“The Front-Loading Fiction”

_{William Dembski

July 1, 2009

Intelligent Design, Science}

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

Here’s a neat article on front-loading:

The Front-loading Fiction
Posted by Rob on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:49:41 PM

SOURCE: The Procrustean — A Blog of Townhall.com

In responding to an email about “front-loading” as a Deistic solution to the universe that does not require an interventionist (theist) God, I replied that I have some philosophical problems with the phrase “front-loading”. It is a concession to Deism that doesn’t have to be made. Trying to describe a “front-loaded algorithm” highlights the problem with the philosophical solution.

Historically, the argument for front-loading came from Laplacian determinism based on a Newtonian or mechanical universe–if one could control all the initial conditions, then the outcome was predetermined. First quantum mechanics, and then chaos-theory has basically destroyed it, since no amount of precision can control the outcome far in the future. (The exponential nature of the precision required to predetermine the outcome exceeds the information storage of the medium.)

But “front-loading” permitted Deists to say that God designed the Universe, and then stepped back and let “natural” forces operate, thereby removing any “supernatural” interference of the sort that Lucretius fumed about in 50BC. So if Newtonian determinism was now impossible, perhaps there could be some sort of algorithmic determinism (which I’ll call Turing determinism) which could step in and permit a Deist to avoid the supernatural. That is, God doesn’t have to create the oak from the acorn anymore, but the biological program He inserted in the acorn can handle all the intermediate steps. So perhaps, God didn’t have to create humans, but the biological program in the first living cell He created, started the ecosystem that eventually evolved humans.

This remains, of course, the principle argument of theistic evolutionists, and was Howard Van Till’s favored method before he stopped teaching at Calvin College and gave up on theism.

But this argument assumes that one can separate algorithms from the machinery that executes them, the information from the storage medium, the supernaturally contingent from the naturally necessary. The Newtonian revolution was to view the universe as a complicated machine where “natural” laws were the function of the machinery, and “supernatural” interference was information not incorporated into the gears. The fact that a watch tells time was “natural”, whereas the setting to Eastern Standard Time was “supernatural” because it was contingent.

ID (Intelligent Design) makes the argument that the gears are just as supernatural as the time zone, because they are designed to function in a certain way. But such an argument doesn’t escape the TE (Theistic Evolutionist) defense that the time zone setting is just as “natural” as the gears, because there were no laws of nature broken. This would all be semantics, if it were not for the corollary, that ID claims to probe the character of the designer by studying the design, whereas TE claims that front-loading is indistinguishable from chance, making the designer inscrutable. (Which keeps his faith transcendentally Kantian, and science a-theistically independent of God.)

But is it true that algorithmic front-loading can be naturalistic, independent of God, Turing-deterministic, and thus incapable of revealing anything about a living God?

I’d like to make the argument that Turing determinism is impossible for several reasons, and therefore front-loading is indistinguishable from the supernatural, from the actions of God intervening in history.

MORE

Comments

Upright, The more you write, the less I understand what you are trying to say. First you said that some unspecified beliefs of mine are unfalsifiable. Now you say that I am sheltering them from falsification. Which is it? And what beliefs are you talking about? Please state them clearly, so that I'll have some inkling of what you're so wound up about. Right now I don't have the slightest idea of what you're referring to. P.S. If there are any readers of this thread who understand what UB is trying to say, could you translate for me?mereologist_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Mere, And to your response I posted the following... To answer my question you say: …physical phenomenon we can’t currently explain in terms of chance and necessity, does that mean that chance and necessity are insufficient to explain all physical phenomena… 1) The question I asked was more specific and perhaps requires a more thoughtful answer. I asked about the existence of anything that “cannot be explained by what we know to be true”. My question correctly assumes that we have a significant level of knowledge about these mechanisms, (and, although our knowledge will indeed increase) it also assumes that what we seek to explain does not require a direct contradiction of what we already know to be true. 2) Science does not operate under the idea that what we will find tomorrow will create a complete contradiction of what we know to be true today. For instance, I think one would be hard pressed to show that science expects the mechanism of chance to not operate at maximum uncertainty at every instance it is applied. (In other words, Einstein did not overthrow Newton, but added to the body of knowledge that Newton provided). It seems that science would be forced into the least parsimonious position in order to explain something by making an appeal to future knowledge if that explanation does not incorporate what we know to be true today, but is directly contradictory to it instead. 3) If what you say is true, that “physical phenomenon we can’t currently explain in terms of chance and necessity, does that mean that chance and necessity are insufficient to explain all physical phenomena”, then one might conclude that this is not a scientific perspective, given that it provides no means of falsification. 4) Again, just looking at the sentence “physical phenomenon we can’t currently explain in terms of chance and necessity, does that mean that chance and necessity are insufficient to explain all physical phenomena” begs the question – How do you know? - - - - - - - - Which leads us back to where we started, you insist that your beliefs are correct while sheltering them from falsification, and at the same time, you condemn your intellectual opponents for that which you do blatantly. That is the very definition of a hypocrit. The fact that you defend your position vehemently (for instance, there is clearly no contradiction within the evidence that could make you abandon your premise) it also makes you a wilfull hypocrit.Upright BiPed_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Upright, I find it almost impossible to parse your comments. You're not even quoting me accurately. What you quoted isn't even a statement -- it's part of my paraphrase of a question that you asked me! Here is my original comment:
Upright wrote:
Does the physical existence of anything that cannot be explained by what we know to be true of Chance and Physical Necessity negate the ability of Chance and Physical Necessity to explain everything that is physical?
Upright, Your language is a bit hard to parse, but it sounds like you’re asking the following:
If there’s a physical phenomenon we can’t currently explain in terms of chance and necessity, does that mean that chance and necessity are insufficient to explain all physical phenomena?
If that’s what you’re trying to ask, the answer is, of course, no.
This should be obvious. The fact that we can't currently explain some physical phenomenon does not mean that we'll never be able to explain it. Therefore the existence of a currently unexplained physical phenomenon does not imply that chance and necessity are insufficient to explain all physical phenomena. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.mereologist_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Mere, Your comment that the existence of... …physical phenomenon we can’t currently explain in terms of chance and necessity, does that mean that chance and necessity are insufficient to explain all physical phenomena… ...leaves no means of falsification of the premise. Not only is it non-falsifiable, but goes further to suggest that explanations that include direct contradictions of what we already know to be true are more parsimonious than explanations that don't make such contradictions.Upright BiPed_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped:
Placing conclusions prior to evidence is the issue at hand.
No, the issue is that the designer hypothesis is unfalsifiable unless additional assumptions are made. I've been stressing this point to Cornelius Hunter on his recent threads.
Besides, this is a bit of a hypocritical position from one who has all but admitted their own beliefe are secured from falsification.
To what beliefs are you referring? Please be specific.mereologist_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

The problem is that literally anything can be explained as the result of a divine intervention. It’s not a falsifiable hypothesis.
Placing conclusions prior to evidence is the issue at hand. Besides, this is a bit of a hypocritical position from one who has all but admitted their own beliefe are secured from falsification. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ockhams-razor-is-a-modern-myth/#comment-324452Upright BiPed_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

JTaylor
for instance, the designer would have to be crazy smart. Just very general but obvious and uncontrovertible characteristics
Not really incontrovertible . Maybe the designer is using a set of tools that the designer does not understand fully. Maybe the smart thing is something else, the thing that made the tool. The designer is perhaps just using that tool as a workman uses a shovel. Maybe the designer is just trying all the possibilities in turn. Is that smart? Cracking a safe by trying every combination is the smartest way? I'd say that "the designer would have to be crazy smart" is not something you can assume.Echidna-Levy_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Scot.David-san, Konnichi ha! Nihongo-o hanashimasu ka? Sugoi! Furotingu Kommandu Senta-wa, daijyoubu desu ka? With all we respect the message of your post #3, but perhaps, I can point out that God Of The Gaps numbers could be considered fractal, since there is no perfect placement of them in any rational sense. Speaking of gaps in the fossil record, large gaps disappear and small gaps are created as new fossils are discovered. The principal of self-similarity at all scales is not preserved. But the author was actually trying to use the term in a more poetic sense, that surrounding every point in the universe are gaps into which God can intrude. An opinion that Cthulhu followers find very much to their liking. So, we thank you for your post and your esteemable self and past postings. Douitashimashite!Nakashima_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Nakashima-san I never heard anyone say before that ID probes the character of the designer. One of the super-posters broached this a few months back and got roundly and appropriately jumped on. Once attempts are made to address the character of the designer, the methodology becomes subjective and one completely leaves the realm of physical science.tribune7_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Brent: "Probing the character of the designer caught my attention too. I think the point was simply that there are very general things that we would necessarily glean from the design we see concerning the one who designed it, such as, for instance, the designer would have to be crazy smart. Just very general but obvious and uncontrovertible characteristics." If we can glean characteristics abotu the designer, it would also be interesting to compare those characteristics with that of the deitys in the major religions - especially Christianity. My own personal view is that there could be a conflict here - on the one hand in the Bible we have a God who seemingly wants to reveal and share his nature with mankind; yet the "Designer" would appear to prefer to keep the mechanics of their handiwork hidden, obtuse, and even ambiguous. At least I see no obvious reason why one would assume the Designer is the Christian God over any of the others.JTaylor_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Probing the character of the designer caught my attention too. I think the point was simply that there are very general things that we would necessarily glean from the design we see concerning the one who designed it, such as, for instance, the designer would have to be crazy smart. Just very general but obvious and uncontrovertible characteristics. I.E., the designer couldn't be only as smart as, say, Einstein, and just get lucky with creating a succesfull cell.Brent_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

vjtorley:
Here’s a little suggestion for the skeptics. Instead of trying to create a hands-off, deistic science that gives God as little work to do as possible, perhaps we should say that one mark of a true scientific advance is that it gives God a more active role in the day-to-day running of the cosmos.
The problem is that literally anything can be explained as the result of a divine intervention. It's not a falsifiable hypothesis.mereologist_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

what makes you think the mutations aren’t front-loaded as well?
There's no evidence that they are nonrandom with respect to fitness, and no reason to expect that they would be.mereologist_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

I was very impressed by the originality and insightfulness of Rob Sheldon's paper. It has forced me to completely rethink my position on front loading. I'll have to peruse Rob's other Townhall posts, and his scientific papers as well. Here's a little suggestion for the skeptics. Instead of trying to create a hands-off, deistic science that gives God as little work to do as possible, perhaps we should say that one mark of a true scientific advance is that it gives God a more active role in the day-to-day running of the cosmos. After all, God is Pure Act! Just a thought.vjtorley_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

7, what makes you think the mutations aren't front-loaded as well? Clearly in any front-loading scenario mutations would not only be expected but counted on as part of the process. Mutations are just one more potential tool available in the scenario, though naturally we'd be talking about one hell of a powerful designer. Mind you, there's also various viewpoints of front-loading - views that begin at the start of our universe, views that are themselves eternal, views that determine every material result specifically (life and otherwise), views that merely tune results to certain parameters rather than specifics, etc. Either way, considering the entire FLE idea reduces to something like "evolution and life are technologies, not merely natural events", I wouldn't be so quick to talk about "evidence against". Unless you're talking about perpetual motion machines, betting against what technology can accomplish is risky to say the least. Oh, and here's an interesting and seemingly pertinent bit of research on the topic.nullasalus_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

I have to go back and look at it again but my understanding of chaos theory is that it is almost deterministic. Things fluctuate but within very constrained boundaries. I could be wrong since it has been awhile since I looked at it.jerry_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

The biggest problem with ID front-loading hypotheses is that any pre-loaded genetic information that was not currently being expressed would quickly succumb to mutations. The only way to salvage the idea is to posit the existence of a near-perfect error correcting mechanism to protect unexpressed front-loaded regions of the genome. There is absolutely no evidence for such a mechanism, and plenty of evidence against it.mereologist_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

Polkinghorne argues that quantum mechanics and chaos theory leaves nature open to the outside. Swinburne too has commented that it is doubtful whether front loaded evolution could work under quantum effects.Andrew Sibley_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

This is an interesting if not strange article. I never entertained the notion that front loading was synonymous with Newtonian determinism. I always thought it simply meant that organisms were created with various genetic programs pre-loaded into their genes. The programs are anticipatory in nature, that is, they are designed in such a way that gene expression could change automatically in response to environmental pressures. Lamarckian evolution would fit nicely into this hypothesis. I think this sort of front loading would be an excellent mechanism for a very limited (micro) evolution. Severely limiting evolution via a conservative type of seminal coding is absolutely necessary because it is the only way to avoid getting mired in an exponential explosion of possibilities. I don't see how any of this is connected to determinism. Besides, quantum indeterminacy nicely decapitates classical Newtonian (and Einsteinian) determinism before it can even raise its ugly head to inflict any damage on our sanity. There is a foolproof reason that the physical universe is necessarily probabilistic but I think it is beyond the scope of this discussion. And by the way, 'non-deterministic' does not signify 'unpredictable'. Something can be deterministic and still be unpredictable (i.e., uncomputable with a Turing machine) because the exponential explosion that is inherent in the solution would require a TM bigger than the universe it is part of.Mapou_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

Kanishiwa Nakashima San, Hai! With all we respect the message of your post #3, but perhaps, I can point out that God Of The Gaps numbers could be considered fractal, since there is no perfect placement of them in any rational sense. And so, chaos theory should be applied best, as pointing to I.D. application in particular. So, we thank you for your post and your esteemable self and past postings.Scot.David_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

I know there have been UD regulars that favor front loading, including the ex-mod DaveScot. So I thought this would be favorable to fron-loading, but it isn't. But now I see that it is not really in line with other ID messages, such as 'study the design, not the Designer'. So perhaps Dr Dembski posted it to obliquely criticize it. The god of the fractal gaps is a fun idea, but the gaps don't follow a fractal pattern, so there goes that idea. oh well...Nakashima_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

ID claims to probe the character of the designer by studying the design
Do you agree with that? If so, could you kindly summarize what so far has been determined as to the character of the designer? And, as far as you know, is a specific design being studied, or several different ones? Any hints on what ones?Echidna-Levy_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

This would all be semantics, if it were not for the corollary, that ID claims to probe the character of the designer by studying the design, whereas TE claims that front-loading is indistinguishable from chance, making the designer inscrutable. (Which keeps his faith transcendentally Kantian, and science a-theistically independent of God.) I never heard anyone say before that ID probes the character of the designer. Does this guy know what he is talking about?Nakashima_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply