Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

When does the Programmer install the software?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A thing that evolutionists wrongly consider a serious problem for the creation/ID worldview is the “multiple acts of creation” or – in ID terms – “multiple insertions of information” in time. Here I will argue to show that this is a false problem, or – better said – is a problem that in no way can undermine the creation/ID explanation. This issue is also related to the question when in the cosmos the information is injected by its Designer: is it fully frontloaded from the beginning or is fractionated in time?

My assumption is however that we take for granted that the Designer of the universe is God. I dealt with this issue here.

Moreover I consider sound the so-called “informatics metaphor”, in which, symbolically, God is the Great Programmer, whose “software” is the essence/quality (in a single modern word, information) of the universe and whose “hardware” is the substance/quantity (in a word, matter).

Indeed computer science shows us that we can install a program at time t0 and schedule its execution and get its outputs in the future, at time t1 (even years after). So there is no conceptual problem, from this point of view, that, for example, the software for life be installed already at the Big Bang, but executed billion years after. The same concept helps to understand why different genres of living beings arose in different moments in the history of Earth, according to a scheduled plan.

We could express the same concepts in term of potentiality (see my post here). The cosmos was equipped with a package of potentialities, whose effects didn’t develop all immediately, rather were delayed in time, exactly like a tree develops its trunk, branches, flowers and fruits, from the root, in sequential phases.

But maybe it is the theological perspective what allows us to definitely clear the problem. The question “when does the information is inserted?” in theology becomes “when does God create the world?”. God is boundless and eternal, so time cannot limit Him. The cosmos is not created in time, rather time is created with the cosmos.

Ananda K.Coomaraswamy in “Time and Eternity” writes: «We ask, with Augustine, “what was God doing before creating the world?”. The answer is that, being time and the world associated, created together, the word “before” has no sense in that context. It follows that God creates the world now and always. […] God always creates the world now, in this very instant. Only for the temporal beings creation appears as a series of events, an evolution. […] “All days Allâh is in the role of Sublime Creator” (Muhyi-d-dîn ibn `Arabî, Treatise on Unity). […] “God created the world in such way that, without discontinuity, still continues to create it” (Meister Eckhart, Daz buoch der götlichen troestunge).»

At this point, also the concept of “intervention” of the Designer-God becomes equivocal. When does God “intervene” if in any instant anything exists only because of God? Intervention is a term appropriate only to a limited agent that sometimes is present and causative and sometimes is not present and not causative. It is not appropriate for the omnipresent and omnipotent Agent.

The initial question, “in the cosmos, is information fully frontloaded from the beginning or is fractionated in time?”, becomes undecidable, somehow both alternatives can be true. Given the intelligent design of the cosmos – in its highest metaphysical sense – overarches time, it is fully independent from time.

Some, before the origin of life, ask if matter is “intelligent”. With “intelligence of matter” they mean that matter contains from the beginning the potentiality to develop life. So we are led again to the above questions: did the Programmer install the software of life at the initial time t0 or installed it at time t1? These are sound questions only for the human programmers, not for the Eternal One. We – beings living in, and conditioned by, time – see two temporal instants, t0 and t1. But in the metaphysical reality of the intelligent design of the universe there are not two instants, for the simple fact that time yet doesn’t exist. It comes to mind the Zen kōan “You can hear the sound of two hands that beat; now show me the sound of one hand” (“101 Zen Stories”).

Comments
John W Kelly #6 "If Life exists outside of matter, outside of the body, in a pure information state (as spirit/ software), then it could be frontloaded from the beginning with the potential to operate (be inserted) at any time, any moment, any where; if it were triggered to do so by either an internal or external signal, or both. Couldn’t it? "
I do not know if I understand well what you wrote, my fault. However it seems to me that what you describe is ... surprise! the birth of a living being caused by the sexual intercourse of his parents. This "signal" (that all beings like to send:) somehow triggers a "vertical" top-down causation that puts together software and hardware, spirit and matter – as you say –, to form a new complete living being, a complex mix of essence and substance. As I wrote in the article, it makes few sense to ask if this potentiality of generation was frontloaded from the Big-Bang. What is sure is that it necessarily exists from the origin of sexual life on Earth.niwrad
March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
niwrad: Please remember Aristotle’s “unmoved Motor”
I'm not too impressed by Ol' Aristotle's take on the matter. But I'll leave it alone for now.CentralScrutinizer
March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
timothya #4 "What is this “qualitative complexity” that might be “perfectly described”? If it isn’t quantitative, then it can’t be the various versions of CSI, which if nothing else are certainly quantitative measures of complexity. Could you explain how an abstraction can be both a qualitative and a perfect measure? I must admit that I find the notion incoherent, so an example might help."
You raise an important point. Both description and quantification cannot in principle be perfectly adequate to their object when this object is true quality/essence. Description and quantification can only provide imperfect expressions and measures of it. This of course holds for CSI too. This doesn't mean that CSI, or other measure of complexity, is useless. Since any minimal part of the cosmos always entails quality/essence and quantity/substance all descriptions and quantifications are always simplification of reality. It doesn't exist such thing as a perfect description or a perfect measure of quality/essence. A really perfect knowledge can be only identification of the knower with the known, of the subject with the object. By the way, this is also Aristotle's conception of knowledge and Thomist “adaequatio rei et intellectus”.niwrad
March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
niwrad: You make a good point that multiple insertions of information over time are not necessary. However, we should keep in mind that there is no good reason to reject the possibility of multiple insertions of information over time. In my experience discussing this issue, the main reason people seem to reject the possibility is due to a religious/philosophical aversion. I don't have a problem with the idea of multiple insertions of information, so if a materialist evolutionist argued that it is a problem for ID, the first thing I would point out is that the existence of multiple creative events most certainly is not a problem for ID. Then I would make what is really a fallback argument: furthermore, there need not be multiple insertions events. The latter is a good and useful point, but it is, by definition, a fallback argument, because it assumes the truth of what the evolutionist is arguing: multiple insertion points are a problem for ID. They aren't. So I dispute the evolutionist's very premise at the outset.Eric Anderson
March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
For as the body without the spirit is dead…, so hardware without the software is dead also. If Life exists outside of matter, outside of the body, in a pure information state (as spirit/ software), then it could be frontloaded from the beginning with the potential to operate (be inserted) at any time, any moment, any where; if it were triggered to do so by either an internal or external signal, or both. Couldn’t it? This would give the "software" the confusing appearance of being both fractionated and/or eternal. ???John W Kelly
March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
"How would a “static” God generate, well, dynamism? How does the indifferentiated One produce the differentiation of Many?"
Please remember Aristotle's "unmoved Motor". In God there is no evolution. A changing God couldn't be Infinite. The universe (differentiation, multiplicity) is a lower reality that seems (only to us in the cosmos) to overlap the higher reality of God (indifferentiated, One). This metaphysical situation is expressed in the following dictum: "Although the rivers flow, Waters remain motionless"niwrad
March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
My aim was indeed to somehow emphasize that time-dependent conceptions of simple front-loading or simple subsequent installations are naive and don’t perfectly describe – singly taken – the qualitative complexity involved in the creation/design of the cosmos.
What is this "qualitative complexity" that might be "perfectly described"? If it isn't quantitative, then it can't be the various versions of CSI, which if nothing else are certainly quantitative measures of complexity. Could you explain how an abstraction can be both a qualitative and a perfect measure? I must admit that I find the notion incoherent, so an example might help.timothya
March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Hi vjtorley, thanks for your thought-provoking comment (and, by the way, for your numerous and terrific contributions to UD!). I think that Sheldon is right to criticize a mechanical, reductionist, simplistic “front-loading”. The symbolism of God as the Great Programmer I used doesn't presuppose such kind of “front-loading”. When I speak of a "package of potentialities" I don't mean simply mechanical, algorithmic potentialities. These potentialities can well entail organic life and even its highest form, conscious, intelligent life. In other words, to symbolically speak of the Great Designer (as IDers do), Great Programmer (as I do here), Great Architect (as masons do), etc. doesn't at all imply a clockwork universe, a computer universe. Indeed the very metaphysical relation between the universe and its Principle is such that the universe cannot be a simple mechanical system, a Paley's watch. Despite of the universe is infinitesimal compared to God (Who is Infinite), we never should consider it mechanized. My aim was indeed to somehow emphasize that time-dependent conceptions of simple front-loading or simple subsequent installations are naive and don't perfectly describe – singly taken – the qualitative complexity involved in the creation/design of the cosmos.niwrad
March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
"From a God’s eye perspective, of course, this “manipulation” would take place outside time." It may be outside of our time, but not necessary outside of all time whatsoever. Like say, how a programmer is outside of the time of a virtual reality he created running within a computer. Of course, the thing that gives any of this stuff *meaning* is consciousness. It's meaningless to discuss any of this stuff without dragging consciousness into the mix. It's impossible to imagine a reality that is timeless. Because "time" is the result of a dynamic relationship between differentiated objects. How would a "static" God generate, well, dynamism? How does the indifferentiated One produce the differentiation of Many? Anyway, just some food for thought.CentralScrutinizer
March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Hi niwrad, Thanks for a very thought-provoking article. You argue that both front-loading and the alternative option of information being "fractionated in time" are real possibilities. I'm curious to know what you think of an article written a few years ago by physicist Robert Sheldon, entitled, The Front-Loading Fiction (July 1, 2009), in which he critiqued the assumptions underlying "front-loading." In the first place, he contends, the clockwork universe of Laplacean determinism (the idea that you can control the outcomes you get, by controlling the laws and the initial conditions) won't work:
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.)
As far as I know, no-one in the "theistic evolution" camp has addressed this basic point raised by Dr. Sheldon. Even today, one still commonly hears objections to ID like the following: "Wouldn't it be more elegant of God to design a universe in which the laws of Nature would generate life automatically?" as if that were a genuine possibility. In the second place, Dr. Sheldon argues that "Turing-determinism" - the modern notion that God could use an algorithm or program to design all the forms we observe in Nature - fares no better:
Turing-determinism is incapable of describing biological evolution, for at least three reasons: Turing's proof of the indeterminancy of feedback; the inability to keep data and code separate as required for Turing-determinancy; and the inexplicable existence of biological fractals within a Turing-determined system.
Specifically, Dr. Sheldon argues that the only kind of universe that could be pre-programmed to produce specific results without fail and without the need for further input would be a very boring, sterile one, without any kind of feedback, real-world contingency or fractals. However, such a universe would necessarily be devoid of any kind of organic life. Dr. Sheldon proposes that God is indeed a "God of the gaps" - an incessantly active "hands-on" Deity Who continually maintains the universe at every possible scale of time and space, in order that it can support life. Such a role, far from diminishing God, actually enhances His Agency. Maybe even God can't make a predictable universe that can generate life in all its diversity. Perhaps the demand that He do so contains a hidden contradiction - and since God cannot do what is logically contradictory, He can hardly be faulted for not being able to make life via a front-loading process. Like it or not, if we want a universe with life - especially eukaryotic life-forms like us - then perhaps we need a manipulating, "hands-on" Deity. From a God's eye perspective, of course, this "manipulation" would take place outside time. Your thoughts?vjtorley
March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply