Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Possibilities – theoretical and practical

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a private forum I recently stated: “It is possible for Darwinian processes to generate life of any order of complexity.”

In response I was asked: Where is the demonstration that “It’s possible for Darwinian processes to generate life of any order of complexity”?

I composed the following in reply:

In order to understand this we have be clear of a distinction between theoretically possible and practically possible. I’ll illustrate the meanings in clear context as follows.

Theoretically possible: I buy one ticket in each of the next ten Texas state lotteries. In each lottery I have a one in ten million fair chance of winning. It’s theoretically possible I could win all ten.

Practically possible: It’s not practically possible within my lifetime to win the Texas state lottery ten times in a row buying one ticket in each lottery.

The laws of physics inform us of what is theoretically possible. We are informed of what is practically possible by a study of those laws called “statistical mechanics” which combines physical mechanics with probability theory. It’s theoretically possible for a stochastic process to produce a living organism. There is a finite chance an adult human with a lifetime of memories could materialize out of nothing in a single quantum fluctuation of a huge number of particles. In an infinite universe it isn’t just possible that will happen, it’s inevitable. Everything mechanically possible has 100% probability of happening in an infinite universe. Bill Dembski understands this very well as do many others. Mike Behe, in Edge of Evolution (pp. 224, Brain In A Vat) pokes fun at theoretical possibilities by describing Boltzman Brains which is essentially a brain full of false memories popping into existence in a quantum fluctuation. Bill seriously demonstrates this understanding in the definition and construction of the unversal probability bound (UPB).

To XXXXXX’s essential question: Where is the demonstration that “It’s possible for Darwinian processes to generate life of any order of complexity”?

A demonstration would show a practical possibility. If the science of intelligent design is correct such a demonstration is not practically possible. But it’s still theoretically possible and the science of intelligent design acknowledges the theoretic possibility. ID refutes, or attempts to refute, the practical possibility. The science of ID is all about distinguishing the practically possible from the theoretically possible and it appropriately boils down to math & physics operating in a bounded universe. Intelligent agency, as demonstrated by human intelligent agency, has the unique capacity of turning the theoretically possible into the practically possible. For instance, it’s theoretically possible but not practically possible for stochastic physical processes to produce a laptop computer. Intelligent agency makes it practically possible and thus there are hundreds of millions of laptop computers. We believe that the origin of life is a similar situation – absent intelligent agency it’s not practically possible.

Comments
groovamos Well– I’m puzzled over a distinction between physical and non-physical mechanics. This is new to me. "Physical mechanics" is redundant. It should be simply "mechanics" in the context of physics. I was trying to make it clearly distinguished from a secondary meaning: "The technical aspects of doing something." Your definition of statistical mechanics is narrower than I intended. Statistical mechanics incorporates both quantum and classical statistical mechanics. Mibad for not making that more clear. Pretend I wrote "statistical physics". Granville Sewell wrote a good article for UD on this topic you might be interested in The Schrodinger Equation. DaveScot
September 29, 2008
September
09
Sep
29
29
2008
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
prhean I’ve never been one to buy in to that kind of logic, however commonly accepted it might be. It isn't logic. It's law. The fundamental laws of physics are aren't derived from logical necessity and neither will they rearrange themselves via logical necessity. They are what they are and are derived by observation and experiment. Observation and experiment provide us with facts. Neither math nor logic trumps fact. Math and logic can explain facts and often predict facts but never do they create facts.DaveScot
September 29, 2008
September
09
Sep
29
29
2008
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
“...statistical mechanics” ... combines physical mechanics with probability theory. Well-- I'm puzzled over a distinction between physical and non-physical mechanics. This is new to me. For readers who may be confused, statistical mechanics is the extension of quantum mechanics to the realm of 6-dimensional space. A particle in this space is constrained by the Hiesenberg uncertainty principal to a "cube" of a particular minimum volume. This cube is of 6 dimensions, 3 of position and 3 of momentum. Since quantum mechanics is all about probabilities, it follows that the same is true of statistical mechanics. distinctions between branches of mechanics can be roughly divided into: 1- Classical (Newtonian, including kinetics, kinematics, fluid) 2- Relativistic 3- Quantum There are other branches of mechanics, some only theoretical, others which categorically fall under the above 3, and some that don't. Many of these bear the name of certain mathematicians who dreamed them up.groovamos
September 29, 2008
September
09
Sep
29
29
2008
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
“There is a finite chance an adult human with a lifetime of memories could materialize out of nothing in a single quantum fluctuation of a huge number of particles. In an infinite universe it isn’t just possible that will happen, it’s inevitable.” I’ve never been one to buy in to that kind of logic, however commonly accepted it might be. Who says that in an infinite number of universes every possibility has to be addressed? Perhaps all the universes would be pretty much the same, full of nothing or not very much. In any universe, seven will always be more than five, and some things must happen in sequence to occur, and the sequence requires outside manipulation. In my view, some things are just impossible, even with an infinite amount of time and resources. I’m just a layman, but I think you guys outsmart yourselves some of the time. By the way, to assume that the origination of a person with memory out of a random assembly of particles is possible is to assume a materialist view of humanity, is it not?prhean
September 29, 2008
September
09
Sep
29
29
2008
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Agreed. There is some (extremely low) probability that the next time I walk into my living room all of the air molecules will have through strictly random fluctuations coalesced into one corner of the room, and I will drop to the floor gasping for air and die. Yet, even in the face of this ghastly and very real possibility (in the "theoretical" sense DaveScot discusses), I feel no need to carry a spare tank of air into my living room.BarryA
September 29, 2008
September
09
Sep
29
29
2008
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
It's funny how most physicists can understand the difference in regards to, say, perpetual motion machines and the second law of thermodynamics; but not when it comes to design and randomness in nature. As we always like to say here on UD: We've already got pretty good evidence that nature did, in fact, produce minds. We've also got pretty good evidence that, well, the origin of life isn't very probable. Heck, why do you think scientists are so anxious about finding life on other planets? But, if Gonzalez and Richards are right, which we have some good reasons to believe so as expounded in their book (http://www.privilegedplanet.com/) and another book called Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe(http://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Complex-Uncommon-Universe/dp/0387952896/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222710944&sr=8-3), those scientists need to keep worrying.Ben Z
September 29, 2008
September
09
Sep
29
29
2008
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply