Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“My Failed Simulation” taken literally at scienceblogs

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When I first wrote “My Failed Simulation” (now on the discovery.org main page here and at Human Events) it really never even occurred to me that anyone would think I had actually tried such a simulation, or that I was claiming to have tried it. I thought it was pretty obvious that it was just a thought experiment, designed to get people to think about the alternative to ID, namely that physics (the Schrodinger equation plus the elemenary particles of physics plus the four known forces of physics) alone can explain computers, libraries full of science texts and novels, and the Internet. My point was, not only is this the officially accepted view of science today, but anyone who doubts that physics alone can explain computers is considered so dumb he should be “Expelled” from the science classroom.

As I recall, only a couple of people at UD, where it was first posted, were confused as to whether or not I was serious (and they were probably only confused because they had not read below the fold). I even added “imaginary” to “friend” to make sure no one misunderstood it. But I have discovered an entire thread at Scienceblogs here where it seems many thought I was claiming to have actually done the simulation. Makes for very entertaining reading; but I don’t seem to have raised any doubts among this crowd.

Comments
Granville, you give the people reading your papers too much credit. Most people are not as smart as you. :)Dembskian
February 24, 2008
February
02
Feb
24
24
2008
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
bfast: If Dawkins can write a working simulation, why can’t you? Oh yea, you are too complex. No, no, no! It is because he is so complex that he is able to be invoked as an explanation which does not itself require an explanation. Sheesh. I mean, really, how silly does "who designed the Granville" sound? When we look at computer simulations, are we obliged to ask, who designed the designer of the simulation? I think so. We must know, who designed Granville Sewell!? I am actually quite interested in an actual simulation of evolution. Maybe we can get one going here at UD? I think we have teh technical resources (as long as no one minds being asked who designed them). No one "minds." Wow, how much is wrapped up in that simple statement/question? Step 1: Given observed mutations rates and what is known about the occurrence of "beneficial" mutations, how many members of a population must there be for a reasonable expectation of a beneficial mutation to appear in the population?Mung
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
Hi Granville, I read your original article, and I certainly did not think you actually coded and ran any such simulation. But then, I am one of those IDiots who think it possible to detect evidence of design.Mung
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
in order to avoid the confusion you should have published your post under the name Botnik and filed it under the tag P-A-R-O-D-Y!!sparc
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Larry, You are right, I misquoted him as "He claims to have done this in FORTRAN?" when he actually said "Did he have to claim to do this in FORTRAN?" I have removed the quote altogether, I will try to be more careful in the future.Granville Sewell
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
Dr. Sewell - How's that buck-a-post thing looking now? :)Gerry Rzeppa
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Dr. Sewell, here is the full text of the post: "Did he have to claim to do this in FORTRAN? Makes the rest of us look bad. Of course what do you expect from someone who doesn't even capitalize it correctly. Unless he meant Fortran 90, but everyone knows if you are going to simulate something totally insane, FORTRAN 77 is the only way to go." Please note: 1) It is not a short post. You used the word "quote", and I am assuming you were referring to the original Scienceblogs post. 2) You failed to cite the quote correctly. Your revision of the author's post alters its meaning. I am sure that you would agree that when you quote someone else's work, it should be done properly, and any errors admitted and corrected.larrycranston
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
The Internet has made it possible for us to communicate, so it has brought good along with the bad. - Granville Sewell No doubt. I take it, then, you think the product worth the price. Though I'm sure you don't enjoy defending yourself against the likes of Larry Cranston! Personally, I'd rather pay in ordinary currency. At a buck a post, I'm pretty sure the troublemakers would soon disappear. And the quality of the remaining contributions would would rise to new heights as well.Gerry Rzeppa
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
PannenbergOmega - I do think its crazy that people automatically dismiss Sewell's ideas. Though, many of the people reading his papers, probably don't have the slightest clue as to what he is talking about though.Dembskian
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
“the minute you begin to seriously entertain the idea that the human body could have come about without design, you have lost your mind.” Darwinism is insanity.Dembskian
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
Gerry, You make a good point, but on the other hand it could be argued that the Internet has played a very important role in the advance of ID theory. I have been an ID proponent for about 30 years now, that is, I felt Darwinism was insanity, but didn't buy into the YEC's attempts to distort science to fit Genesis; and for most of that time, I thought I was about the only person in the world with this view. I now know there were many other scientists with similar views, but there was simply no way for us to communicate, the other side had defined science in such a way as to ban us from the "peer-reviewed" scientific journals. The Internet has made it possible for us to communicate, so it has brought good along with the bad.Granville Sewell
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Well, if they believe evolution, they could miss the point of the simulation description.William Wallace
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Peer review is more like peer-pressure review, meaning: conduct your research with outcomes that only support the theories and science we the ruling experts of science approve of. Should your research not focus through the lenses we give you then you may forget funding, forget grants, forget tenure, forget publication in our approved, certified, sanctified, sanctioned bastions of scientific journals. Even if your research is correct, if it conflicts with what we have decided is true based upon our interpretation of the data, we will laugh and scorn and scourge you from the halls of our teaching facilities. You may now kiss the Darwin-inscribed pinky ring on the SciencePope's finger, you chattel you.beancan5000
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
PannenbergOmega - Give new meaning the term "peer-reviewed", don't you think?Gerry Rzeppa
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
"Is it just me or is this crazy?" - PannenbergOmega It's not just you. It's the internet, which has removed all of the traditional restraints on the propagation of nonsense (and bad taste). Internet publication is virtually free and is subject to no editorial approval. Even well-established laws against libel are practically unenforceable in this arena: who is going to spend time and money to bring suit against "FeatherHead43" for an indiscreet remark buried on an obscure blog? And the internet "levels the playing field" in a very unfortunate way. Pertinent remarks by established authorities appear, without distinction, right along side ridiculous and unsupported assertions by semi-literate, obnoxious, hate-filled, unproductive teenagers with overactive glands. Whose remarks, in pre-internet days, would have found an audience no larger than the one or two equally useless companions who had joined our would-be orator in a musty basement bedroom to fight video game battles for imaginary glory. I think we have to console ourselves with the fact that the internet community is not a representative cross-section of humanity. And God help us if it is!Gerry Rzeppa
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
To quote former Senator Bob Dole, "Where's the Outrage?"PannenbergOmega
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
All Granville Sewell did was ask if the four fundamental forces of Nature can create computers and spaceships. They didn't even try to reason and they went and compared him to being a 'child molester'. Is it just me or is this crazy?PannenbergOmega
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
One commenter said "I get the feeling people are PRETENDING not to be sure if he's joking." Maybe that is what is going on with "Granville Sewell--Genius or Liar?" But then the question becomes, why are they pretending to take it literally? Answer: that gives them something to attack without addressing the main point. I'm asking if the four fundamental forces of Nature can really create computers, and they're criticizing me for not capitalizing FORTRAN, and comparing me to a child molester. Just the usual responses to ID arguments from these people.Granville Sewell
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Larry, It isn't clear whether this commentor took me seriously or not, it's a very short quote.Granville Sewell
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Seriously? 9 now counts as "many"? Does that make 2 "a lot"? Also, any comment on your misappropriation of the "FORTRAN" quote?larrycranston
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Hey, Dawkins made a complete simulation of evolution a while back, did he not? Doesn't his simulation prove that evolution wrote "Methiks that it looks like a Weasel" or some thing like that? If Dawkins can write a working simulation, why can't you? Oh yea, you are too complex.bFast
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
When I wrote "The insults you have been subjected to are disgusting." I was expressing my displeasure at what you were being compared to. That was a very low thing to say.PannenbergOmega
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Granville "The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." ~actually unsourced but widely attributed to Harlan Ellison It may be just anger, Granville. You present the case for order from chaos in such a way that makes it appear only a fool could not understand it or continue to believe it. That "open system" canard given in response to entropy is moronic. Just because it's an open system doesn't mean that every improbable order suddenly becomes probable. Keep everything about the earth exactly the same but remove intelligent agency from the "open system" and only an idiot would believe that the library of congress, computers, spacecraft, roads, dams, bridges, and other highly ordered compositions of matter and energy would still be here. Sure it's physically possible for those things to emerge without intelligence but it's so improbable due to entropy that it's ridiculous to consider it as anything but practically impossible. The only reasonable response is that the natural evolution of intelligent agents isn't so improbable. But that's being countered by the evidence at every turn. No matter how much increasing detail we get from molecular biology about the machinery of life the appearance of design just gets stronger. The only way to describe those machines is by engineering terminology. It's not metaphorical terminology either. Metaphor breaks down in literal interpretations. Engineering terminology describing cellular machinery doesn't break down when taken literally. All our searching for other intelligent agents in the universe has come up with exactly nothing which only makes the case of natural evolution of intelligence being common look increasingly unlikely. Gonzalez was expelled for having the temerity to point out that the Copernican Principle of Mediocrity is refuted by the findings of modern astronomy. I held on to the dream that life and intelligence were a common commodity in the universe as long as I possibly could without letting it become an irrational belief but there comes a point when one has to admit that one's most cherished beliefs are refuted by the plain evidence if one is serious about being an objective, rational observer. DaveScot
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Larry, After looking at the comments more carefully, you are right that "nearly everyone" is an exaggeration, I have changed my post to read "many". But certainly the author of the article, "Granville Sewell, Genius or Liar" thought I had attempted the simulation or claimed to have attempted it, and about half the commenters did also. Anyway, it's the usual response to a reasoned argument for ID: divert attention from the main point by whatever means possible, and use insults to intimidate.Granville Sewell
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Hmmm. By my count, there are 29 comments in the Scienceblogs thread. Of those, I would say that 9 or 10 at least superficially suggest they took your "experiment" seriously. Maybe this is high order math, but how does 1/3 equate to "nearly everyone"? And I believe that your partial quote of the "he claims to have done this in FORTRAN" post incorrectly suggests that the author took you seriously.larrycranston
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Hopefully, *Expelled* will help matters. Even then, I'm not sure if it will be in every theater in the country. If theaters everywhere are going to show Michael Moore trash, then they should show Expelled. If they don't, then our worst suspicions of media manipulation are confirmed.PannenbergOmega
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Dr. Sewell. The insults you have been subjected to are disgusting. You have my utmost sympathy in this matter. The only way I can rationalize this, is to say that your work threatens them.PannenbergOmega
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
One commenter says the N-body problem is of O(N^2) complexity and thus "likely" couldn't even be run on a big cluster, let alone a laptop. Actually, it's much worse than that, the N-particle Schrodinger equation is a PDE of dimension 3N, which means using finite differences with M gridpoint in each direction you have a time-dependent ODE system with M^(3N) unknowns, and here N is the number of elementary particles on Earth. Thus this is absolutely impossible for more than N = 3 or 4 (I've never solved a Schrodinger equation with more than one particle, actually). So I'd admit I don't really know what would happen if such a simulation were somehow carried out, but I'm still pretty sure it would not create any computers or encyclopedias. At least, I think I have made the case that those who, like me, doubt that it would, should be taken seriously. But in this thread I am called everything from a "liar" to an "idiot" and even compared to a child molester. Frankly, such insults don't even bother me anymore.Granville Sewell
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Apparently those guys at scienceblogs are gullible enough to believe any old made-up story about how things evolve. They have a lot of experience in this regard. :-)GilDodgen
February 23, 2008
February
02
Feb
23
23
2008
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply