Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Perfect architectures which scream design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

(Adapted from a discussion at Evolution and Design and from material in Trevors and Abel’s peer-reviewed paper, Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life, featured in Cell Biology International, 2004.)

The Explanatory Filter in ID literature outlines a textbook method for detecting design. If one finds a physical artifact, the artifact is inferred to be designed if the features in question are not explainable by naturalistic explanations, namely:

1. natural law, or
2. chance

(I will explain later why I define “naturalistic explanations” this way.)

However, two objections often arise:

A. How can we be sure we won’t make some discovery in the future that will invalidate the design inference?

B. How can we be sure we’ve eliminated all possible naturalistic causes, particularly since we have so few details of what happened so long ago when no one was around?

Answer: We can be sure if we are dealing with the right kind of design, a perfect architecture to communicate design! The right kind of design will negate objections raised by questions A and B.

I must admit at first, A and B seemed impossible for finite humans like us to answer. I mean, after all, would we not have to be All-Knowing to answer such questions? However, there is mathematical tool known as Proof by Contradiction which allows finite humans to give accurate descriptions about issues that deal with an infinitely large number of objects.

It is rumored that the first recorded application of Proof by Contradiction was so heretical to the Greeks that they executed the mathematician who first applied it successfully (see The Square Root of 2). Let us then use this heretical tool to allow us to answer A and B without knowing everything.

What then is an example of a perfect architecture which resists natural law and chance explanations? Answer: self-replicating computer systems (Turing machines) and/or the first living organism. A peer-reviewed article on this very topic by Trevors and Abel in the journal, Cell International, is available here: Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life.

Rather than quote the entire article, let me give their explanation for why any natural law we are aware of, or any natural law we might possibly discover in the future, would not explain living organisms (the same is true of self-replicating computer systems, which living cells happen to be also):

Natural mechanisms are all highly self-ordering. Reams of data can be reduced to very simple compression algorithms called the laws of physics and chemistry. No natural mechanism of nature reducible to law can explain the high information content of genomes. This is a mathematical truism, not a matter subject to overturning by future empirical data. The cause-and-effect necessity described by natural law manifests a probability approaching 1.0. Shannon uncertainty is a probability function (−log2 p). When the probability of natural law events approaches 1.0, the Shannon uncertainty content becomes miniscule (−log2 p = −log2 1.0 = 0 uncertainty). There is simply not enough Shannon uncertainty in cause-and-effect determinism and its reductionistic laws to retain instructions for life. Prescriptive information (instruction) can only be explained by algorithmic programming. Such DNA programming requires extraordinary bit measurements often extending into megabytes and even gigabytes. That kind of uncertainty reflects freedom from law-like constraints.

The above is an example of using Proof by Contradiction. It is in no way an “argument from ignorance” (too use a tired old phrase by the anti-IDsts).

The rest of the paper gives an explanation why chance cannot be factor as it relates to pre-biotic chemistry and information science.

It is not reasonable to expect hundreds to thousands of random sequence polymers to all cooperatively self-organize into an amazingly efficient holistic metabolic network. The spontaneous generation of long sequences of DNA out of sequence space (Ω) does have the potential to include the same sequences as genetic information. But there is no reason to suspect that any instructive biopolymer would isolate itself out of Ω and present itself at the right place and time.

Even if all the right primary structures (digital messages) mysteriously emerged at the same time from Ω, “a cell is not a bag of enzymes”. And, as we have pointed out several times, there would be no operating system to read these messages.

Without selection of functional base sequencing at the covalent level, no biopolymer would be expected to meet the needs of an organizing metabolic network. There is no prescriptive information in random sequence nucleic acid. Even if there were, unless a system for interpreting and translating those messages existed, the digital sequence would be unintelligible at the receiver and destination. The letters of any alphabet used in words have no prescriptive function unless the destination reading those words first knows the language convention.

The question then arises, how about some combination of chance and necessity, a mechanism like natural selection. Well in addition to the fact one may not have a viable reproducing organism to even begin to have natural selection do it’s work, the Displacement Theorem shows why such a mechanism is even more remote than chance as an explanation. Thus, combinations of natural law and chance are also rejected as explanations.

We thus have, in the first life, something, that by definition resists naturalistic origins. It is not a matter of ignorance that this conclusion is arrived at, it is a matter of a mathematical Proof by Contradiction. If one assumes naturalistic origins for life, one eventually runs into a logical impossibility, which demonstrates the assumption of naturalistic origins was incorrect to begin with.

Lest I be accused of equivocation of the word “naturalistic”, let me point out if that if by naturalistic one means no involvement by the supernatural, that results in a either a meaningless definition (beautifully described by Mark Perakh on the supernatural and science) or a metaphysical definition (i.e., naturalistic = “anything except ID or God”). In either case, such a definition of “naturalistic” is scientifically meaningless.

In contrast, the definition for naturalistic that I gave above is consistent with the concept of naturalistic in ID literature, and further, such a definition is scientifically meaningful versus a metaphysical definition (naturalistic = “anything except ID or God”).

There is perhaps the hypothetical chance we have a non-natural, but also non-ID explanation for the first living organism. Such an explanation, given that it does not proceed from a natural law or chance would not be in principle testable, thus it too would fall outside materialist definitions of science. But this is an intolerable situation for materialist “science” because in that case, the explanation for life would still fall outside of their self-contradictory definition of science, and thus life, at least in their conception, would of necessity have an unscientific cause!

One might argue the possibility of a non-natural, non-ID cause negates the ID inference as well. But in such case I appeal to other factors:

1. We have examples of agents, namely humans, which can make comparable artifacts, thus the inference is at least consistent with an intelligence that is willing to behave in a human-like manner

2. If all else fails, we can point out the laws of physics strongly suggest the existence of an Ultimate Intelligence.

Thus really, a non-ID cause becomes less and less plausible.

I hope this essay has helped illustrate why life is a perfect architecture to communicate design!

Salvador

Comments
[...] Perfect Architectures which scream design [...]William Dembski and 3 IDers cited in a significant OOL peer-reviewed article by Trevors and Abel | Uncommon Descent
March 6, 2008
March
03
Mar
6
06
2008
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT
secondclass, Comment #83 was eebroms. visit teleological.org and post a SHORT comment there, and if I have time, I'll try to respond. Thanks for your participation. Salvadorscordova
July 12, 2006
July
07
Jul
12
12
2006
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Salvador, regarding your comment #83, you're very close to understanding something that will change your view of specified complexity. I'd like to discuss it with you on a neutral board. Thanks.secondclass
July 11, 2006
July
07
Jul
11
11
2006
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
It was written by Allen MacNeill... But, if standard scientific inference using induction cannot possibly "prove" anything, then the logical elimination of natural causes is quite literally excluded as a logical operation. In other words, just because one cannot provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of something today is literally no guarantee that such information cannot eventually be discovered and applied in a naturalistic explanation. Therefore, applying the ID concepts of IC and CSI should only be done as a last resort (once all possible naturalistic explanations have been tested and invalidated), as they depend fundamentally on the kind of comprehensive logical elimination that inductive reasoning absolutely prohibits. eebrom, using "argument by conservation of right-handed parity" writes (;-))... But, if standard scientific inference using induction cannot possibly "prove" anything, then the logical elimination of intelligent-design is quite literally excluded as a logical operation. In other words, just because one cannot provide intelligent-design explanation for the origin of something today is literally no guarantee that such information cannot eventually be discovered and applied in an intelligent-design explanation. Therefore, applying the naturalistic concepts to IC and CSI should only be done as a last resort (once all possible intelligent design explanations have been tested and invalidated), as they depend fundamentally on the kind of comprehensive logical elimination that inductive reasoning absolutely prohibits.eebrom
July 10, 2006
July
07
Jul
10
10
2006
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT

As this thread is quickly slipping out of the queue, let me wrap up a few points.

Regarding pure deterministic laws, even a deterministic pseudo-random number generator cannot infuse life with information apart from a coupling mechanism (a boundary condition). Thus deterministic laws by themselves are impotent to infuses biology with information, not matter how information rich the laws are (and the known ones are actually very information poor according to the work of Gregory Chaitin). This is consistent with Trevors paper. I think Trevors claims hold and are mathematically irrefutable by definition.

Moving one to purely stochastic "laws" or chance processes. These process can only be described by simple general specifications. That is, like deterministic laws used in physics, they are usually poor in information content. When we say a concept is simple and elegant, mathematically speaking it is information poor. F=ma is simple and elegant, but information poor in terms of bits....

Stochastic laws are in a similar way information poor, but in ways less obvious. A stochastic law is usually described with a simple distribution and a few parameters. For example the normal distribution can be described by a simple equation, a mean, and a standard deviation, and nothing else. It is information poor in it's description.

Consider an illustration where 500 coins are subject to non-specific boundary conditions (like being shaken in a box). This process can be described by a stochastic process where a fair coin has a probability of being heads 50% of the time. A stochastic process is an appropriate model given the absence of specific boundary conditions (like precise specification of the initial conditions and forces acting on the coin).

For example, given that each coin has a probability of being heads about 50% of the time, it is highly unlikely all 500 coins will be heads apart from specific boundary conditions. That is a predicted, easily seen macroscopic property. We see such a stochastic process can't reasonably be expected to make all coins heads, but rather most outcomes will be such that about 50% of the coins will be heads.

But there are exceptions. Letting H represent heads and T represent tails, the following pattern would be superficially consistent with the idea that 50% of the coins are heads, yet the pattern resists stochastic explanation:

H T H T H T ........ H T

Surprisingly one could progressively make the patterns more intricate until the pattern is Kolmogorov Complex and there would still be problems. It is this claim that is perhaps not so obvious. All coins heads being improbable is obvious, but a Kolmogorov complex pattern being improbable is not so obvious.

The problem is when we begin looking to purely stochastic process to create highly a specific outcome (for a given trial), we get into trouble. As long as the the outcomes are described in generalities (like 50% heads) versus specifities (like a very exact patterns, even Kolmogorov Complex patterns) we avoid getting into trouble. Doing otherwise would be like asking a stochastic process to tell me what your passwords are. It simply is illogical.

That is why I said, if a stochastic process is called upon to give highly specific outcome (for a given trial), it ceases to be a stochastic process by definition. Highly specific outcomes (or specified outcomes) for a given trial do not come about through stochastic processes. This obvious fact has been pounded by Dembski, and it is so obvious, I'm at a loss that it is not clearly seen.

Purely deterministic and purely stochastic processes (in an of themselves) have been shown to be inadequate generators of specific biological information. But what of combinations of deterministic and stochastic processes? That is the subject of my upcoming thread on the Displacement Theorem.

I will also post on Dave Thomas's evolutionary algorithms, but in brief, his disproof can be illustrated by this fictional scenario:

PZ Myers finds DaveScot in the park one day, walks up with a paint ball gun and shoots DaveScot in the chest. Ouch!

Shortly before DaveScot confers a little retribution for this act, PZ pleads, "Don't be mad Dave, you were not the target of my gun. Honest, I was aiming at the shirt you happen to be wearing, not at you specifically, only your shirt."

Salvador

scordova
July 9, 2006
July
07
Jul
9
09
2006
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Allen, Thank you for your post. It's is of value knowing where you think IDers need to focus their efforts. However, I think ID will be accepted by next generation scientists, doctors, and engineers through outside literature, not peer-reviewed literature because of the institutional barriers. Dean Kenyon and Michael Behe and others were persuaded with popular literature outside mainstream peer-review. Curiously, they were actually well-qualified to be peer-reviewers of such popular literature (especially Kenyon when he read the works of A.E. Wilder Smith!). There will be heretical ideas circulated outside the blessings of "the powers that be" even amongst practicing scientists. I expect these alternative, informal research networks will be where ideas are developed, even annonymously. This is possible now because of the internet. Any literature for main-stream publication will have to diplomatically avoid references to the fact it is favorable or could be interpreted as favorable to intelligent design. I expect very little empirical research to be devoted by IDers to moving naturalistic evolutionary theories or OOL theories forward since it is largely viewed as a hopeless quest in their eyes, especially OOL. Given that, ID theory may not ever meet the criteria you would expect, and I respect that. However, if you find value in the work of Jack Trevors (who is not an IDer) or Richard Sternberg or even John Sanford, I would consider that progress, as I think from a scholarly standpoint, their ideas make a valuable contribution to critical thinking with respect to prevailing theories. Salvadorscordova
July 9, 2006
July
07
Jul
9
09
2006
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
j, Thank you for the information! That entire article on Trevors is worth reading.
Take that question about the origins of life. It's hardly a new line of inquiry for Trevors, who was about 10 when he began wondering about the existence of God. He's still wondering. Indeed, it's a question that has consumed a fair amount of his own life recently, albeit now voiced in the language of a professional scientist: Where and how did the genetic code and its instructions arise? No small question. “The origin of genetic instructions in the DNA is the most pressing question in science,” he says. “Genetic instructions don't write themselves, any more than a software program writes itself.” He adds that the issue goes far beyond deciphering the recipes for making proteins. Given that our genetic material constitutes the stuff of our own identity, “it's the search for ourselves, our origins,” he says.
I respect Trevors open mind on the issue, and I'm glad the scientific community accepted publication of his thought process. Salvadorscordova
July 9, 2006
July
07
Jul
9
09
2006
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
scordova @73: "I do not know what Trevors and Abel actually believe." Discovered this for Trevors:
Call it looking for God in our DNA — or at least that's how a person of faith might phrase it. Trevors, a self-proclaimed atheist, is more circumspect. “If you're a religious person, you say God. If you're an evolutionist, you say evolution.” He notes, however, that not even evolution deigns to tell us where or how life itself first came about or how DNA's instructions came to be. Perhaps the birthplace of those instructions — like the very creation of the universe itself — is, in Trevors' words, both “unknowable and ‘undecidable' at this point in time.”
From "Inquiring Minds Want to Know" by Andrew Vowles ( http://www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/05-10-26/profile.shtml ).j
July 8, 2006
July
07
Jul
8
08
2006
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT

Mike 1962:

Thanks for the post (#77). And I agree, unless one is clear on the determined/undetermined question, everything else is pointless. Let me be clear right off the bat that I am firmly in the undetermined camp. This, of course, puts me at odds with many in the "pro-evolution/anti-ID" camp, who are what I sometimes refer to as "relentless determinists." My good friend and mentor, Will Provine, often makes statements that seem to me to be "pan-determinist", and with which I therefore disagree (and, surprise, we still remain the best of friends).

This problem is paralleled by what I call the problem of "pan-adaptationism." As most clearly articulated by Lewontin and Gould in their "spandrels" paper, this metaphysical position (and it is IMO metaphysical, not empirical) assumes that virtually no characteristic of any living organism is "accidental" - that is, everything is an adaptation. There are historical reasons why many supporters of the "modern synthesis" (i.e. what the ID camp likes to call "neo-darwinists"...odd, many of us used to like that moniker) take this position, beginning with R. A. Fisher's assertion that individual fitness is summed over the entire genotype, and can therefore be considered to focus on a single "crucial" character/allele that is the entire subject of selection. Fisher asserted this because he couldn't model selection mathematically without doing so, but it set the stage for (or at least didn't discourage) the "pan-adaptationism" that Lewontin and Gould decry.

Indeed, as I am currently working up in an essay (which will, in the fullness of time, become a book), a fully determined universe is a "closed" universe, and therefore everything in it will perforce be "closed" as well, including society and our own minds (i.e. neither "free will" nor anything like it can possibly exist). I'm on the side of Karl Popper, author of The Open Society and Its Enemies, and therefore rush in (where some others fear to tread) and assert that both the universe and everyting in it are (at some level) undetermined (or, at least, not fully determined). IOW, as Democritus said, "all things are the fruit of chance and necessity" not just necessity.

Does this mean that I might entertain the idea of ID? Of course is does, but as a fully committed empiricist, I won't change my mind until IDers do the same things to verify their theory that we neo-evos do: propose some testable hypotheses, formulate some predictions that can be empirically (i.e. not just theoretically) tested, then do the tests (i.e. get your hands dirty), analyze the results (preferably using generally accepted statistical methods), and then publish the results in peer-reviewed journals. I know, there have been some peer-reviewed pro-ID articles (some are referenced above), but I haven't seen any (yet) that use real organisms in natural environments to validate or falsify testable hypotheses. If this can be done, and the results look good, then it's time to break out the bubbly. Doing so before you've jumped through the hoops is not only premature, it makes you look like a deluded, self-agrandizing idiot to the people who have spent their lives getting their hands dirty. And nobody wants to look like a deluded, self-agrandizing idiot...

...not me, anyway.

Why should we be held to a higher standard than you? There is no empirical evidence using real organisms in natural environments in support of the claim that random mutation plus natural selection can create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. Physician, heal thyself. -ds Allen_MacNeill
July 7, 2006
July
07
Jul
7
07
2006
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
"If a stochastic process accounts for highly improbable specific events, then by definition it is not stochastic, it is the mathematical equivalent of a square circle." This is the crux of the matter. If by sifting thru many terabytes of data I run across the ASCII codes for the text of War and Peace, then by any coherent (and I might add, meaningful and useful) definition of stochasm and information, we have encountered information. GIGO, baby, GIGO. All first year computer science majors learn that. When the input garbage is shaped into non-garbage output, something specific is at work in the "shaper." If the input is stocastic and if the output consists of even stocastic numbers, an algorithm is obviously at work. If the entire universe is taken as a whole, any events leading to specific patterns must have been processed by preexisting conditions. (Obviously.) How did the universe come to the state it is presently? Wheneven I talk to an anti-ID person, I always try to get the metaphysical philosophy cleared up first, what they really believe about the nature of the universe. Does any sort of true randomness exist or not? Not just random or "stochastic" from our viewpoint, but truly random from any viewpoint- genuinely undetermined events, events where the result is undetermined by the cause? The answer tells me a lot about how a person thinks. Other than just *saying* the words "an undetermined event", I find the concept to be utterly meaningless. If a person believes in a strict determinism, then everything that exists was set in stone, so to speak, from the first unit of Planck's time. Beyond that point, no rational inquiry can exist. A logical dead end. (Yes, I know about multiverses, or explanding and contracting universe, and so forth, but like the question of God's existence, a multiverse or a repeating universe, doesn't explain the meta concept of its existence in the first place, or anything about how our universe got the specific ordering that it has.) If a person accepts that undetermined events truly occur, and that THESE are the source of the biological complexity on Earth, then in effect, they are simply taking the "I don't know" position using different words. However, I believe it is fundamentally weaker than pure determinism since pure determinism only requires a single logical dead end, and this view requires two logical dead ends. Either one may be correct, who is to say. But I should think one gap would be preferable over two gaps to any scientist. And who knows? When you let open the "back door" to reason by allowing undetermined "I dont know" events to occur presently, why then, ANYTHING could happen. Induction may make us feel better, but it is hardly "true." Moreover, the idea of undetermined events is simply nonsense. (Quantum Mechanics deals basically with statistical probabilities of events, and relegates certain subatomic events to the "I dont know" category. However, QM strictly speaking is incomplete in how it deals with these undetermined events. There are schools of thought on what is going on "down there" (many worlds, Copenhagen, etc) but these interpretations are not QM itself. Something unknown "shapes" the individual undetermined events into statistically accurate outcomes overall, so they either cannot be so undetermined after all. String theory attempts to explain it but lacks empirical verification thus far, and ST is a pure deterministic system. Point is, nobody knows why undetermined events occur the way they do according to QM, or if they are genuinely undetermined. It's an open question.) At any rate, whether or not undetermined events actually exist or not is irrelevant. Either view poses serious questions to the anti-ID mindset. In the universe, every event is shaped by the state of the entire system that came before. There's no getting around that. And the universe's "shaping mechanism" led to intelligent beings with insight, foresight, and the ability to deeply probe itself. How could it have been any other way? Thanks for reading.mike1962
July 7, 2006
July
07
Jul
7
07
2006
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Ultimately you have to face the question of the source of intelligent agency.
Perhaps as a theologian or philosopher, but isn't science precluded from trying to find the answers to ultimate questions? And science ID wishes to remain within the realm of science, it does not address the question of the ultimate source of intelligent agency.
As best I can gather, ID witholds itself from making any claim about the history/creation of the intelligent agency inferred.
Which is as it should be, until such an entity can be brought within the purview of science.
Yet how can you assault Darwinism for not providing an adequate account of biological complexity (i.e. for not invoking intelligent agency) while at the same time claiming that the intelligent agency, as a complex intelligent entity of whatever form, does not need an adequate explanation aside from a de facto assertion of its existence.
Darwinism is not assaulted for not invoking intelligent agency. It is, however, assaulted for failing to provide an adequate causal account of biological complexity. It is necessary to do so in order to show why ID is a better explanation. Now, you want ID, once it has inferred design, to begin an exploration of the designer. And your beef with ID is that it does not do this. In fact, ID cannot even tell us if that designer exists. So, given that ID cannot even tell us that the designer exists, why should ID address itself to explaining the designer? Why can ID not take the designer as a give, like Darwinism takes OOL for a given?
...why is it okay stop with the first intelligent agency inferred?
What on earth do you mean? To infer that some event had an intelligent cause is not to identify any specific intelligent agent. So what precisely is it that ID is stopping at? What is it that you would have ID explore, and using what method, ocne ID has inferred design of some feature?Mung
July 7, 2006
July
07
Jul
7
07
2006
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
"Appeals to purely deterministic laws do not solve the problem either, because deterministic laws by definition do not spontaneously create information apart from boundary conditions," Not only that, but pure determinism (which must exist to the materialist unless reason is to be discarded, for then cause and effect is violated) implies a front loading of everything that exists, which naturally leads to the issue of how the universe become front loaded in such a manner. Otherwise one must open the door to a *genuine* randomness, i.e, uncaused events. Which is just another way of saying, "we don't know what the hell causes it." But of course, this is all just "philosophical gas." *Real* biologists (the neoDarwinists) just stick to the empirical facts, right?mike1962
July 7, 2006
July
07
Jul
7
07
2006
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
"Yet how can you assault Darwinism for not providing an adequate account of biological complexity (i.e. for not invoking intelligent agency) while at the same time claiming that the intelligent agency, as a complex intelligent entity of whatever form, does not need an adequate explanation aside from a de facto assertion of its existence. Am I missing something?" I think it lies in the fact that Modern Evolutionary Theory ("NeoDarwinism") is simply inadequate to explain with any kind of impressive precision (to me personally) much of what exists. Therefore the best explanation available at the present time given what we know about similar systems fabricated by mankind is that an intelligent agency with foresight fabricated the biosystem that exists. Particularly when I contemplate the existence of the original reproducting cell, of which MET has nothing to say at all, but whence from the whole shambang springs. I see process theory, information theory, and common sense killing MET. That is not to say that there is no evolution. On the contrary, once we understand the nature of the original cell (if this is possible) all questions may be answered on that score. In the mean time, we must grapple with the fact that *something* is responsible for the fantastic digital computing process that led to all of what we see. It screams design from every angle, and I think only fools deny it. But who am I.mike1962
July 7, 2006
July
07
Jul
7
07
2006
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Isn’t this a peer-reviewed ID paper? If it is, it predates the Meyer paper. Has it generated much ruckus?
Well, they were smart enough not to advocated for ID. :=) Albert Voie's paper however is a pro-ID paper that did pass peer review. I mentioned Voie's paper here: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/722 Abel (Trevors co-author) encouraged Voie to write what eventaully became a pro-ID paper. I do not know what Trevors and Abel actually believe. However, Abel has posted a milliion dollar reward for finding a naturalistic answer to life, see: http://www.us.net/life/ What do you think of that? 1,000,000 buckaroos for solving OOL! Perhaps I should offer a 1,000 prize for finding a square circle. Salvador PS off for the weekend, see y'all next weekscordova
July 7, 2006
July
07
Jul
7
07
2006
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Isn't this a peer-reviewed ID paper? If it is, it predates the Meyer paper. Has it generated much ruckus?avocationist
July 7, 2006
July
07
Jul
7
07
2006
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
But can a stochastically described process (whose behavior is defined by a few bits of information such as the type of distribution plus some parameters like mean and std deviation) coupled with deterministic laws account for highly improbable and also highly specific patterns (like say 500 coins heads)?? No,
Yes. BobBob OH
July 7, 2006
July
07
Jul
7
07
2006
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT

Bob OH wrote:
Of course it [a deterministic law] does no such thing [spontaneously create information],

I'm glad we can agree on something

unless one is omniscient.

I'm afraid not, because if one is Omnicient (All-Knowing), the deterministic law does not tell Him something He doesn't all-ready know, thus there is no surprisal value, thus to the Omnicient One, there is no reduction of uncertaintity for Him, thus no information is created as far as He is concerned. One then could argue that for a Being to be All-Knowing, such a Being must then also be the Author and Ultimate Source of all information...but I digress.

Bob OH wrote:

The counter-example is a pseudo-random number generator. If you don’t know that there’s a deterministic algorithm, then you’ll conclude it’s stochastic (assuming it’s a good RNG).

I'm afraid that is not correct either, because all one has to do is run the pseudo-random number generator again, and demonstrate 100% repeatability! In such case, because the system repeats, one realizes one is dealing with a deterministic system not a stochastic one. After all, a responsible scientist will try to rerun his experiment or otherwise try to create reproducibility wouldn't he? :-)

How do we discover deterministic (or approximately deterministic) properties in systems such as natural laws? Through reproducible experiments! If one runs the system and a different output is generated, one is not dealing with a purely deterministic system. Thus the counter-example you offered is invalid.

This leads of course to the discussion of stochastic processes (versus purely deterministic process) where we don't have absolute repeatability, but only repeatability of certain macroscopic properties (like temperature or pressure). The pattern of 500 coins in a box after being shaken is an example of something we view as a stochastic process. Stochastic processes will be the topic of subsequent posts in this thread.

I’ve also shown how stochastic output can be gained from a deterministic system: in two ways now (stochastic inputs, and an unknown pseudo-random system).

And this shows the exact flaw in materialistic/naturalistic science that I'm trying to point out: using stochastic outputs (appeals to uncertainty) to try to account for the emergence of a CERTAIN specific complex artifacts is hopless. It's like trying to find certainty through creating more uncertainty.

But can a stochastically described process (whose behavior is defined by a few bits of information such as the type of distribution plus some parameters like mean and std deviation) coupled with deterministic laws account for highly improbable and also highly specific patterns (like say 500 coins heads)?? No, it is the search for square circles as well. The topic of combination systems is the topic of the Displacement Theorem (another thread).

As I pointed out in my example of 500 coins in a box to JanieBelle, assertions of the emergence of specified complex events (such as 500 coins heads) is not scientifically defensible because the inherent definition of stochastic processes prevents such processes from being able to scientifically account for high specificity events. If a stochastic process accounts for highly improbable specific events, then by definition it is not stochastic, it is the mathematical equivalent of a square circle.

Appeals to purely deterministic laws do not solve the problem either, because deterministic laws by definition do not spontaneously create information apart from boundary conditions, thus for system to create information it must have a degree of uncertainty, exactly as Trevors argues.

But in this thread, I discuss purely deterministic, and purely stochastic porcesses. I'll go to the more difficult topic of combination of deterministic an stochastic processes in a yet-to-be posted thread on Dembski's displacement theorem.

Salvador

scordova
July 7, 2006
July
07
Jul
7
07
2006
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Response to comment #38 AM: Both Michael Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity” and William Dembski’s concept of “complex specified information” are based on the logic of elimination (aka “logical exclusion” a la the “explanatory filter”). The EF, like ALL filters, is eliminative. That is true. The EF eliminates via consideration. But your premise is false: Dr Behe:
Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.
and
The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself-not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.
Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause. In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed. Pg. 72 of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education"
AM: That is, they depend on being certain that one has eliminated natural causes for the origin of complex biological objects and processes, thereby logically requiring an alternative hypothesis (i.e. that such objects and processes must have been “intelligently designed”). Wm. Dembski pg 36 of The Design Inference:
The principal advantage of characterizing design as a complement of regularity and chance is that it avoids committing itself to a doctrine of intelligent agency. Defining design as the negation of regularity and chance avoids prejudicing the causal stories we associate with the design inference.
What part about that don't you understand?Joseph
July 7, 2006
July
07
Jul
7
07
2006
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT

I didn’t yell and it was the generic “you” not the personal “you”. If it’s personal I’ll add something about how your momma girlfriend wears combat boots so there’s no mistake. -ds

Oh, good. When I read all that gobledygook, it "sounded" in my head like you were mad at me. I'm glad you're not, because you've been sooo sweet to me, here, in your emails, and at my blog. I like having you around, and I'd hate to ban "the Banninnator" HAAHAHAHA....

Hey watch it with the combat boot jokes, or I might make YOU my girlfriend, buster. -jb :)

As Frank Burns on Mash said: "It's nice to be nice to the nice." That said I'm going to have to bow out of further commentary at your blog. It's become a bit too risque for me, all things considered. Sorry about that. -ds janiebelle
July 7, 2006
July
07
Jul
7
07
2006
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
A good illustration is communication channel as it illustrates a conduit where the output is dterministic with respect to the input. You have the sender and receiver. In such a system, the sender sends 20 bits of information by imposing boundary conditions on the input end of the channel. The reciever will receive 20 bits of information. In the absence of the boundary conditions being induced by the sender, 0 bits appear at the output end (even if there is some sort of data decompression at the output end). Thus, this illustrates that deterministic laws do not spontaneously create information!
Of course it does no such thing, unless one is omniscient. The counter-example is a pseudo-random number generator. If you don't know that there's a deterministic algorithm, then you'll conclude it's stochastic (assuming it's a good RNG).
To give a historical context Muarry Eden in the 60’s laws of nature which might be the source of life. If that law was deterministic however, apart from boundary conditions, such laws could not spontaneously create information.
Gah! My argument is precisely that the boundary conditions can be stochastic!
I think your resistance is to his partitioning, not really to the veracity of his proof.
There's no proof! It's just assertion, assrtion, assertion. I don't believe a lot of the assertions, such as that there is not enough stochasticity in the system. This assertion is just obviously wrong: there's a large literature which treats law-like systems as stochastic: e.g. statistical physics. Trevors and Abel accept that there is some stochasticity in the system, as I've already pointed out. I've also shown how stochastic output can be gained from a deterministic system: in two ways now (stochastic inputs, and an unknown pseudo-random system). BobBob OH
July 6, 2006
July
07
Jul
6
06
2006
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT

"Now tell me why it’s unreasonable to consider it a strong possibility that the living machinery of life is the result of intelligent agency." --ds

ds, I agree completely that it isn't unreasonable to seriously entertain this possibility. What I can't for the life of me undertand, though, is why the ID movement does not find it equally reasonable to consider that *that* intelligent agency must, by the very same reasoning, be very likely derived from another such agency. Which in turn would need to be derived from another..and so on. You get the picture. Ultimately you have to face the question of the source of intelligent agency. Darwinism proposes, thus far without much evidence, that complexity/information in biological systems was developed, from the bottom up, from primitive constituents. As best I can gather, ID witholds itself from making any claim about the history/creation of the intelligent agency inferred. Yet how can you assault Darwinism for not providing an adequate account of biological complexity (i.e. for not invoking intelligent agency) while at the same time claiming that the intelligent agency, as a complex intelligent entity of whatever form, does not need an adequate explanation aside from a de facto assertion of its existence. Am I missing something? I sincerely would like to know how you folks resolve for yourselves what seems to me a fundamental inconsistency with this whole intellectual endeavor. In other words, why is it okay stop with the first intelligent agency inferred? At least Darwinists make a half-a**ed attempt to account for the formulation of high levels complexity/information.

why the ID movement does not find it equally reasonable to consider that *that* intelligent agency must, by the very same reasoning, be very likely derived from another such agency Huh? I find the possibility reasonable. The unfortunate fact is we don't any have data about the next level. All the evidence of intelligence in the universe we have is the machinery that we created and the machinery in living things that predated our machinery. There's some tantalizing evidence that the universe itself was the result of intelligent agency but again, we have no empirical evidence to lead us beyond the moment the observable universe was instantiated. Maybe SETI will find something that will provide further clues. Maybe God will return and tell us. Until then, we work with what we have. My feeling is that intelligent agency predates the instantiation of the observable universe. Currently there's no way of investigating that so it really doesn't belong in a discussion about math and science and empirical evidence. So why don't we stick to things for which first hand evidence exists. -ds great_ape
July 6, 2006
July
07
Jul
6
06
2006
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT

Bob objected:

There’s no proof: it’s all just assertion. *ahem* Just like my last sentence.

Bob,

No it is not just an assertion. I'll take this issue again because it is too important. A good illustration is communication channel as it illustrates a conduit where the output is dterministic with respect to the input. You have the sender and receiver. In such a system, the sender sends 20 bits of information by imposing boundary conditions on the input end of the channel. The reciever will receive 20 bits of information. In the absence of the boundary conditions being induced by the sender, 0 bits appear at the output end (even if there is some sort of data decompression at the output end). Thus, this illustrates that deterministic laws do not spontaneously create information!

To give a historical context Muarry Eden in the 60's laws of nature which might be the source of life. If that law was deterministic however, apart from boundary conditions, such laws could not spontaneously create information. Trevors simply asserted what has since been realized, no deterministic law spontaneously creates information, if it did, it would not be deterministic!!!

If you can agree that deterministic laws, in the absence of boundary conditions do not spontaneously create information, then we can move to the issue of the probability of appropriate boundary conditions infusing information into lifeless matter.

You may not like the way Trevors partitioned the issue (by partitioning physical reality into determistic laws, and stochastic laws, and boundary conditions). But if you can accept that one can still describe system behavior along these lines then the discussion can move forward. It would be helpful to state, Trevors' partitioning is completely consistent with the way physical theories are described today.

I think your resistance is to his partitioning, not really to the veracity of his proof.

Salvador
PS
I can deal with the decompression issue at the output end, but let's save that for later, OK? The point is that even a deterministic decompressor does not spontaneously create information.

scordova
July 6, 2006
July
07
Jul
6
06
2006
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT

Easy, Dave, I'm not suggesting anything else.

I'm trying to understand how Salvadore and these guys prove mathematically that evolution isn't true, or as Salvadore said earlier, that it's mathematically nearly impossible for chance to explain life.

I'm just trying to see how we cover all the bases, so there are no holes for things to slip through.

I agree that it's kind of dumb for them to say "we made this happen without intelligence". If they made it happen, well, duh, there's intelligence.

I'm just trying to understand this, it's not really necessary for you to be rude and yell at me about mental blocks.

Sorry if I said something to P you O.

JanieBelle

I didn't yell and it was the generic "you" not the personal "you". If it's personal I'll add something about how your momma girlfriend wears combat boots so there's no mistake. ;-) -ds janiebelle
July 6, 2006
July
07
Jul
6
06
2006
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
Ok, now I'm lost again. I'm gonna do what I said before, and we'll have to come back to all that stuff. Enjoy your weekend, Salvadore. JanieBellejaniebelle
July 6, 2006
July
07
Jul
6
06
2006
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT

For the benefit of the readers, various numbers have been floated around for the minimum number of parts of a self-replicating von-neumann automata (which is a necessary condition for life).

Something on the order of 1 out of 10^40,000 for probability was my inference from von Neumann's writings. This is independent of the physical substrate of the automata, whether it is made of semi-conductor materials, DNA, amino acids, whatever.....

Because the architectures of the automata are recognized as independent (since we see partial constructs of it in engineering), and the specification was present before we knew much of the cell, it does not matter whether one defines life another way because what matters is we have found an artifact (life) matching an information rich independent specification (Turing machines and von neumann automata). They are even more information rich than Paley's watch. Thus a design inference is reasonable even if we were to define life another way. After all, a complex machine is still a complex machine!

The von-neumann automata was mentioned in Dr. Albert Voie's paper. I'd like to announce that possibly in a week or so, Dr. Albert Voie may visit our weblog!

The number 10^150 which I gave above thus one of the smaller numbers I had available. I invite my fellow UDers to give some of the numbers they are familiar with.

Salvador

scordova
July 6, 2006
July
07
Jul
6
06
2006
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT

ajl,

That's a good point, but hang on. You seem to be assuming life as we know it. In order to rule out chance, don't we have to rule out the chance of any possible kind of life? Do we know for an absolute fact that silicon or bzywhateverium can't make life?

My old science teacher (the million year old bald guy) used to say "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine".

Aren't they finding some pretty weird stuff down in caves and at the bottom of the ocean? Stuff that eats rocks and all? I'm not sure we can rule anything out just yet, can we?

JanieBelle

Genetic engineers are a fact. We know that intelligent agents can manipulate genomes for fun and profit and if you care to disagree I've got a bag full of genetically engineered rotten fruit to throw at you. Presumably, according to the Darwinian chance worshippers, these intelligent agents with white lab coats and gene splicing machines arose through natural processes without any intelligent help. Point #1: intelligent agents capable of genetic engineering are a natural part of the universe. Next consider that DNA and ribosomes, the protein factory that exists in every living thing we've examined, is a digital program controlled machine. Instructions for manufacturing different proteins are *coded* onto the spine of the DNA molecule and the ribosome reads those coded instructions just like a computer reads instructions from a program. The machine then assembles a protein according to those instructions just like computer controlled machines assemble complex pieces of automobiles. DNA and ribosomes are digitally programmed robotic protein assemblers or *machines* in every sense of the word. Point #2: All living cells so far observed contain complex machinery. Next point. In every case where we observe a machine in nature and we *know* where the machine came from, we know it came from intelligent agency. Point #3: all machines where the origin can be determined come from intelligent agents..


Point #1: intelligent agents capable of genetic engineering are a natural part of the universe.
Point #2: all living cells so far observed contain complex machinery.
Point #3: all machines where the origin can be determined come from intelligent agents.

Now tell me why it's unreasonable to consider it a strong possibility that the living machinery of life is the result of intelligent agency. If anyone can describe to me a plausible way for complex program code driven machinery on the level of DNA and ribosomes can assemble via chance interactions of chemicals with no forethought then I'll reevaluate whether ID is the best explanation for where these machines came from. Until then, the best explanation is rather obvious unless you've got some kind of mental block that makes you refuse to believe it possible that intelligence existed in the universe before humans came along. -ds

janiebelle
July 6, 2006
July
07
Jul
6
06
2006
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Thank you so much, Salvador. Take care of your other customers, and I'll get back with you after the weekend. Enjoy! I'm getting the math much better than the science itself. So while you're enjoying your weekend, I'm gonna try and see if I can understand where your initial numbers come from. Once the numbers are plugged in, I see how it works, I'm just not sure about where the numbers came from. Like... 1 / (3.27 * 10^150) 10^80 10^45 10^16 I'm sure the guys over at AtBC have some interesting ideas about where you got them from, but I'd rather find out for myself, thank you. (In case you hadn't noticed, some of them are watching this thread rather closely. You should be flattered, I guess. I know I feel special being quoted. :) ) I was going to say something else here, but I've thought better of it. It was pretty funny, though, so just laugh anyway. :) Thanks again, Salvadore.janiebelle
July 6, 2006
July
07
Jul
6
06
2006
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
Sal, I think your example was being very generous because you are assuming that all the particles in the universe have an equal chance of combining to form life. The reality is, as shown in the priviledged planet that few places would have the proper conditions, and even those places only have teh conditions for a certain period of time.ajl
July 6, 2006
July
07
Jul
6
06
2006
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT

Ok, I get your drift. But isn’t that a calculation of one particular hunk of material becoming alive?

Yes.

Wouldn’t you have to multiply that times all the hunks of material in the universe? The universe is pretty darned big, so by that reasoning, it almost seems like it would equal out to 1/1, which would mean that life would not only probably happen, but it would almost HAVE to happen “accidently”. Not that that rules out design, just that it doesn’t seem like it rules out random chance, either.

Good question, and an answer. Let's look at the number I gave:

1 / (3.27 * 10^150)

lets multiply it by the number of chunks in the universe. The smallest chunk is a sub-atomic particle, it is estimated that there are 10^80 such particles in the universe. So let's do the multiplication you suggest:

10^80 / (3.27 * 10^150) = 1 / (3.27 * 10^70)

Now the fastest rate a measurable quantum interaction can happen is 10^45 interactions per second based on Plank time (from physics). So let's factor that in:

10^45 / (3.27 * 10^70) = 1/ (3.27 * 10^25)

Let's then factor the amount of time in seconds since the beginning of time, roughly 10^16:

10^16 / (3.27 * 10^25) = 1/ (3.27 * 10^9)

Which is still one in billions.

So, even if one used the entire universe and all it's resources, at the maximum possible speed (which is excessively generous!), one still has only a remote chance of creating a life. As I said, the probabilities, are probably far worse than the optimistic numbers I gave. Further, assuming that the universe is exploring all these possibilities at 10^45 interactions per second is unbelievably generous.

Sorry if I’m missing something, I’m just trying to get an idea here. (I’m blonde, whatdaya want?)

Thanks again, by the way, for taking so much of your time to explain this to me. It’s really very kind.

JanieBelle

Those are good questions. You are welcome.

Feel free to ask more questions. I have some other posts I need to respond to, and I'll be away this weekend, so please forgive me if I'm delayed in responding. Don't hesitate however to call upon my other very able comrades here at UD.

I recommend if you want to learn more, you can watch the videos I linked to.

www.ideacenter.org has a list of IDEA chapters around the nation, and there is John Calvert's Intelligent Design Network: www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org It may take some work, but if you're really determined, you might be able to meet some of the individuals in IDEA or the ID-network.

(Last but not least are those unsavory theologically heavy-handed creationist organizations out there, but well, let's save those as a last resort. hehehe.)

Salvador

scordova
July 6, 2006
July
07
Jul
6
06
2006
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
I'm not sure if I'm being clear here. Let's go back to silly and simple. I understand that it's WWWWWAAAAAYYYYY not gonna happen that you get 500 heads on the first flip of 500 coins. But if you flip them enough, won't they EVENTUALLY all come out heads? So if each flip is like one piece of carbon or whatever stuff you need for life, it seems like you'd have to do a lot of flips to account for all the stuff in the universe. Or does my example not follow?janiebelle
July 6, 2006
July
07
Jul
6
06
2006
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply