, and Mung have cast aspersions on my honesty and/or intelligence rather than even consider, for a moment, the possibility that I might actually have a point.
(I noticed once before that you were told the idiots on this site “would like to stone you to death” if we “had the chance”. Your response to this pathetic accusation was more polite conversation. Given that you now face having to admit that ID proponents can make a valid case, I can assume politely misrepresenting my efforts in this conversation would be something of a walk in the park for someone with your disposition).
[censored] I will not respond to this until I have had a chance to regain my equipoise.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Mung, I'll take another look at that paragraph tomorrow to make sure it even says what I intended; my brain isn't functioning properly at the moment, either through overuse or neglect, I haven't decided. Thanks again.material.infantacy_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Mung, I suppose I should have said "specified and complex." Good catch, thanks!material.infantacy_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

material.infantacy:
if necessity can produce the sequences, then they’re not “specified” they’re inevitable — explicated by law.
They are specified, simply, (e.g., F=ma), but not complex. Or, as a sequence, 1..1000000.each {|i| puts i} But it's quite difficult to represent information with such a sequence :)Mung_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

I appreciate the sentiment UB, no apologies necessary. I think everything I proposed is summed up in #231 with some minor additions in #232. However I don't have much more to add at this point, so I'll just say that I chose RNA polymerase because it begins the translation/transcription process, and must itself be encoded in the DNA. This exposes a circularity and a "search squared" issue. It would also appear that no protein can be sequenced without it. So of any protein that would need to be present right off the bat in a functional system, it's a decent candidate (and DNA polymerase for replication). Anyhoo, I wanted to point out to EL that there was a search issue and a specification issue, and I've done that as well as I know how. I don't expect to be adding much more, if at all. Looking forward to reading you again in the future. Best, m.i.material.infantacy_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

By the way, MI, the RNA polymerase is indeed a fantastic object, but it does not cause the sequence to exist as it does, nor does it allow a representation to exist. On the other hand, the tRNA does not set the sequence either, but, as a protocol, it does allow a discrete representation to exist.Upright BiPed_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

MI, I have no problem at all with your participation. I should have addressed your comments earlier, but I wasn't trying to expand the conversation, I was trying to constrain it to the observations we started making two months ago. I was mistaken in not doing so. My apologies.Upright BiPed_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

UB, if I made things more difficult for you with my intrusion, I apologize. But I felt I had to get a few points across.material.infantacy_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

"... patently disingenuous ..." It seems there is yet another convert to the "you know, she really is intellectually dishonest" camp.Ilion_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle at 221, Elizabeth, this is becoming (has long since become) an unnecessary struggle to get you to agree to what you already know the observations demonstrate to be the case. This façade where you are trying to get me to agree to a definition, or a methodology, is patently disingenuous - as can be observed from the comments you make here and elsewhere. In post 221 you cut and pasted a partial description I gave elsewhere that describes the physical objects and some of the observed dynamics of information transfer, then you turn right around and want me to agree to a model of direct templating as a demonstration of information? And I suppose this is the point where I am supposed to rehash the entire description and go point by point as to why the direct templating video is not sufficient as a demonstration of information transfer (even if you can simulate it) – but I am not going to do it. After ten weeks and tens of thousands of words, it is proven to be a fruitless exercise. In our last exchange I posted some of the working definitions we had gone through and decided to adopt your last description as a valid starting point in order to finish up, and I did so because you captured some of the key points while some others needed to get into the definition with a little more clarity. These other points are not ones that you don’t understand, indeed you understand them completely; they just needed to be made more clear so that your simulation would be a usable demonstration of that which you intend to demonstrate. Let me ask you a question Dr Liddle. The video of direct templating which demonstrates absolutely nothing of a dissociated representation and absolutely nothing of a dissociated protocol - the model you asked me to accept - would you accept it, Dr Liddle? If you were to succeed, you would have demonstrated for the first time that information (representations inertly coordinated to protocols) can emerge from a system of chance and necessity. Do you think even for one minute that such a demonstration wouldn’t be immediately proven false by the facts? Look it – there is a description of information transfer that has surfaced in this conversation that you yourself helped to inspire. It gets right to the point with an economy of words and leaves out all the ambiguities that you keep returning to - those same ambiguities you say you want reduced to zero. (And as far as a set of operations to actually verify the presence of information – that methodology was well known before you were born, so that’s not an issue unless you intend to continue to ignore it). That description is this:
Starting only with non-self-replicating entities in a physics-and-chemistry (plus random kinetics) environment, self-replicating “virtual organisms” can emerge that contain dissociated representations embedded in the arrangement(s) of matter. These arrangements represent the system that created them, and will determine the output of that system by means of an intermediary “virtual object”. Without becoming incorporated, this object may interact with either the representation or output, or both, but where the two remain whole and physically separated. 1) Dissociated = having no physical relationship to that which it represents. 2) Intermediary = serves the dynamic purpose of allowing the input representations to determine the output while they each remain discrete, a facilitator.
This is the description I am willing to stand by. Otherwise I can break off and let this conversation morph into a conversation about CSI, and replication fidelity, and RNA polymerase. You can then visit among those who think as you, and blame it all on me as the one who was afraid to put their money where their mouth is. I am certain you’ll get no push back whatsoever. To the contrary, you’ll be heralded as a queen of empiricism. All you have to do is sleep with yourself. (I noticed once before that you were told the idiots on this site “would like to stone you to death” if we “had the chance”. Your response to this pathetic accusation was more polite conversation. Given that you now face having to admit that ID proponents can make a valid case, I can assume politely misrepresenting my efforts in this conversation would be something of a walk in the park for someone with your disposition).Upright BiPed_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

EL, I'd like to reiterate that I did rush a little through that last post, so if you think I glossed over anything, taken in reference to my #231, let me know and I'll try and get back to it. m.i.material.infantacy_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, continuing my comments on your comments on my comments. xp ...
”But I am concerned about your point (especially given the reaction to my posting of the clock video) that were I to do so, by the method I (transparently) propose, I would have “smuggled in” design.”
My apologies if my own reaction to the video seemed a little dismissive, but it was presented by the author in a somewhat cocky and disdainful manner, which made the whole “bluff” a chore to watch, and I quickly lost interest. Let me also clarify that calling something a “toy” is not entirely an insult in my book. Toys are wonderful and delightful things, as are stories of many sorts; and I can hardly do their significance justice in this post. I just see no parity between GAs and this issue, as my previous points should make clear. However a GA is no better than a blind search unless both the fitness function and the “variation engine” have some idea where they’re going. I know you’ll probably disagree with this characterization, and it may not hold true in all cases; and I’ll refrain from commenting on GAs further, as I think the subject has little relevance to the scope of the problem at hand.
”This seems to me to get to the heart of the issue that I was getting at when I made my original claim. My position is that Darwinian process can not only generate Information, and, indeed design things i.e. produce things that clearly serve some sort of function to something (preserve an organism in existence, for instance, or cause a populationi to persist in a changing environment) but does so in a manner that is directly analogous to the way our own minds work.”
This may be true, but I think this claim would need to be substantiated rigorously under a physical simulation, or preferably by empirical demonstration. As I suggested in my last post, necessity negates specified complexity. If it could be demonstrated that actual necessity made SC unnecessary, we could all go home.
”However, if other people don’t find that a stumbling block – disagree with you, in other words, that my proposed simulation (which would, in effect, by a program that does what that Szostak animation does), if successful, would not have supported my claim, then I am happy to proceed.”
Agreed. If that’s the case, I don’t have any skin in the game. xp And I’d be happy to see how your project proceeds and concludes. I hope you understand there is no ill will here, only a need to expose what I think are the core relevant issues.
”Well, I figured it would be technically simpler to use a tRNA analog. And I was not proposing to emulate anything as complex as RNAP. In other words, my cells would probably just translate anything translatable in the genome string. Nonetheless I am interested in your point: ... I’m not quite sure about what you are asking re circularity, here, MI, although I agree that there are chicken-and-egg problems inherent to any OOL theory.”
I think I made my point in the previous post, but if there’s more I need to say, feel free to bring it up again. I’m asserting that the specified complexity issue relates to the OOL issue in regards to the chicken-egg problem, because of the need for a distinct specification, and it’s distinct product (RNAP and arguably DNAP) and their need to coexist.
”I’d find myself with “lipid” vesicles, as per Szostak, containing self-replicating polymers. You don’t need any fancy enzymes to produce a self-replicating sequence, you just need a chemistry in which single strand polymers tend to form, with spare binding spots on each monomer that will attract its opposite number, resulting in double chains. If something (e.g. a temperature change) results in a splitting of the double chain, you have two singles with complementary sequences. Let these loose in a sea of monomers and they will become matching double chains again.”
I do find this interesting, but I’ll fall back to what I’ve already stated in my previous post. Skipping forward over some engaging descriptions... and then some additional comments on GAs...
”But here there is no fitness function provided by me at all – the only fitness function is that intrinsic to any population of self-replicators, namely anything that, in that environment promotes self-replication. Which may be greater permeability of the vesicle or less; it may be greater length of polymer or less; it may be resistance to division or greater potential for division.”
Again I’ll suggest that I think the bar is high -- that there can’t be any smuggled specification, nor any contrived necessity, and there should exist a specification that exists independent of its product. Sorry if I’m missing the point of your description.
”The point is that as I don’t know, at any given point (because the environment itself will be constantly changing, not least by the products of the critters themselves), what will best promote longevity and/or division, I can’t have “smuggled it in”! If you disagree, can you explain why?”
I think what I’ve stated already covers this, but I’m often myopic in my approach to things. So if there’s something critical that I’ve missed, or that answers my concerns, just point me back to it and I’ll do my best to answer. My apologies if this follow up response seemed less than satisfying. In my defense, I did read all of your recent posts before composing my first response, which I felt did some justice to the comments you made. Take care Elizabeth. The bloke, m.i.material.infantacy_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, thanks for spending some time with my previous comments. I’ve made several more, after making a pass through your responses. I’m not obligating you to respond to everything -- it’s too wordy and disorganized -- I just needed to “get this out there” for my own benefit, based on some of your comments. (I promise no more “sarcastic disillusionment”). It gives others, particularly ID proponents, a chance to comment, refute, modify, nullify what I’m saying, so I can rethink or expand my observations about this. Apologies in advance for bad grammar, excessive word and phrase reuse, and for restating things I’ve already said.
”Because if your view is widely shared, MI, the definitional problem is not a definition of information (which we seem to have got, essentially) but with the definition of evolutionary search.”
I suppose that’s entirely so. I can’t say my view is widely shared -- but yes, I think that if you’re going to evolve “information,” that is, “specified complexity” that your simulation should address the problem of how one finds function in a sea of configuration space. I’ve been suggesting all along that if you’re not searching for a function, you’re specifying one -- and I’ll go on to say that if you’re generating sequences based on a virtual concept of “necessity,” that you’re not generating specified complexity at all. This is because SC is the absence of necessity; if necessity can produce the sequences, then they’re not “specified” they’re inevitable -- explicated by law. To paraphrase myself from another thread, “Specified complexity is the contingent prearrangement of materials which correspond to technological sophistication.” Again, If the functions are generated via necessity, then they’re not contingent -- they’re inevitable, and hence unspecified. Contingent prearrangement suggests that the sequence is A) highly improbable; B) corresponds to a function for which the probability of arriving at that function by chance is less than 10^-150. This implicates a mind, in my view, and I suggest in the view of others here. The only other way to skirt this is to implicate necessity.
”What I set out to do was something much simpler – to demonstrate that Information (by any definition, pretty well, certainly any definition used in ID claims) could be generated by Chance and Necessity.”
Amidst all my rambling in this post, let me try to put this as a core concept: Specified Complexity is the absence of necessity; AND the absence of chance -- that is, contingent arrangements of a sequence of characters for which the probability of finding that particular sequence is less than 10^-150. If you’re truly going to demonstrate the role of necessity in the evolutionary generation of specification, then you would NEED to model physical reality. One can’t assume necessity in order to demonstrate its efficacy in this situation, I’m asserting. So the core question in my mind is this: how do you generate specified complexity absent necessity and chance? If you make your own rules for necessity, then you disqualify the results. If you instead promote chance, you need to find the function in a vast configuration space, which I suggest is computationally impossible. I realize that this might seem unfair, that the bar is being set too high. But I can see no other way of addressing the problem -- a real problem -- and not something which can be overcome with several thousand lines of code.
”I need to clarify something: I did not set out to model the Origin of Life as We Know It.”
I realize that. I’m suggesting however, that there is at least one intersecting issue between the OOL problem and what you propose (the blind generation of information), and that’s the simultaneous presence of these three things: 1) The DNA which contains the message indirectly corresponding to the product, RNAP (Thanks for the acronym; I collect them. xp); 2) the product which is produced -- that is, RNA polymerase (RNAP); 3) the product which does the translating between the DNA and the product, in this case also RNA polymerase, which must exist before it can itself be translated. What should jump out at anyone examining the above is that the specification is required to produce RNAP, but that RNAP is required to produce itself by way of the specification. I’m asserting that this circularity is present in the concept of information itself, or more specifically, present in the concept of specified complexity. This is the chicken-and-egg problem that you refer to, and isn’t just some obscure aspect of OOL, it’s central to the entire question of OOL and specified complexity, at least that’s what I’m suggesting. I gave the answer to the riddle in a previous post on this thread: that RNA polymerase, apparently “gives rise to itself.” It must be present in order to produce itself. How do you get around this without a scenario that finds, simultaneously, the function AND the specification? Here’s how I chose to view the information problem: ”Information: the presence of *specified complexity* in a system exhibiting the *irreducibly complex* integration of independently designated parts ~~, each of which are constructed at a bit depth in excess of 500.~~ Specified Complexity: the specification for a functional system which has only an abstract association with the product it specifies, limited to acting as a template or archetype, from which the product it represents is instantiated by way of an intermediary. Irreducible Complexity: the requirement that in a functional system of integrated components, the removal of any single component causes the system to become non-functional.” Admittedly, the above needs some work, but it is the problem, as I see it.
”It may well be that modeling the origin of RNA polymerase is a fierce OOL problem and I certainly do not have the skill set to do it! Even supposing that that in particular proves to be the biggest problem in OOL research.”
I’m not actually suggesting a physical model of RNA polymerase, which is why I referenced it as a “black box.” I’m suggesting that conceptually, it needs to be present. As a black box, all of it’s intricacies and dependencies could, for the most part, be assumed I believe, without “giving away the store” so-to-speak. I’ll continue with more as I get the chance, I want to try and at least comment on your core questions and/or objections, as time allows. Thanks again, m.i.material.infantacy_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

grifter: a person who swindles stacking the deck :"Gamblers 'stack the deck' in their favor by arranging the cards so that they will win. Mark: A person who is the intended victim of a swindler; a dupe.junkdnaforlife_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply