Michael Denton on Mathematics and Stardust

_{Gil Dodgen

July 27, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

Elizabeth Liddle:
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.
Webster's first definition: 1 the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence Information requires prior knowledge. Program that.
In order to understand information, we must define it; but in order to define it, we must first understand it. Where to start? - Hans Christian von Baeyer
Mung_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Hello Dr Liddle, I see your post at 221. I will respond this evening.Upright BiPed_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Hi Elizabeth,
"I think that is now virtually, and you concede that generating it in the manner I propose would not only be possible but trivial. I’m not so sure actually! Having set myself the burden not merely of doing it via a Darwinian self-replicator, but of demanding of myself that I start without any self-replicators at all, and first let them emerge."
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to give the impression that your undertaking is (or would be) trivial. That word only applies to the generation of specified complexity sufficient to be measured against CSI. I have a great deal of respect for software engineering of all sorts, even that which I categorize as entertainment. (But I reserve a good deal of skepticism that computer simulations of the sort that demonstrate GAs are doing anything particularly remarkable, as software engineering goes.) The take home point about the "trivial" moniker is that we generate specified complexity regularly as a part of our existence. This paragraph contains specified complexity, and would measure positive for CSI. So it should surprise nobody that a computer program could be made to generate it also. Generating SC is trivial for us, as intelligent agents. I'll respond to other points and questions as I find time, hopefully later today. Thanks, m.i.material.infantacy_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

MI: taking these in somewhat chaotic order, apologies:
So I’m proposing that the target of your simulation should be analogous to the informational core of a living cell. It needs virtual DNA which codes for virtual proteins, and that at least one protein in particular needs to be present both in form and specification at the same time: the RNA polymerase analog. Now I think you can do away with tRNA as it’s just an adapter (as remarkable as its presence is) but it will need to be replaced with a virtual RNA polymerase. This can be a “black box” but it must be specified in the DNA, and it must also be present in the earliest form of the target proto-organism.
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 willing to bet you’re not going to accept this as valid, so I’ll try not to belabor the details too much. See this diagram (I hope the link works): A potential analog to the information core of a living cell. Ra and Rc represent RNA polymerase, with sequence length n, in both the abstract and the concrete forms. Rc is a black box which takes a strand of DNA as input and outputs a sequenced protein. In the proto-organism, it needs to be already present in order for the system to function (I might argue that so does DNA polymerase if we’re going to establish that the organism can validly reproduce). Rc must also be encoded into the DNA strand, and it needs to be the first thing that is, because without it, the clock can’t tick, so-to-speak. It functions as a file header of sorts, a protocol, with which to bootstrap the rest of the organism. If someone were to come across a strand of this DNA, they should be able to bootstrap it by decoding the header (the valid sequence for Rc) and assembling the enzyme, which could then catalyze the production of the other proteins coded for in the strand. I believe that at a minimum, something like this would need to be “evolved” in order to demonstrate that specified complexity can be generated via blind processes. There would still be questions that needed to be answered, such as: what should the sequence length n be for Rc (and Ra); and how is function determined. This is significant because, I suggest, that if you define a function, e.g., “permutation x of a sequence of length n is defined as the function for Rc,” then you’ve smuggled in specification; and if you determine function based on the actual sequence for RNA polymerase, then you’re left with the same impossible search for a function that I suggest is present in the OOL problem. If you define your own search for a function, the sequence length would still need to be long enough to be validly measured against CSI, and so you would still have a search problem — one that dwarfs the number of atoms in our universe multiplied by every Planck time quantum state that’s ever occurred in its history. Thanks much for your time, Elizabeth, The bloke, m.i.
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. So I'll explain what I was anticipating would emerge in my demonstration: 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. Combine this, as in the Szostak video, with dividing vesicles and you have a protocell. However, right now the sequence of the polymers is irrelevant to the survival and division of the whole. But because you now have the beginnings of a Darwinian-capable self-replicator, any sequence that does prove relevant (as Szostak suggests, if longer chains improve the chances of replication, then protocells with chains consisting of more common polymers will tend to replicate better), will be selected i.e. will tend to replicated more often, and become more numerous. So far no Information by UPD's definition, but approaching it by Meyer's Webster definition. Now let's say that some polymer sequences tend to eat their own tails as it were - have palindromic sequences that interfere with replication. Those will tend to be selected out. And let's say that some sequences tend to attract additional side-chains that break loose forming rings or twists (because some sequences will tend to to this) and that these objects do something that promotes longevity or successful division. I'm speculating here, precisely because I don't know. One of the things I hope my project will do is tell me what sequences promote longevity and division, because I'm not going to design them in! All I'm going to do is muck around with the starting chemistry so that there is a rich set of possibilities for my emerging critters to "explore". And one set I hope they will explore is that some polymer sequences will result in objects that themselves have binding properties that enable them to "read" other parts of the sequence by binding to certain combinations (like tRNA does to RNA) and offering a binding site at the other end for some other object to form and then break loose and do something useful. At that point, I will shout "Wahoo!!!" and tell UBP that we now have a polymer sequence on the polymer that "represents" a useful object via a protocol object that is itself a direct result of the polymer sequence. That's the part I'm not sure I can do, although I can see in principle that it should be possible. Now, your claim, I think, is that I'm necessarily going to be "smuggling" in something via a fitness function. Well, for a start, I dispute the idea that a fitness function in a GA "smuggles" in design in a way that is relevant to the design of living things - as I keep saying, the fitness function is the analog of the environment in which the population has to survive, not the analog of the Darwinian process itself. 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. 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 should say that I am blatantly "designing" the initial physics-and-chemistry. So if that is people's only objection, fine - but then we are back to a fine-tuning argument, not an anti-Darwinian one, nor even an OOL one. Which is physics, and Not My Field :)Elizabeth Liddle_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

MI (again)! I have now had time to look at your long posts in detail. You raise a number of interesting points, but I need to clarify something: I did not set out to model the Origin of Life as We Know 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. 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. Hence the focus on defining Information. I think that is now virtually, and you concede that generating it in the manner I propose would not only be possible but trivial. I'm not so sure actually! Having set myself the burden not merely of doing it via a Darwinian self-replicator, but of demanding of myself that I start without any self-replicators at all, and first let them emerge. However, I agree, in principle, that it would be easy enough to do. 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. 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. So it doesn't surprise me that the products are similar! And only differ in ways in which the two things differ. So I'd really like to get to the heart of this issue. 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.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

But I’ll say for my own sake that, from what I can tell, I can only conclude that Elizabeth’s simulation will certainly generate CSI (no great feat, unfortunately; sorry EL) but it won’t do it blindly. It will need to assume the specification that it purports to demonstrate. This will be the result of avoiding “search” (the search for a function is a significant part of the problem here, AFAICT).
Interesting. I wonder who agrees. If people do, I'm glad we got here before I embark on my project! 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. So I guess we had better go back to there. Thank you for elucidating this point MI.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

This post has been resubmitted with two less links in an attempt to thwart the mod filter. _______ I mentioned several days ago that I hoped to post a summary of my thoughts regarding Elizabeth’s proposal. And I’ve been struggling with it, to express myself better than I already had. I’ve kept quite a few notes; and I still may post a summary of them, but I think my part in this essentially ended at #127. So I decided instead to just post a recap of links to my (self-proclaimed) substantive comments, along with some links to others in context, in case anyone might find them interesting. Here it goes. I began my intrusion on this thread at #44, and added some substantive comments to that post in #51. Elizabeth kindly responded to #44 in #81 with several comments, amidst her involved, even heated conversations with Mung and Upright BiPed. Fearing my point had not been made, I followed up with a three part response beginning at #114 and ending at #116. Elizabeth responded briefly at #126, and I responded again briefly at #127 posing a question. At #149 I posed an addendum prompted by a comment that Mung made at #144. At #153 I posted something which could only be identified as a kind of sarcastic disillusionment (if nothing else, xp). At #154 I proposed a working definition of Information, in the language of ID, which I felt might be a suitable starting point for the context I had introduced at first (#44), although nothing like the one UB had labored over. So that pretty much ends my involvement with this thread, as it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to try this from two separate angles. I think UB is more than up to the task of working with Elizabeth on a suitable definition of information, and certainly more capable and willing than I. But I’ll say for my own sake that, from what I can tell, I can only conclude that Elizabeth’s simulation will certainly generate CSI (no great feat, unfortunately; sorry EL) but it won’t do it blindly. It will need to assume the specification that it purports to demonstrate. This will be the result of avoiding “search” (the search for a function is a significant part of the problem here, AFAICT). With that said, I wish Elizabeth the best of luck, as I do UB, who will be, it appears, laboring to communicate a picture of the real problems, by way of an operational definition of information. A good day to all, and a good week upcoming. m.i.material.infantacy_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

I mentioned several days ago that I hoped to post a summary of my thoughts regarding Elizabeth’s proposal. And I’ve been struggling with it, to express myself better than I already had. I’ve kept quite a few notes; and I still may post a summary of them, but I think my part in this essentially ended at #127. So I decided instead to just post a recap of links to my (self-proclaimed) substantive comments, along with some links to others in context, in case anyone might find them interesting. Here it goes. I began my intrusion on this thread at #44, and added some substantive comments to that post in #51. Elizabeth kindly responded to #44 in #81 with several comments, amidst her involved, even heated conversations with Mung and Upright BiPed. Fearing my point had not been made, I followed up with a three part response beginning at #114 and ending at #116. Elizabeth responded briefly at #126, and I responded again briefly at #127 posing a question. At #149 I posed an addendum prompted by a comment that Mung made at #144. At #153 I posted something which could only be identified as a kind of sarcastic disillusionment (if nothing else, xp). At #154 I proposed a working definition of Information, in the language of ID, which I felt might be a suitable starting point for the context I had introduced at first (#44), although nothing like the one UB had labored over. So that pretty much ends my involvement with this thread, as it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to try this from two separate angles. I think UB is more than up to the task of working with Elizabeth on a suitable definition of information, and certainly more capable and willing than I. But I’ll say for my own sake that, from what I can tell, I can only conclude that Elizabeth’s simulation will certainly generate CSI (no great feat, unfortunately; sorry EL) but it won’t do it blindly. It will need to assume the specification that it purports to demonstrate. This will be the result of avoiding “search” (the search for a function is a significant part of the problem here, AFAICT). With that said, I wish Elizabeth the best of luck, as I do UB, who will be, it appears, laboring to communicate a picture of the real problems, by way of an operational definition of information. A good day to all, and a good week upcoming. m.i.material.infantacy_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Thanks Dr Liddle, my daughter is fine. It was just a scare (a big one). She is fine, just like her mother – healthy, accomplished, and beautiful. And today is her birthday. :)
And a happy birthday from me too! So glad to hear this. UBP - I've now read most of this thread, and I did like this from another thread:
This suggest that an immaterial representation (of the state of an object) is given material status – embedded in matter or energy – and that material representation IS the information. In other words, the state of an object is represented in a separate state of matter. A protocol can then be used to access the knowledge (of the state of the object) embedded within the representation. The distinction here is that there are two separate realities that are properly accounted for. There is the state of the object, but there is also the representation (instantiated in matter). They are not the same thing. I maintain that the state of the object is nothing more than the state of the object. The representation of that object is the information.
I do think we are nearly there. I think the final stumbling block can be overcome quite simply, as MI suggested, by giving an actual example of what would constitute a representation in my simulation. And I suggest this: That if, in my simulation, functional objects are created (functional, in the sense of helping the virtual organisms to replicate successfully) that are produced within my organisms by means of a process that has a sequence of some kind as the input and the object as the output, that would constitute the generation of information. Now, I don't claim any originality in what I am trying to do, except that I'd like it to actually work as a simulation rather than as a description, but the inspiration is something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg (jump to 3'50") As you will see, the idea is that two kinds of things form - lipid vesicles and self-replicating polymers. At some point, I'd say, information,by your definition, arises (it's only an animation of course, not a simulation). So if you have the time to watch it, that might either get me to the starting block, or, alternatively, send us both back to the drawing board! But my question now at least is simple: if I could produce something that simulated Szostak's proposal here, would it, in your view, count as the generation of information from Chance and Necessity?Elizabeth Liddle_{August 7, 2011
August
08
Aug
7
07
2011
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

By what physical means is an E assigned it’s role as a symbol? So what is a materialist to do? Deny that 'E' is a symbol? Assert that physics and chemistry can produce symbolic relationships? And that's just stage 1. How do we then get from there to codes, coding and encoding?Mung_{August 5, 2011
August
08
Aug
5
05
2011
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

UB, can of worms I think, but I essentially agree that if we consider a living system to be an ARTIFACT of a mind, there's a protocol evident in the mapping between DNA and whatever protein it's translating into mRNA, embodied in RNA polymerase. There are others, certainly, but that's my pet example until I find a better one. xp Warning: pontification to follow. In this embedded specification there's a circularity (paradox) present: that RNA polymerase gives rise to itself during the replication process. It must read the code for itself from the DNA and sequence the mRNA strand for itself to be later translated into a protein. This embedded specification for an already present system is evidence for the involvement of a designer, unless chance and necessity can be vindicated.material.infantacy_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

MUNG: "By what physical means is an E assigned it’s role as a symbol?" MI: "by no physical means whatsoever, I believe." I think there is little doubt that there is a neural pattern in our brains that (through learning) establishes the English symbol 'e' with the "eee" sound that we make in speech. Just as there is a neural pattern in our brains that established the word a-p-p-l-e with the red fruit with the white center and the little black seeds that grows on trees. It seems there is ALWAYS a physical protocol that establishes the mapping of symbol to that which is symbolized. It also seems that this protocol is ALWAYS established in the reciever of the information, in order for the information to have an effect. This is what reason dictates, and what the evidence backs up. Dr Liddle's exercise is for that mapping to rise by nothing but physical law.Upright BiPed_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Mung at #216, by no physical means whatsoever, I believe. Correct me if I’m wrong. Following one causal chain backwards, the contingent arrangement which forms the letter "E" relies upon a protocol established between the two fax machines which converts a contingent arrangement of digital “pulses” imposed upon a stream of electrons, into a printed document. Then we have a scanning protocol initiated in the first fax machine to convert monochrome contrast on a sheet of paper into the pulses that get sent along the wires. This required a protocol which converted a specification for a fax machine into a fax machine during the manufacturing process. This required an engineer capable of designing and configuring the protocols to build the fax machine, to scan the document, to convert the scan-line data into digital pulses capable of long range transmission, and convert back to a scan-line format on the other end, reproducing with acceptable fidelity, the original document to be read and understood by the receiving party. The causal chain begins with a mind. However our engineer could have been practically illiterate, because nothing that a fax machine does is reliant on the symbol for “E” -- for that, we would need to look at the causal chain that begins with the sending party and ends with the receiving party. The fax machine merely scans a document, irrespective of whatever symbols are present, encodes it into a digital scan-line format, and sends it to the receiving machine. The sending party encodes the information into symbols. The fax machine transmits the form of the symbols to the receiving machine, which prints out a copy of what it received. The contingent arrangement which forms the symbol for “E” instantiates the concept “E” into the mind of the receiving party. Sloppy post, but I’m doing this in haste. m.i.material.infantacy_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

So if instead of being in Los Angeles, our second fax machine is in Liverpool, where perhaps Elizabeth can get a glance at it. What is it, exactly, that determines that the ink will form the shape of an E, of all the possible shapes? Can we call it information? By what physical means is an E assigned it's role as a symbol?Mung_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Happy birthday, Ms Biped!kairosfocus_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Thanks Dr Liddle, my daughter is fine. It was just a scare (a big one). She is fine, just like her mother - healthy, accomplished, and beautiful. And today is her birthday. :)Upright BiPed_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

I'll try to get back before the 17th. Right now life is intervening (in a good way, mostly). Hope your daughter is doing better, UBP. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

Moderators: please don’t lock this thread!
Dr Liddle, I think this thread will close on the 17th of August, but I could be wrong. Regarding our conversation, I am glad you are taking some time. A break is reasonable, particularly if you’re already busy. It is a daunting task after all. Almost as if you are standing on the shore of an ocean, but can see the other side. You need something physical to happen over here, and have it determine something physical happening over there. And you need this coordination between the two to rise from physical law alone. Or you can turn the thing around, and look in the other direction. You can see something happening back on the first shore, and you know its suppose to determine what something happens over here on the second - but you don’t know what that something is, and you don’t even know what it was on the first shore which was supposed to tell you. There is of course a solution to this problem; it’s the same solution that exists in any other form of information transfer. The solution is a physical thing that coordinates the two sides together – a protocol – a thing to map what is happening on the second shore, to what is happening on the first. So to speak… :)Upright BiPed_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

... like the Ouroboros-worm.Ilion_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

Yes Ilion, it's an awful state -- terribly self-contradictory.material.infantacy_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

" They both love and despise themselves — tormented, pitiful creatures — consumed by hatred for those they disagree with, the very thing which sustains them." They consume and are consumed, simultaneously?Ilion_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Sorry Mung, I have to call it like I see it. xpmaterial.infantacy_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Now that hurt! Take it back. ;)Mung_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

By some foul craft, pedant trolls have been crossed with stalker trolls. They can move through a blog with great speed and no shame, and they can feed off the attention they receive from those they loathe. They both love and despise themselves -- tormented, pitiful creatures -- consumed by hatred for those they disagree with, the very thing which sustains them.material.infantacy_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

He posted a link to Shannon's paper. http://ens.dsi.unimi.it/classici/Shannon_1948.pdf HERE It was kind of funny. He told me I should read it. He apparently didn't notice that I'd posted links to the same paper and quoted from it earlier in that same thread. So he got off to a real good start in that thread as well.Mung_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Was it something I said??Upright BiPed_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

....continuing with William It just seems to me that it would be intellectually troubling to stand by the claim that 'ID hasn't made a valid case' if in fact you were having to design a simulation in order to prove their case was invalid.Upright BiPed_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Hey William, since you are hanging out with us, can I ask a question: Since Dr Liddle is attempting to design a simulation that may at some point in the future (if successful) falsify the semiotic argument for ID, would you agree with her that ID hasn't made a valid case?Upright BiPed_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

So the answer is "no" The paper you have has no credible idea (or preferably experimental results) as to how symbolic representations and physical protocols came to be coordinated together in a system of information storage and processing? Thanks for chiming in.Upright BiPed_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

It is always information about something. It’s effect is to change, in one way or another, the total of ‘all that is the case’ for us. This rather obvious statement is the key to the definition of information. – Donald M. MacKay, Information, Mechanism and Meaningmaterial.infantacy_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply