What if its True?

_{Barry Arrington

August 6, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Warning: This post is intended for those who have an open mind regarding the design hypothesis. If your mind is clamped so tightly shut that you are unable to even consider alternatives to your received dogma, it is probably better for you to just move along to the echo chamber of your choice.

Today, for the sake of argument only, let us make two assumptions:

1. First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose.

2. Second, let us assume that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.”

From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.

Now let us set all assumptions aside. Where does this leave us? No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false. It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him. Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up. The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science. The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis. When the question is put this way, most people correctly conclude that we should not place ideological blinkers on when we set out to search for truth. Therefore, even if it is true that ID is not science (and I am not saying that it is), it follows that this is a problem not with ID, but with science. And if the problem is with science, this means that the way we conceive of the scientific enterprise should be changed. In other words, if our search for truth excludes a possibly true answer, then we should re-conceive our search for truth.

Comments

P is evading again. Life as we know it involves both metabolism and self-replication intertwined inescapably.
But it may not have started that way.Heinrich_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

---Petrushka: "I am not arguing against the necessity of an uncaused cause." Does that mean that you affirm the necessity of an uncaused cause, or does it mean that you are using evasive language to avoid the issue? Please take a position on this issue: [A] A first cause is necessary or [B] a first cause is not necessary. If your position is [B] Please do not say that you are not arguing against [A]. ---"I merely point out that it negates any axiom requiring causation." I explained why that is not the case, but you conveniently ignored the point. That same logical system that depends on the law of non-contradiction is the same logical system that requires an uncaused cause. Thus, the one cannot possibly negate the other. Do you always ignore refutations as if they had never happened? ---But feel free free to believe mutually contradictory things." As I have made clear, my position is consistent. Of course, I am not the one who denies the law of non-contradiction, you are. Indeed, by your lights, there is no problem in believing mutually contradictory things since you do not accept the law of non-contradiction. So, is it unreasonable to contradict yourself or is it reasonable? Please affirm ne position and negate the other. If, as you indicate, the law of non-contradiction is not true, you should celebrate anything I say, whether it constitutes a contradictory statement or not. Even if I held a contradictory position, as you do, you would have no reasonable standard for saying that contradictory statements are a problem. Do you think contradictory statements are unreasonable? If so, by what standard do you make that declaration?StephenB_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: P is evading again. Life as we know it involves both metabolism and self-replication intertwined inescapably. Viri are parasites on life. Gkairosfocus_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

F/N: Let us hope this does not become yet another distractive argument that allows avoiding the challenge in the original post.kairosfocus_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

P knows or should know that variation plus selection in life forms first presupposes origin and prior existence of a self-replicating facility in a metabolising enitity...
The metabolizing part is not true. Replicators can exist and evolve without cell membranes and cellular machinery. The minimum level of complexity for a replicator is not known, but if it can be known it will be discovered by research, not bloviation. I get the feeling that some here actually fear research into possible scenarios for the origin of life. They certainly aren't enthusiastic.Petrushka_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: P knows or should know that variation plus selection in life forms first presupposes origin and prior existence of a self-replicating facility in a metabolising enitity, bringing to bear the issue of the origin of a von Neumann replicator discussed in Section b here, including both irreducible complexity and FSCI. That is before life and natural selection, so-called, can exist. (Darwin discreetly begged this question in Origin, and ever since it has been unanswered as insuperable.) In addition, the only empirically known source of required codes, algorithms and organization, is intelligence; the search space challenges being well beyond the sorts of plausibility limits discussed by Abel. Then, to get to novel body plans, P knows or should know that major embryologically feasible transformations will be required -- well beyond the FSCI threshold again -- as is discussed here. Empirically, mutations plus natural selection and similar mechanisms have been observed to make relatively minor changes in existing organisms, but there is no evidence that this mechanism has the power to originate novel body plans and associated bio-information and implementing machinery, starting with the very first body plan. The reason why such hugely extrapolated almost magical powers are being attributed to darwinian mechanisms, is not evidence, but Lewontinian a priori assumptions, as Johnson pointed out in his rejoinder to Lewontin:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
In short, sadly, it is ideological blindness that makes men like P imagine that a mechanism that can make small variations in an existing system -- often by breaking down fairly minor parts or garbling small quantities of information [e.g. suppressing regulation of production of anti-penicillin enzymes, which makes antibiotic resistant bugs less viable in the wild] -- accounts for major innovations in body plans. GEM of TKI PS: P then unfortunately manages to show that he does not understand the logic of cause and the implications of contingent beings in an observed contingent cosmos. In particular -- and here we are indulging a bit of phil, not science -- a necessary being is not a contradiction to the existence of a contingent cosmos, but its logically necessary ground: a: that which exists has a good and sufficient reason to be [in the sense of a good answer to "why?"]; and if it begins to exist or may cease from being, it has a cause as that reason. (As an alternative, a being may be non-contingent, i.e necessary -- with no beginning or ending: it was always there, and will always be there. This is as opposed to merely being "uncaused." (He doubtless hopes to insert here entities that have a beginning but have no cause, only to run into the question: why then do they begin and exist, there, then, and in that context? Noting that space itself is a something with properties and filled to bursting with energy.) Remember, a necessary causal condition -- without X, A ceases to be or cannot come to be -- is in this sense a cause. To come to be, X requires sufficient causes, though such may be unknown or unknowable to us.) b: We, our surroundings, our planet and the observed universe as a whole are -- notoriously even -- contingent beings. c: Thus, the observed cosmos is caused. d: In turn, there must be an ontologically prior being that is the ground of the existence of such a caused world. (There is even a generally proposed date of 13.7 BYA for the origin of the observed cosmos in a singularity, so the "big bang" requires some sort of causally prior "big banger." Thence the debates over fine tuning, which we need not explore here just now.) e: The logically necessitated ultimate ontological prior is a necessary -- as opposed to contingent -- being [we are now saying more than just logically necessary!], and so can neither come into nor go out of existence. [Nor am I arguing for mere temporal priority (though the objections to say the Kalaam cosmological argument do run into interesting difficulties with the required actual past infinite succession of causes], but for ontological priority: the necessary being is a necessary sustaining causal condition of our cosmos. Absent such a being, absent us, just as if the matter-energy space-time world we inhabit did not exist, neither could we. That is the bite in Paul's citation on Mars Hill: ". . . in him we live and move and have our being."] f: Such a necessary being, repeat, depends on nothing else for its existence, it is self-existent -- and please note this is not an argument that would name such a being God; if the Steady State or eternal material universe were true accounts, they would fill the generic requisites so far. g: Such a necessary being, also, therefore has neither beginning nor possibility of cessation of existence. h: There are of course difficulties associated with the concept (starting with how it strains our conceptions, similar to how the existence of a single point on earth that is due north of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London, New York and Montserrat is at first a strain on our concepts) and many make objections, but when the objections have to stand on their own legs at the bar of comparative difficulties, they will soon show themselves markedly inferior. i: As to the unity of that prior [which may be complex!], let the patent unity of the cosmos even in the midst of its diversity suffice as a first pointer. --> The real issue is the nature and identity of that necessary being; especially after it was no longer credible to postulate the objection that the observed universe -- presumed eternal -- is that logically necessitated being.kairosfocus_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

I am not arguing against the necessity of an uncaused cause. I merely point out that it negates any axiom requiring causation. But feel free free to believe mutually contradictory things.Petrushka_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

---Petrushka: "You simply assert an exception because your “logic” requires it." Your first statement is partly correct, although I wouldn't call it "my" logic. I didn't invent it, but rather I, with the help of better men, apprehended it. Logic does, indeed, require an uncaused cause, and the only way to dismiss the uncaused cause is to abandon logic, as you seem to understand. The principle of an uncaused cause, does not, however, violate the principle of non-contradiciton. If you will think about it for a moment, you will realize that the uncaused cause, which derives from the same logic that stands on the principle of non-contradiction can hardly violate that same principle which requires it to be so. ---"If one uncaused caused exists, then one cannot logically assert that causation is necessary." As we have seen, logic is necessary to arrive at the uncaused cause. Also, the principle of the uncaused cause is the inescapable conclusion derived from logical principles, as you acknowledged. This is, of course, the reason that Darwinists disdain reason and logic. Truth, after all, is the destination to which the vehicle of logic takes us. Thus, in order to avoid arriving at the destination, Darwinists seek to destroy the vehicle that would take them there.StephenB_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

The conclusion that I come to, and the conclusion that reason leads to, is that there is one, uncaused cause.
You simply assert an exception because your "logic" requires it, but you are still saying that A and Not A exist simultaneously. If one uncaused caused exists, then one cannot logically assert that causation is necessary.Petrushka_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

P knows or should know that design speaks to intelligently directed contingency.
Variation plus selection comprise a learning algorithm, and are therefore an instance of "intelligence." You may not like it, but it exists, it is observable, it can be studied in the laboratory, it produces trees of inherited traits, it produces incremental change in the timespan known to be available. What it doesn't do is plan, search for solutions, or pre-specify changes. And despite the musings of generic science writers, it does not produce adaptations to demand. It does not prevent extinction.Petrushka_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: More spin, not substance. P knows or should know that design speaks to intelligently directed contingency. Cf Am h Dict:
de·sign (d-zn) v. de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs v.tr. 1. a. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference. b. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product. 2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program. 3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages. 4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend. 5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
And to cap off his self-reduction to absurdity, observe how when he meets actual papers in the peer reviewed literature showing how Abel et al have built on the trifold conception of sequence complexity, including a metric for FSC that has been applied to 35 protein families, he blathers on about "Sokal." That, sadly, is not a reasonable or fact-responsive pattern of behaviour. Instead, we see here unfortunately plain signs of the fallacy of the ideologised, closed mind on P's part. Let us hope he wakes up and faces wha tis plainly unwelcome reality. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Well, I hate to break it to you Petrushka, but evolution is not a design theory. It is a design-negating theory.
That's simply factually wrong. TOE is a detailed theory of design, complete with mechanisms. Haven't you even read Origin of Species? Or anything written on the subject since? I see endless Sokal-like bloviating on the subject of what can happen and what can't, but no list of laws of physics or chemistry violated by incremental change. The nearest thing to actual science in ID is the claim that a series of pre-specified mutations is prohibitively unlikely, but TOE isn't about pre-specification or goal seeking or searching.Petrushka_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

PPS: It should be evident why dFSCI is used in preference to the complex but functionally equivalent terminology of Abel et al [cf how I reduce other cases to structured sets of string data structures based on networks of nodes, arcs and interfaces, here, also showing the relevance of the three-pronged causal explanatory filter on an aspect by aspect basis], and why this particular functionally specified subset of complex specified information is focussed on for discussion.kairosfocus_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

CONT'D: The focal point of this is of course that dFSCI is deeply isolated in config space, and so it rapidly becomes maximally implausible to try to get to it on raw physical necessity and chance. But, routinely, intelligence bridges that gap. Finally, the quote-mined excerpt on the abuse of the term complexity in the general - as opposed to design -- literature, is an apt illustration of why the evasive, red herring and strawman rherorical tactics of darwinist objectors to the design inference is one of the strongest evidences that they are trying to defend an orthodoxy that simply cannot stand up to the facts of life of an informaiton age. Let us cite the whole conclusion, not just the carefully chopped out part, to see what T & A REALLY have to say:
In summary, Sequence complexity can be 1) random (RSC), 2) ordered (OSC), or functional (FSC). OSC is on the opposite end of the bi-directional vectorial spectrum of complexity from RSC. FSC is usually paradoxically closer to the random end of the complexity scale than the ordered end. FSC is the product of nonrandom selection. FSC results from the equivalent of a succession of integrated algorithmic decision node "switch settings." FSC alone instructs sophisticated metabolic function. Self-ordering processes preclude both complexity and sophisticated functions. Self-ordering phenomena are observed daily in accord with chaos theory. But under no known circumstances can self-ordering phenomena like hurricanes, sand piles, crystallization, or fractals produce algorithmic organization. Algorithmic "self-organization" has never been observed [70] despite numerous publications that have misused the term [21,151-162]. Bone fide organization always arises from choice contingency, not chance contingency or necessity. Reduced uncertainty (misnamed "mutual entropy") cannot measure prescriptive information (information that specifically informs or instructs). Any sequence that specifically informs us or prescribes how to achieve success inherently contains choice controls. The constraints of physical dynamics are not choice contingent. Prescriptive sequences are called "instructions" and "programs." They are not merely complex sequences. They are algorithmically complex sequences. They are cybernetic. Random sequences are maximally complex. But they don't do anything useful. Algorithmic instruction is invariably the key to any kind of sophisticated organization such as we observe in any cell. No method yet exists to quantify "prescriptive information" (cybernetic "instructions"). Nucleic acid prescription of function cannot be explained by "order out of chaos" or by "order on the edge of chaos" [163]. Physical phase changes cannot write algorithms. Biopolymeric matrices of high information retention are among the most complex entities known to science. They do not and can not arise from low-informational self-ordering phenomena. Instead of order from chaos, the genetic code was algorithmically optimized to deliver highly informational, aperiodic, specified complexity [164]. Specified complexity usually lies closer to the noncompressible unordered end of the complexity spectrum than to the highly ordered end (Fig. ?(Fig.4).4Figure 4). Patterning usually results from the reuse of programming modules or words. But this is only secondary to choice contingency utilizing better efficiency. Order itself is not the key to prescriptive information. The current usage of the word "complexity" in the literature represents a quagmire of confusion. It is an ill-defined, nebulous, often self-contradictory concept. We have defined FSC in a way that allows us to differentiate it from random and self-ordering phenomena, to frame testable empirical hypotheses about it, and to identify FSC when it exists. Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates [165,166]. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.
A pre-information age theory that denies basic, easily observed facts and causal patterns on how information comes to be is doomed in the end, no matter how big and noisy the battalions it currently commands are. So, our job at the moment is simply to point to the holes in the hull on the waterline of the SS Darwinism -- in an age of MVs. GEM of TKI PS: P should heed SB and CY on the difference between contingent and necessary beings. The existence of contingent beings in an observed experienced universe that is itself credibly contingent warrants the conclusion that it is grounded in the reality of a necessary being. In the old days of the Steady State hypothesis that NB was inferred to be the physical cosos, but in a singularity world, we do not have that luxury, and the inference to a quasi-infinite wider cosmos is as much a philosphical inference as the inference to an intelligent purposeful powerful creator of the observed cosmos who is a necessary being. In favour of the latter, we have many convergent lines of evidence that point to such a creator, starting with the credible fine-tuning of our observed cosmos, which points to design by an intelligent creator; and note the small-c here, as we are still quite far from specific theistic worldviews. (Notice, onlookers, just how consistently Darwinist objectors duck discussing his side of ID.) --> For the record, I happen to be a Judaeo-Christian theist, and part of that is grounded in history and the experience of millions over thousands of years of record, of life-changing encounter with the Living God; myself included and a great many other people I know included. In particular, through the impact of and warrant for the gospel as summarised in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11. But such is a worldview level comparative difficulties decision on core warranted beliefs about reality, going far beyond the matters considered in scientific investigations.kairosfocus_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Petrushka needs to be willing to accept that Genetic Algorithms and Learning programs are precisely cases of dFSCI knopwn to be caused by intelligence in action, and so to infer from their output to intelligent cause is precisely an example of the reliability of dFSCI as a sign of directed contingency as relevant cause. A real case where a GA or the like would point to the power of undirected chance and necessity to generate dFSCI, would be a GA that wrote itself out of chunks of sky noise digitised and spewed across a disk, and which then initiated its action and generated functionally specific strings of 1,000+ bits length. Actually, just the generation of a complex text string that is meaningful from sky noise or the like, or the random shapes of a clay bed in contact with the waters of Darwin's little pond would be enough. On this, the introductory remarks in the 2005 T & A paper have some pretty pungent words:
Little empirical evidence exists to contradict the contention that untemplated sequencing is dynamically inert (physically arbitrary). We are accustomed to thinking in terms of base-pairing complementarity determining sequencing. It is only in researching the pre-RNA world that the problem of single-stranded metabolically functional sequencing of ribonucleotides (or their analogs) becomes acute. And of course highly-ordered templated sequencing of RNA strands on natural surfaces such as clay offers no explanation for biofunctional sequencing. The question is never answered, "From what source did the template derive its functional information?" In fact, no empirical evidence has been presented of a naturally occurring inorganic template that contains anything more than combinatorial uncertainty. No bridge has been established between combinatorial uncertainty and utility of any kind . . .
Second, the follow up peer reviewed paper by Durston et al -- with Abel and Trevors as co-authors, suffices to show that the FSC vs OSC vs RSC concept has indeed been followed up, and the parallel developments with Marks and Dembski on how active information injection contributes to the capability of searches to on average out perform random search is also a significant side-light on what FSC is about. In that context, Abel's recent paper on the universal plausibility metric points to a further quantification of the threshold of complexity:
An extremely unlikely event's probability always remains at least slightly > 0. No matter how many orders of magnitude is the negative exponent of an event's probability, that event or scenario technically cannot be considered impossible. Not even a Universal Probability Bound [6-8] seems to establish absolute theoretical impossibility. The fanatical pursuit of absoluteness by finite subjective knowers is considered counterproductive in post modern science. Open-mindedness to all possibilities is encouraged [9]. But at some point our reluctance to exclude any possibility becomes stultifying to operational science [10]. Falsification is critical to narrowing down the list of serious possibilities [11]. Almost all hypotheses are possible. Few of them wind up being helpful and scientifically productive. Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability. More attention to the concept of "infeasibility" has been suggested [12]. Millions of dollars in astrobiology grant money have been wasted on scenarios that are possible, but plausibly bankrupt. The question for scientific methodology should not be, "Is this scenario possible?" The question should be, "Is this possibility a plausible scientific hypothesis?" . . . . To be able to definitively falsify ridiculously implausible hypotheses, we need first a Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) to assign a numerical plausibility value to each proposed hypothetical scenario. Second, a Universal Plausibility Principle (UPP) inequality is needed as plausibility bound of this measurement for falsification evaluation. We need a cut-off point beyond which no extremely low probability scenario can be considered a "scientifically respectable" possibility. What is needed more than a probability bound is a plausibility bound. Any "possibility" that exceeds the ability of its probabilistic resources to generate should immediately be considered a "functional non possibility," and therefore an implausible scenario . . . . The computed Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) objectively quantifies the level of plausibility of any chance hypothesis or theory. The UPM employs the symbol [Xi] . . . ) to represent the computed UPM according to the following equation: Xi = [f8 L-OMEGA-A]/w where f represents the number of functional objects/events/scenarios that are known to occur out of all possible combinations (lower case omega, [w above to get as symbol that will show up]) (e.g., the number [f] of functional protein family members of varying sequence known to occur out of sequence space [w]), and L-OMEGA-A (upper case Omega, OMEGA here) represents the total probabilistic resources for any particular probabilistic context. The "L" superscript context of OMEGA describes which perspective of analysis, whether quantum (q) or a classical (c), and the "A" subscript context of OMEGA enumerates which subset of astronomical phase space is being evaluated: "u" for universe, "g" for our galaxy, "s" for our solar system, and "e" for earth. Note that the basic generic UPM (Xi) equation's form remains constant despite changes in the variables of levels of perspective (L: whether q or c) and astronomic subsets (A: whether u, g, s, or e) . . . . Let us address the quantum level perspective (q) first for the entire universe (u) followed by three astronomical subsets: our galaxy (g), our solar system (s) and earth (e). Since approximately 10^17 seconds have elapsed since the Big Bang, we factor that total time into the following calculations of quantum perspective probabilistic resource measures. Note that the difference between the age of the earth and the age of the cosmos is only a factor of 3. A factor of 3 is rather negligible at the high order of magnitude of 10^17 seconds since the Big Bang (versus age of the earth). Thus, 10^17 seconds is used for all three astronomical subsets: q-OMEGA-u = . . = 10^43 trans/s * 10^17s * 10^80 p, n & e = 10^140 q-OMEGA-g = . . . = 10^127 . . . q-OMEGA-e = . . . = 10^102 These above limits of probabilistic resources exist within the only known universe that we can repeatedly observe--the only universe that is scientifically addressable. Wild metaphysical claims of an infinite number of cosmoses may be fine for cosmological imagination, religious belief, or superstition. But such conjecturing has no place in hard science. Such claims cannot be empirically investigated, and they certainly cannot be falsified. They violate Ockham's (Occam's) Razor [40]. No prediction fulfillments are realizable . . . . The Universal Plausibility Principle (UPP) states that definitive operational falsification of any chance hypothesis is provided by the inequality of: Xi Less than 1 This definitive operational falsification holds for hypotheses, theories, models, or scenarios at any level of perspective (q or c) and for any astronomical subset (u, g, s, and e). The UPP inequality's falsification is valid whether the hypothesized event is singular or compound, independent or conditional . . .
[ . . . ]kairosfocus_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Cabal: Why do you immediately set out to poison the atmosphere by using loaded language? Why is it that you do so instead of actually engaging the facts and history already in evidence? To set some basic facts straight: could you kindly tell me whether or not your comment constitutes a case of what can be described as "discrete state [i.e. digital], coded, functionally specific and complex information"? Let's see:
discrete state [i.e. digital], 1 --> Actual speech is a very analogue process, as the sound-making properties of our vocal system are exploited 2 --> Alphabetisation reduces this analogue process to a discrete state model that though it never has been perfect is good enough to revolutionise the world of thought through the invention of writing. 3 --> Your post above is just such an example of writing. coded, 4 --> Not only is your comment coded in therms of he Latin-derived English alphabet, but it is coded in ASCII or some extension thereof, like UTF-8 5 --> Can you show a case where codes with discrete symbols and rules for their meaningful or functional combination, came about by the undirected necessity of the 4 fundamental forces of physics, and chance circumstances or factors? Can you show cases where such codes came about by intelligent action? 6 --> Is not therefore the existence of such a code that functions in a communicating system a sign of inelligence? functionally specific 7 --> In order to communicate a message, not just any random text string would do: fhweg42uyfr . . . 8 --> Instead, you purposed to make a message, and directed the contingency of possible text strings under ASCII coding, to form a contextually responsive [though distractive and denigratory] message in English and complex 9 --> Your message constitutes 716 128-state ASCII characters, which has a configuration space of about 5.79 *10^1508 possible states 10 --> By comparison, the 10^80 or so atoms of our observed cosmos, considered as changing state every Planck time [rounded down to 10^-45 s] and for the ~ 10^25 s of the thermodynamically credible lifespan of that cosmos [~ 50 mn times the usual timeline since the singularity] would take up ~ 10^150 states 11 --> Thus, if the whole observed universe were to be converted into impossibly fast monkeys, PCs and keyboards, with support resources [think of bananas by the trainload . . . ], banging away at random, there would be vastky insufficient resources to scratch teh surface of possible configs, so the monkey searcdh would be a maximally implausible method for finding the sort of string that we see just above 12 --> And yet, in a few minutes, you turned it out and ill-advisedly fired it off. (Intelligence in the sense of being capable of directed contingency, is not to be confused with wisdom.) 13 --> So, the specified, linguistically functional complexity shows up yet again as a reliable marker of design in a case where we can observe. information 14 --> The above is certainly informational, as it reflects: “ . . that which would be communicated by a message if it were sent from a sender to a receiver capable of understanding the message . . . . In terms of data, it can be defined as a collection of facts [i.e. as represented or sensed in some format] from which conclusions may be drawn [and on which decisions and actions may be taken].” 15 --> Thus, the descriptive term dFSCI is objectively well-warranted, and apt, also as working digital information it is subject to objective quantitiative analysis as shown 16 --> Further, the explanatory filter process -- which we have learned to trust well enough to decide whether or not to fine or gaol an accused [and sometimes take even more drastic actions] is again shown to be reasonable and effective. 17 --> Dismissive language as above without justifying evidence and reason simply shows animosity. 18 --> BTW, we should not fool ourselves that most significant things that can be reliably known or handled are quantifiable in exact terms . . . this is why we have so many different types of scales when we do quantitative studies: ratio, interval, ordinal, nominal. 19 --> Going further, as the Weak Argument Correctives show from 25 on, digitally coded, functionally specific complex information is quantifiable, on several relevant scales -- note from no 27 the Durston, Chiu, Trevors and Abel al peer reviewed publication of values of functional sequence complexity for 35 protein families, building on the exact model put forward by Abel and Trevors that someone above rudely compared to the infamous Sokal affair -- including at basic level the simple "back of the envelope" one documented in my always linked note at point 6, where we use the number of functional bits and multiply by factors that pass/block based on whether the matter is already explicable as natural regularity or chance. 20 --> So, sadly, you have propagated an ill-informed, dismissively loaded and denigratory -- we can read subtext -- strawman
So also, we see how your objections fall apart, by virtue of the very fact that they manifest the dFSCI you object to and that dFSCI can be shown to be again reliable as a sign of intelligently directed contingency. Going further, do you not see how often you impose "materialistic naturalism," force fitting this onto the world as you look at it? Why not instead open your eyes to the world as it manifestly is; for we commonly see
(i) natural regularities tracing to mechanical necessity (ii) stochastic contingencies tracing to chance (iii) directed contingency tracing to design.
As to Bob O'H's post as previously discussed, it manifestly rests on a willful and frankly malicious strawmannisation of design thought. It needs to be retracted and apologised for. And as someone who has commented at UD for a long time, you knew or should have known better than you posted above, even just on the duty of reading and taking seriously the correctives that have been there for coming on two years in their current form. You too need to do some retraction and apologising. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus,
explanatory filter approach ... features like dFSCI etc point to design, on empirical evidence.
I believe that was Bob's point: ID looks at the same, i.e. evidence from materialistic naturalism, but arrive at an entirely different conclusion. Now why is that? IMHO, because of the use of dubious methods, like the EF and metaphysical terms like dFCSI. My question is, how can dFSCI be applicable to data from the methodological naturalistic sciences, facts and data that rely on exactness, calculation and quantification as long as dFSCI cannot be calculated? How can we rely on a method that is not exact and does not provide precisely quantified data? Or maybe I am too dense to engage in a debate like this?Cabal_{August 10, 2010
August
08
Aug
10
10
2010
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT}

—Petrushka: “If there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, the logical conlusion is that there can be uncaused causes.” No, actually there can only be one uncaused cause. Two uncaused causes is a logical impossibility.
How so?Heinrich_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

---Petrushka: "If there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, the logical conlusion is that there can be uncaused causes." No, actually there can only be one uncaused cause. Two uncaused causes is a logical impossibility. ---"Indeed, that seems to be the conclusion you have reached in positing a first cause." The conclusion that I come to, and the conclusion that reason leads to, is that there is one, uncaused cause. ---"And indeed, theists do argue for the first cause coming from nowhere, out of nothing." No, not really, in fact, not at all. Theists argue for an eternal, self existent cause that did not begin to exist, thus it could not come from out of nothing or anything. If it came from "out of anything," the thing that it came out of would be an antecedent cause. A self existent, eternal being cannot come from out of anything or, for that matter, nothing. It always was. ---"Take your opick, uncaused causes or infinite regression.' I think that you can now understand why that argument doesn't work. Also, read CannuckianYankee's post above mine which makes the same point in a different way.StephenB_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, "If there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, the logical conlusion is that there can be uncaused causes. Indeed, that seems to be the conclusion you have reached in positing a first cause. And indeed, theists do argue for the first cause coming from nowhere, out of nothing." This is partly right, but then it deviates and falters here: "theists do argue for the first cause coming from nowhere, out of nothing." That is incorrect. What theists posit is that essence IS. God IS. He didn't come out of nothing or nowhere, but has always existed eternally - outside the confines of time and space. As such, He did not have a cause, nor did He cause Himself into existence. He is the prime essence. Physical existence requires a cause, but a prime essence does not. Without a prime essence or First Cause, there cannot be any physical or otherwise existence. But this is very different than the ability for something physical or otherwise to come out of nothing. Such a notion defies logic. A prime essence does not.CannuckianYankee_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

Petrushka and KF Petrushka: "I find it odd that some of the same people who are happy when the legal system finds someone guilty based on forensic science are unwilling to accept the findings of 200 years of research." KF: "As such the epistemology of science issues it (forensics) raises — including the degree of warrant it may or may not be able to achieve in a given situation — are quite relevant to the study of origins science." The problem with Petrushka's argument (which was not actually an argument, but an insinuation) is that forensics involves the recent past, while ToE and ID involve the ancient past. While forensics is similar to the methodology behind ID, it nowhere comes close to the methodology behind evolution. Petrushka is raising an issue, which actually supports ID, rather than counters it, and he further implies that ID can't compare to forensics as well as ToE can. He then insinuates that ID science rejects 200 years of research following along the same lines as forensics. He makes my point for me. Forensics is an example, while recent, of ID in practice, as you, KF have so clearly pointed out. The 200 years of research Petrushka refers to CAN be filtered through Darwinian blinders, but it doesn't need to be. Then he writes this gem: "Otherwise evolution is the only design theory on the table." Well, I hate to break it to you Petrushka, but evolution is not a design theory. It is a design-negating theory. It is an anti-forensics theory as well as an anti-design theory. Forensics involves the detection of sometimes accidental, sometimes intentional and sometimes pre-planned acts. Evolutionary theory does not. It only involves the detection of the presumed unintentional acts of nature.CannuckianYankee_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

The current usage of the word "complexity" in the literature represents a quagmire of confusion. It is an ill-defined, nebulous, often self-contradictory concept. We have defined FSC in a way that allows us to differentiate it from random and self-ordering phenomena, to frame testable empirical hypotheses about it, and to identify FSC when it exists.
So in the five years since this paper was published I bet there have been lots of follow-up papers with actual calculated numbers and all. I'm especially interested in seeing calculations that differentiate dFSCI from the results genetic algorithms and generalized learning programs.Petrushka_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

In fact, a little common sense would soon enough suffice to show that the term dFSCI — first used by GPuccio here at UD, to particularly focus on DNA etc ...
So GPuccio made it up? Anyway, Abel and Trevors have done a fine parody of Sokal.Petrushka_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Inasmuch as the logical process which takes the philosopher to a causeless cause is dependant on the argument that there cannot be an infinite sequence of causes...
If there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, the logical conlusion is that there can be uncaused causes. Indeed, that seems to be the conclusion you have reached in positing a first cause. And indeed, theists do argue for the first cause coming from nowhere, out of nothing. Take your opick, uncaused causes or infinite regression.Petrushka_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

F/N 2; I see I forgot to say discrete state CODED information that is functional and specific.kairosfocus_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

F/N: The causal principle, of course, is that that which has a beginning or can cease from existence, has a cause; which of course often comes in the form of both necessary and sufficient causal factors. Could P kindly provide an exception to this that we can observe in the present? [Namely, something that has a beginning or an ending that has no necessary or sufficient causal factors: it must come out of nothing, nowhere, for no reason.]kairosfocus_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

---Barry A: "StephenB, as I mentioned in [94] Petrushka, like many of the Darwinists who visit this site, in the unsupported assertion business. Don’t bother him with facts and logic." Barry, your comment reminds me of what I have coined the "Darwinistic paradox." As we both know, if one begins with a false premise and reasons properly, he will, without fail, arrive at a false conclusion. On the other hand, if one begins with a false premise and reasons badly, he may get lucky and arrive at a true conclusion. How is it then, that Darwinists, who begin with a false premise and also reason badly, never get lucky and arrive at a true conclusion?StephenB_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Distractive: the attempted objection to the descriptive term, dFSCI, is a red herring, with a fallacious appeal to authority lurking in the background. Sad. In fact, a little common sense would soon enough suffice to show that the term dFSCI -- first used by GPuccio here at UD, to particularly focus on DNA etc -- is simply and literally descriptive of a common occurrence: discrete state information that is dependent on particular configurations to function, as opposed to: any and any at-random configuration will be good enough. As for its "scientific" status per the literature, I draw attention first to the Weak Argument Correctives P refuses to attend to, no 28 on how TMLO described what has been abbreviated as FSCI, from Wicken, Yockey and Orgel et al. So, we find in Orgel, 1973 as follows:
In brief, living organisms [NB: observe the functional context] are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [Source: L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189.]
Similarly, in 1979 [as that intro and summary page int eh IOSE that P seems to refuse to read cites], Wicken observed:
‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [[“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65.
That is, the concepts of functionally specific, complex information as found in the biological world and more broadly of complex specified information and specified complex organisation, predate the modern desgin movement and appear as observational descriptions and distinctions in the literature of OOL, from leading investigators. In more recent times, in their 2005 peer-reviewed article, Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information, Abel and Trevors make a key distinction, illustrated in Fig 4: (i) random sequence complexity, (ii) ordered sequence complexity, (iii) functional sequence complexity. Had P bothered to look at and heed my always linked briefing note, App 3, he would have saved himself the embarrassment of trotting out yet another tired out dismissive darwinist talking point that (for good reason) has long since worn out its welcome at UD. Instead, he should address the real issue on the merits: dFSCI is a commonly observed feature of our present experience, and in EVERY case where we can see the causal process directly, it traces to directed contingency, i.e. art, or design. So, dFSCI is an empirically reliable sign of directed contingency, and we have every epistemic right to use it in inferring to the best explanation of the past through observable signs and traces in the present. Which, plainly, is P's real problem. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, you have attempted to answer several other writers, but you have not yet explained your comment to me. I wrote, "Indeed, philosophy can prove the existence of an uncaused cause with no help at all from science." You responded with this claim: “And in doing so, proves that causation isn’t necessary.” Inasmuch as the logical process which takes the philosopher to a causeless cause is dependant on the argument that there cannot be an infinite sequence of causes, how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that the philosophical case for an uncaused cause proves that causation is not necessary?StephenB_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

dFSCI Is that a recognized technical term, or something you made up? Any citations in science journals?Petrushka_{August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply