Six massive galaxies discovered in the early universe are upending what scientists previously understood about the origins of galaxies in the universe.
“These objects are way more massive? than anyone expected,” said Joel Leja, assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State, who modeled light from these galaxies. “We expected only to find tiny, young, baby galaxies at this point in time, but we’ve discovered galaxies as mature as our own in what was previously understood to be the dawn of the universe.” – Penn State (February 23, 2023)
Tip: If all you want is to have your prior beliefs about the universe confirmed, don’t whack a huge telescope into space and code it to send back real-life actual data. Pound lecterns on behalf of manipulated interpretations of prior data instead.
The paper is open access.
My impression was that the astronomers were real excited about this discovery. They didn’t see it as a threat to some existing dogma, just novel data that will require revision of existing models. That’s the way science is supposed to work, isn’t it?
Sev: “They didn’t see it as a threat to some existing dogma, just novel data that will require revision of existing models. That’s the way science is supposed to work, isn’t it?”
Given that you are Darwinist who is constantly making lame excuses for why your theory is contradicted by empirical evidence time and time again, I can see why you would think that is the way science is suppose to work. But the answer to your question is “No, that is not how science, especially physics, is ‘suppose to work.”
For prime example, Newton’s theory, (which is based on 3-Dimensional Euclidean geometry), was not simply ‘revised’ because of anomalous observational evidence, (particularly Mercury’s anomalous orbit). Instead Newton’s theory was completely replaced by Einstein’s theory of General relativity, which is based on a completely different mathematical framework. A higher dimensional non-euclidean geometry, i.e. it is based on 4-dimensional space time.
In fact, both special relativity and general relativity are based on higher dimensional, non-euclidean, geometry,
In fact, these four dimensional spacetimes of Special relativity, and of General relativity, which replaced Newton’s theory, are comforting to overall Christian concerns in that they reveal two very different higher dimensional ‘timeless eternities’ to us.
One ‘timeless eternity’ is found for a hypothetical observer who is going the speed of light, and another ‘timeless eternity’ is found for a hypothetical observer falling to the event horizon of a black hole.
https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-765987
Further notes that are extremely comforting to overall Christian presuppositions:
Seversky, as to this quote from the OP.
That quote is very similar to this quote from another article that News recently featured on UD.
Here are a few more juicy quotes from that article that News recently featured here own UD,
Please note Seversky, they are not saying the standard model of cosmology needs to be tweaked, and/or simply ‘revised’ as you are suggesting, but they are instead saying it needs to be ‘discarded’.
And Seversky, as I pointed out to you when this article first came out, one of the key false assumptions in the standard model of cosmology is the “cosmological principle”,,, which derives from the Copernican Principle.,,, And the Copernican Principle, and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, has been one of the main, supposedly scientific, arguments used by atheists to argue that man is insignificant in the grand scheme of things,
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/has-our-model-of-the-universe-been-falsified/#comment-775962
In short, it is the false assumption of the cosmological principle, i.e. the assumption that there is nothing really special about the earth and solar system, which is one of the primary assumptions that is being brought into question, even falsified, by these recent findings that challenge the validity of the standard model of cosmology.
And just to remind you Seversky, the Bible holds the earth and humanity to be ‘special’ in the grand scheme of things. Not to be insignificant and worthless as your atheistic worldview holds.
Further notes:
Seversky/1
Of course, that is the way science proceeds. Seems like the only people “pounding lecterns” are IDers……
BTW, BA77:
You need to take a gander at Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. General Relativity did not “completely replace” Newtonian (classical) physics. For 90+ percent of real-world problems, classical physics still works just fine………
@3
That’s true, up to a point. But recall that Kuhn emphasized that theories are incommensurable: a predecessor theory (e.g. Newtonian mechanics) and a successor theory (e.g. general relativity) will have different conceptual frameworks and thus different entailments, including how to operationalize a measurement.
This does not mean, interestingly enough, that the theories cannot be compared. To do so, what needed to happen was the construction within the framework of general relativity of an explanation of why classical mechanics generated reliable predictions, to the extent that it did.
The upshot, as is well-known by now, is that classical mechanics yields reliable predictions as long as objects are not too heavy or moving too fast. (Likewise, quantum mechanics shows that classical mechanics breaks down when things are too small.)
ChuckyD, to point out the obvious, the only reason that Newton’s theory is still used today is because it is, compared to General Relativity, much easier to calculate with. No one considers, (save for a very few people at the extremes), considers Newton’s theory to be a true and valid description of Gravity.
Of further note to Thomas Kuhn, perhaps you ChuckyD, a Darwinist, should take your own advice and ‘take a gander’ at Kuhn?
Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the term ‘paradigm shift, noted that when faced with an anomaly, a theory’s defenders “will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.”
And in regards to a theory making predictions that are shown to be false and then making up numerous ad hoc modifications to try to cover up those falsified predictions, then, by that standard set out by Kuhn, Darwinian evolution more than qualifies as a pseudoscience rather than as a real and testable science.
Here is a site, that was put together by Dr. Cornelius Hunter, that goes over many of the failed predictions of Darwinian evolution.
As Dr. Hunter states in the following article,,, “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”
And as Dr. Hunter further noted, Darwin’s ‘theory’ is unfalsifiable in that it is, apparently, able to explain completely contradictory results with equal ease via ‘ad hoc modifications’.
In short, Darwinian evolution is an unfalsifiable pseudoscience, not a hard and testable science.
So again ChuckyD, you would do well to take your own advice and ‘take a gander’ at Kuhn
Today there are so many new problems that have affected the nature of scientific “progress”, that it doesn’t seem that Kuhn’s process is in play any longer. (See here for just a starter list of what those problems are: https://cogitantamerican.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/why-science-is-broken-highlights/). Furthermore, his outlook was based on pre-1960s science, and largely based on paradigms and their shifts in physics/chemistry/astronomy, where the evidence was far more visible, repeatable, etc., than it is in “sciences” like sociology and psychology today, which have their repeatability crises to deal with.
BA77
AS PM1 states:
Thus, the obvious 10 plus or minus percent (and it’s probably closer to 1 or 2%).
Perhaps you should chose your words more precisely and not “completely” erase the chalk board. Moreover, “Darwinian evolution” is not the subject of my comment. Whether biology is ready for a paradigm shift is a different topic. But then, no self-respecting IDer would miss an opportunity, no matter how inapt, to trash Darwin.
I first read Kuhn for my freshman physics class over 50 years ago. My copy is literally held together with a rubber band (old paradigm). I don’t need a biographical summary. Kuhn also concluded that there are no scientifically more “true” or less “true” models, simply models that work better (internal validity), are more robust (external validity) and take up less space (parsimoniousness). This dovetails nicely with Sean Carroll’s observation that what scientists do is build workable models with the least number of moving parts. That was the gist of his debate position–reminiscent of LaPlace–in his debate with William Lane Craig. You know, the one where you claim Carroll cheated….
To reiterate, classical physics works 90+ percent of the time–there’s no dispute about that. As I’ve said before, Newtonian physics put us on the moon. So, I would leave it on the chalk board…..
EDTA/6
You raise a good point. Kuhn substantially revised the book in 1970 to include some social science research, in particular the work of Swiss child psychologist and epistemologist, Jean Piaget, but in general, decried the adoption of his theory in the social sciences where it was subsequently completely misused. You even heard it in “corporate-speak” MBA curricula for a while…..
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that Kuhn’s sociology of science could be applied to the social sciences at all — or only with immense care and lots of qualifications.
The main reason, I think, is that the social sciences usually don’t have a single dominant paradigm at any given time. I can’t think of any in sociology at all; instead there are many competing approaches to the study of social phenomena. Likewise with anthropology.
For that matter, I don’t think even psychology had a dominant paradigm — at least not in a universal sense. Behaviorism was the dominant paradigm in the United States for most of the middle of the 20th century (1920s-1960s), but outside of the US, there were very different approaches, such as the Gestalt psychology movement in Germany (1900s-1930s). (Arguably the “cognitive revolution” of the 1960s was much influenced by the Gestalt psychologists, many of whom emigrated to the US in the 1930s.)
Without a single dominant paradigm, there can’t be a paradigm shift. So I’m doubtful that Kuhn’s approach can be applied to the social sciences.
ChuckyD, Your comments are, as usual, nonsensical. I stand by my comment.,,,, “to point out the obvious, the only reason that Newton’s theory is still used today is because it is, compared to General Relativity, much easier to calculate with. No one, (save for a very few people at the extremes), considers Newton’s theory to be a true and valid description of Gravity.”
Moreover, besides Kuhn, some statements from Papper and Lakatos are even more ‘problematic’ for Darwinism.
Tom Bethell also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian backlash and Popper again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable, i.e. falsifiable, scientific theory.
And Imre Lakatos stated that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”
Perhaps you can help ChuckyD and lay out a clear criteria by which Darwinian evolution can be, potentially, experimentally falsified and therefore for it to be considered scientific?
Chuckdarwin/3
They’re pounding pulpits. They’re just trying to pretend they’re lecterns.
Ba77,
The following shows an incredible lack of logic:
“While the same laws of physics may apply in every corner of the universe, the universe itself it is not the same everywhere.”
It would be more accurate to state that matter distribution in the Universe is not uniform.
CD at 7,
Allow me to replace a few words for you.
“But then, no self-respecting Darwinist would miss an opportunity, no matter how inapt, to trash ID.”
___________________________________________________________________
“As I’ve said before, Newtonian physics put us on the moon.”
No. Wernher von Braun and other German rocket specialists got us to the Moon.
Bornagain77/2
Yes, it is. If new data is uncovered then you try to adjust your theory to accommodate it. If you can’t do that then you start looking for a better theory.
The physics community had been aware of the shortcomings of Newtonian mechanics for some time and a number of physicists had been working towards a replacement. Einstein happened to get there first.
Scientific theories are not dogma or gospel. They are better than their predecessors and, when their weaknesses become apparent, they point towards their successors.
This is unlike theology. When are we going to see good old Abrahamic theology replaced with a relativistic theology or even a quantum theology? Although it wouldn’t surprise me if there is a quantum theology lurking around here somewhere.
So is the soul just a photon zooming around out there and is heaven sitting on the event horizon of a supermassive black hole somewhere?
Yup, that’s what happens to theories that are past their sell-by date.
That depends on how you measure significance. Maybe we are in some way or maybe we’re going to go the way of the dinosaurs. We don’t know but turning to Bronze Age myths about a Chosen People looks like grasping at straws.
BA77:
This confuses not yet being falsified with being unfalsifiable.
For example, adding horizontal gene transfer didn’t falsify Neo-dawinism because it still reflects variations being genuinely created over time via a process of variation and selection. Which fits our theories of how knowledge is created in general. In the case of evolution, variation occurs via mutations, horizontal gene transfer, etc. Criticism takes the form of natural selection.
Knowledge is information that plays a causal role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium.
Either General relativity, quantum mechanics or both are incomplete because we lack a working theory of quantum gravity. So, I fail to see your point.
Wow. I mean, you really ought to research before posting. This has been addressed several times. What gives? You seem to have selective amnesia or this is just outright disingenuous.
https://ncse.ngo/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-about-evolution
What does Popper mean by “my cup of tea”? See above. Popper proposed that knowledge is objective in that it is independent of a knowing subject. Knowledge grows via conjecture and criticism.
IOW, you’re just picking and choosing references, and even appealing to Popper, when it suite your purpose, while rejecting them when they do not.
Do you really think this is a valid approach?
Seversky at 14,
You worship men. You worship scientists. Your worldview is only inward looking. Your choice.
“We don’t know but turning to Bronze Age myths about a Chosen People looks like grasping at straws.”
Your worldview, and that is the correct term, hangs not on every word that comes from the mouth of God but every word that comes from the mouths of scientists and certain other self-chosen people. What you are involved in is a cult called Humans Worshiping Humans. Let’s look at the facts:
1) Humans are fallible.
2) The Soviet Union established the Workers’ Paradise where the official State religion was atheism. It didn’t work out.
You may think that Christians, for example, are uninterested in science, don’t study it or don’t understand it. That religious belief impedes ‘understanding’ certain scientific things. That is false. The Catholic Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. It was instrumental in spreading legitimate scientific information, and setting up universities.
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
You should look into this. Life is short. You’ve been warned that there will be consequences after.
Whatever Seversky. All of science was born out of, and is STILL dependent upon, Judeo-Christian presuppositions. (See Stephen Meyer, “Return of the God Hypothesis”)
Moreover, the artificial imposition of naturalism onto science by atheists, i.e. methodological naturalism, and as the OP itself gives evidence to, has led to nothing but confusion in science.
For example,
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Critical Rationalist, this may interest you,
Moreover, the primary reason no one can seem to find any rigid falsification criteria for Darwinian evolution is simply because it is not based on any known physical law nor mathematics.
CR at 15,
It has been stated that humans and apes had a common ancestor. And this assumes that a mostly ape gave birth to something more human – a primitive human. Which self-upgraded into so-called “modern humans.” Please give the date (+/- 1,000 years) when this ‘common ancestor’ lived.
@15
Valid or not, it’s the only approach he has. I tend to think of bornagain77 as a chatbot that just repeats the same nonsense over and over, regardless of whether it’s relevant to the thread, regardless of what others say about it, regardless of all the flaws and omissions that are pointed out to him. If you assume bornagain77 is an AI, like ChatGPT or Sydney, and not an actual person, you’ll find your interactions with it much less frustrating.
PM1 at 20,
Cheap shot. I’ve read Ba77’s posts and they are highly credible. Your accusations are baseless.
PMI, the shoe is squarely on the other foot. Darwinists keep repeating the same lies over and over again, even though their claims have been experimentally refuted at every turn.
That you would try to defend such anti-science shenanigans reflects very poorly on your capacity to be intellectual honest, not on me.
Moreover, it is a bit rich that I would be accused of being a mindless chatbot, when Darwinists are, in fact, the ones who hold their entire sense of self is merely a neuronal illusion (Crick). And that they have no free will (Coyne). For crying out loud, that is literally the definition of a mindless chatbot 🙂
Apropos PM1 @20, I learned long ago that BA77 refuses to color within the lines. His agenda is driven by two overarching beliefs intertwined with the bugbear of evolution:
The second belief is belied by the prevalence of atheism and agnosticism among first flight scientists, especially in physics and chemistry. The first belief is historical revisionism writ large. That’s not to say that “Judeo-Christian” culture had no effect on the arc of science in the West (that position would be just as ridiculous), it’s to say that this fashionable cliche among Christian apologists is clearly an overstatement….
CD at 23,
You are quite mistaken.
https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
ChuckyD claims that it is “historical revisionism writ large” to claim that, “All of science was born out of, and is STILL dependent upon, Judeo-Christian presuppositions.”
Yet actually, it is ChuckyD, and his Darwinian cohorts, who are blatantly guilty of “historical revisionism writ large”.
I guess the game for ChuckyD here is to accuse Christians of what atheists were, and still are, blatantly guilty of.
Despite ChuckyD’s dishonest denial to the contrary, the fact that modern science was born out of the Judeo-Christian culture of Medieval Christian Europe is simply a historical fact.
And per Stephen Meyer, here are the three essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions that were necessary for the rise of modern science in medieval Christian Europe
Moreover, modern science is STILL dependent on Judeo-Christian presuppositions. As Paul Davies succinctly put it, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
So thus in conclusion, ChuckyD turns out to be the one who is guilty of the very thing that he accused me of being guilty of. Namely, “historical revisionism writ large”. Judeo-Christian presuppositions were, and still are, necessary for the practice of modern science.
Of supplemental note, here is a list of major disciplines of science, and the Bible believing scientists who founded them,
Verse:
Relatd
How do you figure?
Of related note to ChuckyD’s appeal to “the prevalence of atheism and agnosticism among first flight scientists,”
CD at 26,
Ba77 filled in the details. I thank him.
Nice, date align best with and help attest to Pearlman YeC SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model.
follow project at researchgate dot net and the series available on amazon + kindle.
some dated excerpts also on academia http://www.academia.edu/943467.....ectroscopy
BA77 & Relatd @27 and 28
Just one final comment and I’m moving on.
I watched the video provided by BA77. It is important to note that it is a compilation of short video clips edited by Dr. Jonathan Pararejasingham, a British physician. The key takeaway apropos my comment @23 is:
The Nature article provided by Relatd @24, makes the very same conclusion based upon actual survey data.
So, I'm not sure exactly what BA77 and Relatd are trying to challenge, they seem to have made my case. But it’s not really news, as the Nature article shows, this is a 100-year trend……
Well ChuckyD, to point out the obvious once again, (which seems to be a recurring theme with you), most people assume that since most elite scientists are atheistic or agnostic then they must have very good scientific reasons for being atheists and/or agnostics. Yet the surprising thing is that they don’t have very good scientific reasons for being atheists and/or agnostics. It turns out that they are atheists/agnostics for personal reasons, not scientific reasons. To further quote from the article, with the part you left off attached,
So thus ChuckyD, to point out the obvious once again, an elite scientist being an atheist/agnostic for personal reasons, not scientific reasons, carries as much weight as anyone else, (your garbageman, your mailman, etc.)., believing what they believe for personal reasons. Their personal beliefs simply carry no scientific weight. It is the scientific evidence itself that matters.
Moreover, I hold that if we take the artificial blinders off of science, specifically take the artificial blinder of ‘methodological naturalism’ off of science, and let the scientific evidence speak for itself, then the scientific evidence itself is very good at pointing us to Theism, not atheistic naturalism, as the true explanation for reality.
Specifically, Atheistic Naturalism and Theism make, and have made, several basic contradictory predictions about what type of science evidence we will find about reality.
These basic contradictory predictions about reality, and the evidence that is now found by modern science, can be compared against one another to see if either atheistic naturalism or Theism was true in its basic predictions about reality.
Here are a few comparisons:
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the naturalistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both atheistic naturalism and Theism, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact modern science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’
So thus in conclusion, regardless of whatever elite scientists may personally choose to believe about God, the scientific evidence itself could care less about what they may personally believe, and the scientific evidence itself is telling us a VERY different story from what ‘elite scientists’ may personally choose to believe..
“Elite” means satanic. 😉
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”
Whistler,
Today’s Gospel reading, as it happens.
Andrew
Popper’s autobiography was published in 1976. The page I referenced quotes from Popper after 1976. Your point is?
Again, we have quotes from Popper that doesn’t imply natural selection is a pseudo science from 1978. Darwin can be mistaken about natural selection in regards to survival of the fittest, etc. as described in the selfish gene, which was published in 1976. But this isn’t anything new in the present. This is more selective appeal to Popper when it suites your purpose.
Yes. Popper’s appraisal of Evolutionary theory changed. The lack of laws in the sense of, say, newton’s laws, etc. isn’t isn’t any more of a problem than the principles behind the second law of thermodynamics.
First, as Popper pointed out, this isn’t a surprise. Variation comes in many forms.
Second, natural selection can be formulated in a way that is testable based on existing laws. Biological adaptions can be modeled as abstract replicators, which are forms of information that, once embodied in a physical system, tend to remain there, while others do not. They play a causal role in being retained in future generation.
This is testable. What would refute Darwinian evolution?
Strangely, many ID proponents (falsely) claimed this is the case with the bacterial flagellum. Why would they do this if they didn’t think it would reflect a falsification if found to be true?.
Third evolution can be represented as a principle. Specifically, as abstract replicators in constructor theory.
From this paper
Details of this can be found in here.
Bornagain77/31
The burden of proof may be a foreign concept to you but if believers want others, including scientists, to share their beliefs then they should present compelling reasons and evidence for them. What has been offered thus far does not rise to that standard in my view.
You do realize that that argument applies equally to the religious beliefs of scientists as well? They have no bearing on the science either.
The scientific evidence leads us to a number of profound mysteries. It does not point unequivocally towards Theism. As others have pointed out, cherry-picked quotes are a form of confirmation bias and read more like theistic grasping at scientific straws.
Do I really need to repeat the rebuttals to those points yet again?
I find it – ironic – that you decry the principle of methodological naturalism. How else would you conduct science other than through a methodical investigation of the nature of the world in which we find ourselves? Are you suggesting something like a religious Lysenkoism in which the acceptability of the findings of science is determined by the extent to which they are judged to conform to religious presuppositions?
Whistler/32
It is good to see there are some who are keeping alive the traditions of Dark Age thinking.
Critical Rationalist, your arguments unsuccessfully trying to defend Darwinism from Popper’s criticisms, and especially your appeal to Deutsch, does nothing to defend Darwinism from my overall claim that Darwinism is, in fact, a untestable, unfalsifiable, pseudo-science.
For instance, after Denis Noble had shown many foundational assumptions of Darwin’s theory to be experimentally false,
,, after Denis Noble had shown many foundational assumptions of Darwin’s theory to be experimentally false, and Darwinists then subsequently refused to accept those experimental findings as falsifications of their theory, Denis Nodel stated, “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
To further solidify Dr. Noble’s claim that Darwin’s theory, (at least how Darwinists treat their theory), is unfalsifiable, here is a list of falsifications of Darwin’s theory (that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications off their theory)
CR, despite your repeated false claims to the contrary, by any reasonable measure, Darwin’s theory simply fails to qualify as a real and testable science, but is much more appropriately classified as a pseudo-science, even as a religion for atheists, rather than being classified as a real and testable science.
For instance, as Berlinski quipped with the casting aside of natural selection by ‘neutral theory’, and yet Darwinists subsequent acceptance of neutral theory as if it is somehow compatible with their theory,,,, “By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian.”
Verse
Seversky, your criticism of me would be much more fitting if it did not apply exponentially more-so to you. For prime example, you never present any compelling empirical evidence for your position, and you ignore numerous lines of falsifying evidence against your Darwinian worldview, and yet, you continually use faulty, even false, theological presuppositions about what God should and should not do, not scientific evidence, to continue to try to cling to your Darwinian atheism. For crying out loud, the self-refuting, and Theologically based, ‘argument from evil’ is literally your bread and butter argument for Darwinism and against God!
See my post this morning on Cornelius Hunter’s thread to get a glimpse of just how hypocritically self-refuting your naturalistic/atheistic worldview actually is in regards to scientific evidence and Theological presuppositions..
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/cornelius-hunter-on-evolution-as-a-religious-theory/#comment-776654
Ba77,
Seversky, and a few others here, must defend Darwinism. They have no choice. They see God coming back into science, and facts or no facts, they need to confuse readers here. To make them believe that Darwinism is somehow true when you have clearly, and repeatedly, shown it to be false and not testable science.
Seversky’s problems with God are another matter, but definitely connected. He, like some atheists, wants God to appear in a lab for some tests, followed by Seversky having a few words with Him…
BA77 wrote
You’re not even being consistent with your own references. Specifically, I’m referring to the paper you referenced from Sober. What gives?
IOW, Popper didn’t think evolution was pseudoscience, as you just claimed. Apparently, you don’t realize your own reference doesn’t support your own position.
Popper’s criticism was focused on Darwin’s formulation of natural selection: “survival of the fittest.” But, fortunately, we’re not stuck with Darwin’s formulation. Again, see Dawkins’ “The selfish gene”, which was published in 1976. Popper addresses this directly…
So, even if Popper had not changed his mind, it would fit into the second category. But Popper did change his mind.
So, despite Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” being tautological, natural selection can be reformulated in a way that it’s not tautological. Which is in line with Popper.
Furthermore, your demand for a “law of evolution”, in the sense of Popper’s first category, in the current conception of physics. This is addressed in the paper I referenced on the constructor theory of life.
But, we do not know the initial conditions.
IOW, this law you appear to be demeaning would need to predict, after starting out with some initial conditions at the Big Bang, goats would appear billions of years later. (If ID is scientific, does provide a law that predicts human beings will appear billions of years after some specific initial conditions? Which specific conditions?) We don’t know exactly what the initial conditions are.
But, fortunately for us (but unfortunately for you?), we’re not stuck with the current conception of physics. Assuming we are stuck with the current conception reflects an artificially narrow appeal. It’s disingenuous.
They are random to the particular problem to be solved, not completely random. I mean, this is really basic stuff here BA. What gives?
Which is incredibly vague criticism. The supposed designer on organisms seems to out run their headlights all the time. The knowledge it would have produced has very limited reach. Which is what what we expect in regards to a process that creates non-explanatory knowledge. Why might that be the case?
** First, let’s get past this “Darwin’s theory” stuff. Darwin was mistaken about a number of things. So what? Many people today have a better understanding about general relativity than Einstein did. Your point?
Second, this is an appeal / criticism of reductionism. You really ought to get out more.
Again, see above **. Mutations need not be beneficial in the sense you seem to be implying. They just need to get copied into the next generation. In many cases, mutations cause hardship and may eventually result in extinction. But other mutations will not. They play a causal role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium.
You don’t have to outrun the bear, just out run the other person.
When someone goes behind a tree, does that mean they were not there during that time? We have good explanations (scientific theories, such as geometry, optics, etc.) that explain why we wouldn’t expect to see them. We don’t have any good theories to explain how they would have disappeared either. The same can be said in regards to our explanations as to how fossilization occurs, etc. Again, this really is basic stuff here, BA. You’re grasping as straws here.
Again, see above **.
This hasn’t been demonstrated.
Like how the bacterial flagellum was provided to be irreducibly complex?
Also, how can Neo-darwinism be falsified if it’s not science?
We don’t think it was chance. Come on BA. Is this really all you’ve got?
Except, probability isn’t a valid way to approach the subject. You haven’t explained how that probably could actually be calculated. See the peppers on constructor theory and this video on probability in science.
Huh? And no. Quantum mechanics doesn’t show any such thing. But you know this already. That’s an interception of QM, in which you must add something to the theory to explain why conscious beings do not evolve according to the wave function, like the rest of the universe. What might that be BA?
We can bring information, and knowledge, into fundamental physics using constructor theory. Even if we couldn’t, this doesn’t disprove Neo-darwinism. This is yet another non-sequitur.
That’s quite the leap you’ve made there BA!
You ought you download the lasted version of physics.exe. Your’s seems to be way out of date.
There is no theory of natural selection.
Natural selection is just what happened. So it’s just whatever happened, happened.
It’s meaningless as a scientific explanation. It’s a tautology.
https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/paul-davies-on-the-gap-between-life-and-non-life/#comment-775881
Sev, 35:
This caught my eye, and given the issue of self referentiality on hard, core questions, it is a doozy.
First, EVERY worldview, including atheistical ones, must answer to the issue of ultimate origins, thus roots of reality and faces the same burden of comparative difficulties. That is, you have no default standing to pretend that “absence of belief in a god” [note, abusive lower case typically used] holds a default. For, in reality and in straightforward truth, atheism is the claim to know that there is no God. Indeed, as God is inter alia, a serious candidate necessary being world root, the assertion of atheism is an implicit claim to warrant that God is impossible of being.
So, your or some other atheism advocate’s warrant that the inherently good, utterly wise creator, a necessary and maximally great being is incoherent and impossible of being is? ________
I suggest, it is far harder to fill that blank cogently than many have suggested, especially post Plantinga, much less post Boethius.
Going further, over the ages and currently, there are so many millions who have claimed to meet, know and be positively transformed by God, that to imply or invite that we are all delusional, is to self referentially undermine the credibility of the human mind.
Which, actually, is a known, multiply major problem with the most relevant current form of atheism, evolutionary materialistic scientism. The scientism shoots itself in the head by asserting or implying the epistemological claim to monopoly or decisive dominance on knowledge. The evolutionary materialism is hopelessly caught up in implying that brains somehow programmed themselves into credible minds, ending up in spooky claims of grand inexplicable emergence as we have seen in recent months. The basic challenge is that no computational substrate is truly rational, responsibly, rationally free to warrant, instead it is caught up in GIGO driven dynamic stochastic procedures on an architecture likely to be bug riddled. (Recall, even hello world can be argued to be bug ridden.)
Going beyond, there is a consistent pattern of such projecting delusion to large swaths of humanity, religious believers, despised social classes, races, sexes, political opponents, neurotics struggling with potty training and linked complexes, operant conditioning, etc. In all cases self referentiality lurks.
So, I suggest retiring this particular rhetorical gambit.
KF
That is itself, well, a world view.
For me God, doesn’t add to the explanation. He is an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable realm, who operatives via inexplicable means and methods and is driven by inexplicable motives. This just seems to push the problem up a level without improving it. Calling God a necessary being seems in search of a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. And it arbitrarily reflects an end to asking questions, such as why are there necessary beings instead of necessary non-beings? Why would a necessary being want this universe, instead of some other universe? How is it that God can know anything and what is the origin of his knowledge, etc. It’s unclear how suggesting “That’s just what the necessary being must have wanted” actually explains anything. Rather, it just attempts to justify things. But unless things too are also justified, then it’s unclear how it can be a justification, etc.
Being a fallibilist doesn’t mean I think we’re delusional or that our that we cannot find knowledge now and then.
IOW, the idea that there is some barrier after which human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass is to “undermine the credibility of the human mind.”
CR, your knee-jerk denialism does not constitute a legitimate refutation.
Of supplemental note, Whereas there is apparently no falsification criteria that Darwinists will accept, there is currently a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can falsify a primary claim of ID. Namely, that only Intelligence can create the coded information that is necessary to explain life,,,
CR at 44,
Respectfully, you’ve said nothing new. The Christian God has revealed Himself in Scripture. The ONLY problem is He will not appear in a lab on command to undergo tests that prove He is the real thing.
Several non sequiturs here.
A couple of them are
The universe, solar system and Earth are fine tuned? Why? Implies an entity of massive capabilities behind this fine tuning.
You placed no limits on humans. Implies eventually there will be unlimited number of god like creatures with unlimited abilities. That would be fun to watch.
By the way infinity is out as an explanation. It is self refuting.
CR
What does fallibilism say about self-evident truths such as A=A, 2+2=4, error exists, truth exists, I exist?
Origenes, how have you infallibly identified the Bible as an infallible source of the Christian God, or any God?
Or is that a tautology, in that the Christian God is just whatever the Bible says God it is. But many other holy books claim to say God is like X, etc.
Assuming you somehow managed to achieve this, how have you managed to infallibly interpret the Bible?
And, if you’ve somehow managed to achieve that, how have you infallibly determined when to defer to the Bible? After all, the Bible supposedly is not a science book. Which means we shouldn’t defer to it on matters of science.
But how do you know it also is not a book on how God actually is, what he actually did, etc., either? So we shouldn’t defer to it on matters of God’s actual existence? Rather, it could be a book we should defer to on matters of what the people who wrote it thought God would be like if he existed. Or if rejected their preferred explanation of how they think God would have acted behind the scenes, had he existed. That the Bible is actually about how things really are, instead of how they wanted things to be, depends on how and when we should defer to it. Right?
IOW, any infallibly in a supposedly infallible source cannot help us before our fallible human reasoning and problem solving has had its say. Which is effectively the same as someone who didn’t believing in the infallibility of the source. In both cases, the weakest link in the chain, is fallible human reasoning and problem solving.
@48
I’d be interested to hear how Critical Rationalist responds.
Certainly one option would be to say that fallibilism does not apply to analytic statements. But that would commit a fallibilist to the analytic/synthetic distinction, which became controversial in 20th century philosophy thanks to Morton White and W. V. O. Quine.
Then there is the question as to what we ought to be fallibilists about. A standard answer is “theories”. But this invites the nice question as to whether there’s an unambiguous distinction between a scientific theory and our everyday conceptual frameworks.
Perhaps a fallibilist would be willing to say that a conceptual system as a whole can be mistaken, regardless of what is logically entailed by that system.
Should we be fallibilists about arithmetic? Could we be? Could we even conceive of an experience which shows that arithmetic should be replaced with a different conceptual system?
I cannot conceive of a situation that could lead people to decide that arithmetic should be abandoned, but perhaps that is a failure of my own imagination.
01. Mutations are not random.
Already addressed. They are random to any problem to be solved. Again, this is old hat. The use of the term “directed” is equivocation.
02. Natural Selection is poor design substitute.
Yes, the natural process of evolution is a poor design substitute, as I’ve already explained. Designers create explanatory knowledge, which has significant reach. Evolution does not. It creates non-explanatory knowledge, which has limited reach. Only people can create explanatory knowledge.
However, the genome contains, you guessed it, non-explanatory knowledge, not explanatory knowledge.
Ask yourself, why did the designer intentionally decide to obscure its involvement by only creating the kind of knowledge that natural processes could create? If it wanted us to know living things were designed it could have, well, designed the knowledge in the organisms of living things to contain the kind of knowledge that only people can create. Right?
Why would a designer do this? Is it trying to hide its involvement?
Also, the probably calculations you reference assume the outcomes in question were intentional targets picked from the very start. This isn’t part of evolutionary theory. It’s a hidden ID assumption that is smuggled into this kind of argument. Again, see the video regarding probability in science. You haven’t responded to it at all.
03. DNA and body plans
With a person has six fingers due to a genetic mutation, does their DNA contain an entire extra copy of an entire finger? No, it doesn’t. This doesn’t help your argument as a small change can have a large impact on body plans. You seem to keep referencing papers and ideas that you seem to think help your position, but actually do not. This doesn’t bode well for your understanding of either the references or the subject at hand.
04. Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics
This is more of “Darwin thought”, except in the context of “Fisher thought”. Had either of them being found wrong does not falsify Neo-darwinism. This is a non-sequitur.
After all, Einstein had mistaken ideas about several aspects of fundamental physics, including an expanding universe, black holes, gravity waves, etc. Yet, we don’t hear you complaining about how GR has been falsified because Einstein was wrong about those things.
What gives, BA? Where is the equal outrage? You have no outrage because it doesn’t suit your purpose.
Neo-Darwinism is just an unfortunate theory that happens to convict with one of your religious beliefs.
04. What “Darwin thought” about the fossil record
Already addressed.
Ignoring this, you don’t seem to have any problems with varying rates of inflation in the expansion of the universe. So why do you have a problem with varying rates of mutation in evolution? Because varying rates of inflation suits your purpose in the form of the Big Bang. See above.
05. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig
Lönnig’s conclusions about the results of multiple experiments are, to put in mildly, heavily contested and considered misinterpretations. But this isn’t anything new, either. You’re grasping at straws.
06. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate…
Another “Darwin thought” non-sequitur. What about what Einstein thought, etc? Where is your outrage in the case of GR?
07, 08. “Darwin thought” about the beneficial features and irreducible complexity.
Another “Darwin thought” non-sequitur. And, like the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum?
09. “Darwin thought” about consciousness.
Another non-sequitur. Neo-Darwinism is about biological complexity, not consciousness. But you already know this as well. Again, what gives, BA?
10. Mathematics and the impossibility of Neo-darwninism.
See the constructor theory of evolution, which specifically addresses this criticism. Specifically, it asks: since biological replicators operate at such hi-fidelity, did the design of replicators have to be present, at the outset, in the laws of physics?
If the answer to this question is “No.” then why would the design of replicators need to be present in some designer, at the outset?
Do you have any criticism of this paper BA?
11. The scientific method itself is based on reliable observation.
Which is a mistaken theory of epistemology. Your point is?
12. Information is immaterial.
We can bring information into fundamental physics using constructor theory. See this paper. You haven’t responded to this in the least. If specific physical tasks must be possible for information, then how can information be completely independent of physical systems?
Again, you’ll completely ignore this reference as it doesn’t suit your purpose.
But, by all means, explain it to us, BA. I won’t be holding my breath.
13. Darwinism and epistemology.
This whole line of argument appeals to the idea that knowledge is justified true belief. That’s yet another example of a mistaken epistemology.
14. Darwinism and teleology
I think teleology exists. I just don’t think it was involved in created the knowledge in living things. They contain non-explanatory knowledge, not explanatory knowledge.
Again, only people can create explanatory knowledge. This is because they intentionally attempt to conjecture explanatory theories of how to solve problems, then criticize them. The result has significant reach. Yet, the knowledge in the genomes of living things do not contain explanatory knowledge. What gives?
Again, you should download latest version of physics-materialism.exe, as your’s is woefully out of date. But, of course, you won’t because, well, it doesn’t suit your purpose.
CR at 49,
God works infallibly in Creation. From Communion and Stewardship:
Part 69: “… But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles….It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).’
CR at 51,
Another one who wants God to appear to him on demand.
“• The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”
‘• “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”
‘• Quoting our late Holy Father John Paul II: “The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.” ‘
“Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
PM1, I have suggested that while there are clearly self evident and otherwise infallible and knowable certain truths [try to deny 3 + 2 = 5 or that error exists etc], most of the time we use knowledge in a weaker sense. That is, warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) beliefs, which we are persuaded of and feel comfortable acting on, or would even be irresponsible not to act on . . . and yes, Ciceronian first duties lie down that road. Science, History, Management decision making and a lot of common sense day to day life lie in this realm. KF
PS, I have been impressed by Dallas Willard (and heirs), but notice my adjustment:
CR, contrary to what Darwinists believe, repeating lies does not make them true.
Since mutations to DNA are now known, in the vast majority of instance, to not be truly random, but to be ‘directed’. Darwinists will often respond to this (very) inconvenient falsification of a core presupposition of their theory by claiming that mutations are only held to be random with regard to fitness, i.e. to the needs of the individual, (as if that claim gets them out of the severe jam they have with this core falsification to their theory), but even their claim that mutations are only held to be random with regard to fitness, i.e. to the needs of the individual, is now known to be a false claim in and of itself.
As to natural selection,
Body plans,
Fisher’s Theorem
Fossil record,
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig
Convergent evolution,
continued
Consciousness,
Immaterial mathematics
Darwinism undermines reliable observation,
Information is an immaterial entity that is physically distinct from matter and energy, and not reducible to matter and energy, as is presupposed within Darwinian thought:
Darwinism and epistemology,
Teleology
Wrong!
We have a new master of gobbledygook. Just about everything said is nonsense.
The creator of the universe is immensely smart and immensely powerful. This creator has objectives because why is the universe created in a specific way? Maybe one of those objectives is uncertainty.
Aside: There is no such thing as random. One just does not know the true origin of the force causing the effect. It’s too complicated to figure out. So we use the term random.
CR @ 51,
Your link to arxiv.org is broken (the one about the constructor theory).
Since CR bashed Christianity:
Use this
https://www.constructortheory.org/
and this
https://www.edge.org/memberbio/chiara_marletto
A book on constructor theory.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0525521925?tag=edgeorg-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1
Seems more philosophical than physics.
@ETDA I wrote my comment offline and it appears to have scrambled the link. https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0681
Perhaps an example discussion on the Fabric of Reality list would help to clarify this….
The question asked was if is 2+2=4 falsifiable. Someone proposed the following test.
David Deutsch, the Oxford Physicist and author whom’s work the list is based on, pointed out the the problem with this conclusion.
In case this isn’t clear, given the observations of the experiment, we would assume that something was tampering with Tommy’s box, the cupcake, our neurons, etc., rather than conclude that 2+2 doesn’t equal 4. This is because the explanation that 2+2 actually equals 4, in reality, is extremely hard to vary. Nor can we think of a better explanation as to why 2+2=4.
And the paper on bringing information into fundamental physics: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563
Someone presents gobbledygook and in a straight face pretends it is truth.
This quote alone should disqualify Deutsch as nothing but a clown and anything but a serious scientists. He compares a definition, yes 2 + 2 is a definition within a logic framework, with a supposition as to how some physical event took place. The physical event is the appearance of various live entities in the past.
The latter requires a mechanism using the physical laws and exists in the real world. The former exists in the mental world of logic which requires a mind to observe. They are two extremely incomparable things.
Aside: A favorite t-shirt of mine has the expression “2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2.” I use it to mock those who actually believe that 2+2 is not equal to 4 as they redefine just what a number is. We have those believers here.
Aside2: we constantly use mental ideas such as mathematics to make sense of the real world where the laws of physics operate. That does not make any mental concept such as Darwinian Evolution also useful because one believes it reveals the real world. The mental thought might help one to investigate the real world. But never in a second believe because one can think of something , does it make it the real world or even a potential real world.
Aside3: Chiara Marletto is an extremely beautiful young woman.
Aside4: Chiara Marletto does a fantastic job of describing how complicated life is.
Besides Constructor theory being a superfluous theory that doesn’t accomplish anything new, David Deutsch, the main originator of constructor theory, is also an avid proponent of Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum theory.
To call Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation absurd, even delusional, is an understatement.
Moreover, Everett’s primary motivation for postulating the patent absurdity of MWI was based on his a priori commitment to atheism, and. was not based on any empirical observation, nor compelling logic, that would have warranted him to postulate such an extravagant absurdity as Many Worlds. And Deutsch avidly champions Many Worlds precisely because it is atheistic in its philosophy. and not because of “the elegance of his mathematical model,”
Lastly, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, MWI is now experimentally shown to be false.
Specifically, In the atheist’s many worlds model, the collapse of the wave function is simply denied as being a real effect. As wikipedia states, in many worlds “there is no wave function collapse.”
Yet, directly contrary to what atheist’s hold to be true in their many worlds model, the collapse of the wave function is now experimentally shown to be a real effect.
As the following experiment found, “homodyne measurements, show,, the non-local collapse of a particle’s wave function.,” and, “the collapse of the wave function is a real effect”, and, “”Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”
In short, (and much like Darwinists), whatever MWI proponents such as Deutsch are doing, they certainly are NOT doing empirical science. i.e. MWI is experimentally shown to be false! And that falsification of MWI, for all intents and purposes, renders anything else Deutsch may have to say about Quantum Mechanics worthless.
Verse:
CR@
Are you sure that “we would assume that something was tampering with Tommy’s box, the cupcake, our neurons, etc., rather than conclude that 2+2 doesn’t equal 4”? Are you sure that “the explanation that 2+2 actually equals 4, in reality, is extremely hard to vary”? And are you sure that it is not the case that “we can of a better explanation as to why 2+2=4”?
If so, what is your certainty based on?
My general question is: what makes criticism valid in fallibilism? What is it based on?
One perspective referenced multiple times by Anderson is a “reductionist perspective” and predictions. But this is precisely the problem with the current conception of physics, as it excludes aspects that have no room in the current conception. This is one of the motivations of constructor theory.
It’s odd how BA describes constructor theory as being useless, despite actual papers that target questions about biology. Specifically, the supposed necessity of the existence of the design of replicators in the laws of physics, etc. Yet, I haven’t seen BA address the papers themselves. Given that those links were broken, I’ve posted updated links that work. So, this is in your court, BA.
As for Anderson’s three points…
01. Probability theory / statistical mechanics
First, see this criticism of the probability calculus: Physics Without Probability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc
The role of probability is criticized in each of these fields.
* Theory of experimental error
* Actual science
* Biology (Evolution by random variation and natural selection)
* Foundations of (classical and quantum) statistical mechanic (principle of equal a priori probability).
* Brownian motion
* Quantum theory (Born rule)
* General decision theory
* Information theory (Classical, then quantum)
* “Bayesian” philosophy of science (aims to increase credences which are supposedly probabilities)
* Pricing of derivative securities (Black-Scholes equation etc.
Second, Anderson on thermodynamics…..
And…
Thermodynamics is already somewhat constructor theoretic, as it refers to principles. CT is a more formalized approach. From this paper on thermodynamics: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac70a7/meta
It’s unclear how this isn’t novel or useful.
02. Physics is mainly useful in as far as it can make predictions
?Which is a “Shut up an calculate.”, instrumentalist view of science.
This objection, among others, is addressed in The Philosophy of Constructor Theory: https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
The 2011 OPERA experiment “observed” neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light didn’t immediately falsify Einstein’s speed of light. Why? Because we didn’t have a good explanation as to why neutrinos only traveled faster than light in the OPRA experiment, but not any other. Later we explained this with a loose networking cable and a timer that was out of calibration.
03. Constructor theory does not solve the problems it claims to solve
This ignores the advance of having solutions that are not specific to those subfields. It’s a unification. For example, see the above regarding programmable universal constructors.
Again, reductionist solutions are limited by being, well, reductionist. That’s the problem. That the current conception of physics has been successful in solving reductionist problems is non-controversial. The motivation of constructor theory is to expand our ability to bring things like information into fundamental physics.
Specially, it would reflect a more fundamental theory that is deeper than all existing theories, including QM and GR. How is this trivial or useless?
Anderson’s lack of interest in achieving this doesn’t make constructor theory utterly useless.
Again, see the paper on the constructor theory of life, which asks a very specific and relevant question in regards to ID. See post 51, in context to point 10.
#69
Origenes, what certainly are you referring to?
This this article on fallibilism: https://nautil.us/why-its-good-to-be-wrong-234374/.
@BA77
Why don’t you start with the paper on the Constructor theory of life: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.0681.pdf
Specially, the paper refers to the question of whether biological replicators perform replication so accurately that their design had to be already present, at the outset, in the laws of physics.
While not directly targeting at ID, would you agree that if the design of replicators need not be present in the laws of physics, at the outset, then they wouldn’t need to be present in some designer at the outset, either?
But I don’t want to leave anyone out. This question is open to everyone, not just BA77.
No one can explain Constructor theory.
Marletto certainly can’t. Until the time when someone can explain it, we will have assume it’s nonsense.
Sorry, no links. In your own words. Links have been gobbledygook. Deutsch’s own words have been nonsense. My guess, is you cannot.
This is saying that any potential designer can have no thought process that would lead to a specific design. But yet that is not our experience through out history.
Every time an intelligence intervenes in nature, this action is not a subset of the laws of physics. Yet, the capacity was there before the action. Such processes intervene in nature to produce something that nature by itself could never produce. And to something the designer didn’t originally contemplate.
Why should anyone read what you are saying? So far I haven’t found anything that isn’t nonsense. Take your best shot at something that is relevant and true. Just one.
CR @71, @65
If a position does not make truth claims, then it makes no claims at all. So, here is my question: What does fallibilism claim to be true? And what is it based on?
Some specific questions, based on the article on fallibilism that you linked to:
Is it certain that “nothing can infallibly tell you what is infallible, nor what is probable”?
Is it certain that ”a fallibilist cannot claim to be infallible even about fallibilism itself”?
Is it certain that it makes no difference “whether the idea was originally suggested to you by a passing hobo or a physicist”?
If one of the claims (from the article) above is certain. What is the certainty based on?
CR at 70,
“The 2011 OPERA experiment “observed” neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light didn’t immediately falsify Einstein’s speed of light. Why? Because we didn’t have a good explanation as to why neutrinos only traveled faster than light in the OPRA experiment, but not any other. Later we explained this with a loose networking cable and a timer that was out of calibration.”
Then explain Cosmic Rays traveling faster than light.
“Cosmic rays, which are ultra-high energy particles originating from all over the Universe, strike… [+] The fast-moving charged particles also emit light due to Cherenkov radiation as they move faster than the speed of light in Earth’s atmosphere, and produce secondary particles that can be detected here on Earth.”
“It’s odd how BA describes constructor theory as being useless, despite actual papers that target questions about biology. Specifically, the supposed necessity of the existence of the design of replicators in the laws of physics,”
Tell you what CR, you guys make some unique predictions from your ‘theory’, do some experiments to validate those unique predictions, and thus validate Constructor theory to over 5 sigma level, (which is the minimum level required to be achieved for a new theory to be considered valid), then get back to me with your experimental proof. Until then, I regard constructor theory as nothing more than a delusion arising from the fevered imagination of David Deutsch who, last time I checked, (and simply in order to avoid God), believes he is endlessly splitting into a veritable infinity of new David Deutschs every time an electron and/or photon is simply measured.
Verse:
@BA77
[Crickets]
If it’s true that constructor theory is meaningless, then it shouldn’t be capable of formulating this question in terms of possible an impossible physical tasks. Specifically, in regards to the appearance of design, what is physically necessary for replicators to, well, replicate, a network of construction tasks, etc.
So, if you actually have any confidence in your claim, why not answer my questions? In fact, it seems to me you would already have an answer to my question, if you’re confident.
IOW, wouldn’t an having an answer, one way or the other, be a necessary consequence of your claim? Why are you afraid of trying to poke holes in your own claim?
@Relatd #75
You might want to brush up on your physics.
Cosmic rays do not have mass. Even then, some things with mass can exceed that speed limit because the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. However, that’s not the same as something with mass traveling though actual space at faster than the speed of light, which is what Einstein was referring to.
But that’s irrelevant to my point.
Neutrinos has mass. And in every other experiment we’ve performed, neutrinos did not exceed the speed of light. So, why didn’t those observations in the OPERA experiment immediately invalidate Einstein’s speed limit? Because we didn’t have a good explanation as to why neutrinos were “observed” traveling faster than speed of light in the OPERA experiment, but not every other experiment designed to determine the speed of neutrinos.
Observations are theory laden.
Who are you trying to kid?
“These high-energy particles arriving from outer space are mainly (89%) protons – nuclei of hydrogen, the lightest and most common element in the universe – but they also include nuclei of helium (10%) and heavier nuclei (1%), all the way up to uranium.”
@75
Cosmic rays travel faster than the speed of light in Earth’s atmosphere. Passing through air, water, or any other medium slows down how fast light travels. That’s consistent with the assumption that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, which is what Einstein actually said.
More specifically, general relativity says that no object with mass can accelerate up to the speed of light in a vacuum — because the more energy it uses, the more equivalence in mass that it has, which requires more energy, etc.
In fact, I think this entails that given infinite energy, any body with mass that was accelerating up to the speed of light in a vacuum would turn into a black hole.
PM1,
Another one. Einstein did math but could conduct no experiments. So, you are saying high energy particles from space actually speed up when striking Earth’s atmosphere? I don’t think so.
The more energy it uses the more equivalent mass it has. Again, I don’t think so.
Whatever CR, until you have empirical evidence, you’ve got nothing but gobbledygook from a delusional man who believes he is endlessly splitting into a veritable infinity of new David Deutschs every time an electron and/or photon is simply measured. (And he believes this insanity simply to avoid the inference to God!)
If this is the man who you want to hang your scientific hat on, then, by all means, go for it. But I am, nor is anyone else, obligated to follow you two guys into insanity.
Yet his mathematics entailed predictions which were experimentally confirmed, such as stellar parallax.
Of course I’m not saying that — I’m saying that the light slows down as it passes through atmosphere, which is why the speed of cosmic rays is faster than that of light that is passing through atmosphere.
So you’re denying that energy is equal to mass times the square of the speed of light?
I stand corrected. Cosmic ray photons have no intrinsic mass. Other components of cosmic rays do have mass.
This still doesn’t reflect actually traveling faster than Einstein’s speed limit as indicated by PyrrhoManiac1.
But, again, that’s irrelevant to my point. “Observations” of neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light did not falsify Einstein’s speed limit.
Mere observations negating a theory do not reflect a replacement theory. Any replacement would need to need to explain everything the current theory does, in addition to explaining why neutrinos would travel faster than light in the OPERA experiment, but not every other experiment. No such theory was presented. As such it did not replace the existing theory.
PM1 at 83,
Theories need testing. Math needs testing in actual use. In real life, we see particles accelerated to near the speed of light but not getting heavier along the way.
“The Large Hadron Collider is the most powerful accelerator in the world. … Accelerated to a speed close to that of light, they collide with other protons.”
Protons have mass.
@BA77
Yes. Whatever indeed. You seem unwilling to put your money where your mouth is. If what you’re saying is true, that would have implications regarding the question I asked, the paper I referenced, etc. Yet, you still haven’t addressed it.
What gives?
Why couldn’t God have decided to create the multiverse? This doesn’t follow.
Of course, this isn’t just limited to BA. I wouldn’t want to exclude anyone else from joining in on the “fun.”
Whatever CR, gobbledygook is NOT empirical science. And believing you are endlessly splitting into a veritable infinity of new David Deutschs every time an electron and/or photon is simply measured is insane. That you try to defend such insanity says more about you than it does about the science.
This is my last post on the subject. I’ve got much better things to do today than exchange comments with someone who refuses to be at least semi-rational.
Deutsch is a fool:
So, as a fallibilist, you have reason to doubt fallibilism, that is, you have nothing.
No, that cannot be true Deutsch. The statement is incoherent and self-defeating, which shows that fallibilism, like all hyper-skeptical positions, is self-defeating. If the statement is true, then it is not the case that absolutely everything is false. So, if the statement is true, then it is false.
That’s incredibly vague, BA. And so is your appeal to “empirical science”, as you seem to be confused about what the role of what empirical observations plays. Anyone can merely call anything gobbledygook. That’s applicable to all ideas, so it’s unclear how it can be used in a critical way.
I can do it to….
“Your comment is gobbledygook, BA. so I’m going to ignore it.”
See how that works? Or should I say, how it doesn’t work?
Again, your claim makes a prediction. That paper should contain “gobbledygook” and be “useless”. At a minimum it predicts that the biological replication cannot be be reformulated in constructor theory (which tasks are possible, which tasks are impossible, and why) So, why not put your money where your mouth is? That would be a necessary consequence of your claim. You take your own claim seriously, right?
First, we can start with my question: If the design of biological replicators do not need to be present in the laws of physics, at the outset, then why would they need to be present in some designer, at the outset?
What’s insane about it BA? We’ve been over this. Many worlds is just taking Schrödinger’s wave function of quantum mechanics seriously. That’s it.
To avoid it, you need to add something to the theory that proposes / explains why observers do not evolve according to the wave function like everything else. IOW, collapse cannot happen unless observers do not evolve according to the wave function, so they can, well, observe the transition.
So, by all means, fill in the gap that must exist in quantum mechanics. If not according to Schrödinger’s wave function, then how do observers evolve? What the BA “observer function”? Why does it only apply to observers and not everything else? Explain it to us.
To use a different perspective, you’ve appealed to “empirical science.” Ok, let’s go there. Empirically speaking, the wave function is incredibly accurate at predicting how systems will evolve. So, empirically speaking, why do you think it would be wildly and abruptly inaccurate in regards to observers?
That’s just what the MWI does. It says the predictions of the wave function extremely accurate in regards to observers as well. We become entangled with the rest of the multiverse. Empirically speaking, predictions of what we observe in regards to the many worlds, vs other interpretations, are empirically indistinguishable. From our perspective, what we would observe would be identical.
IOW, in the MWI, breaking the wave function into pieces that appear to us as what we consider individual worlds is merely a convenience for us. There is just the wave function.
See this video, which answers many of the questions and confusion about many worlds.
That’s a false dichotomy. From the article…
From this essay….
I’m not the disappointed dogmatist you seem to painting me as.
CR
What is “substantive criticism”, “error correction” and “rational thought” based on? What makes it valid?
– – –
Let’s see:
1.) No position can be positively justified
2.) “No position can be positively justified” is a position.
From 1.) and 2.)
3.) It cannot be positively justified that “no position can be positively justified.”
Yet another self-defeating proposition by Deutsch.
– – – – – – –
Perhaps not, but you are a self-defeating hyper-skeptic.
You’ll have to be more specific. It’s sounds like you’re asking how are they justified. To which I would reply, they are not in the sense you seem to be implying.
It is? But that was anticipated and addressed in the quote. You seemed to have missed it.
Again, anticipated and addressed…
So, this is problematic for you. You’re projecting your problem on me. Again, this is a false dilemma.
Also, did you actually read the essay? Here’s a hint. That was not Deutsch.
CR @92
Then tell me, in what sense are they valid? Based on what?
I‘ve read it, there is nothing there. But let’s have a second look anyway:
“Metacontext” is a nonsense term, invented as an attempt to escape the unavoidable self-referentiality.
Here it is assumed that something is only a “position” when it is directed at solving problems. Where does this holy truth come from?
Clearly “no position can be positively justified” is a position on positions. The position, the stance, on positions is that none of them can be positively justified.
Can you walk me through that? IOW, I’m suggesting that, at some point, you’ll make an assumption that reflects a false dilemma.
Popper, from the essay on fallibilism…
Criticism is itself fallible. We lack infallible access to every criticisms that could be applied to find possible errors in an idea. Errors could go undetected for months, years, decades or even never. This includes the idea that knowledge grows via conjecture and criticism. That process is itself a metacontext which is part of the best explanation for how knowledge grows.
For example, your criticism regarding the justification of x would be applicable equally to all ideas, so it’s unclear how it can be used in a critical way. How can God justify or provide a firm foundation for something unless he too is justified by something else? This is a problem of infinite regress. So, you’ve simply decided to stop seeking justification at some arbitrary point.
CR
Here is my argument again. Tell me which premise is addressed by the text you quoted.
1.) No position can be positively justified
2.) “No position can be positively justified” is a position.
From 1.) and 2.)
3.) It cannot be positively justified that “no position can be positively justified.”
Let’s examine:
1.) “No ideal sources of knowledge exist.”
2.) A universal and affirmative claim requires an ideal source of knowledge.
3.) “No ideal sources of knowledge exist” is a universal and affirmative claim.
Therefore
4.) If (1.) is true, then Ideal sources of knowledge exist.
Thus self-defeating.
Here is Nicholas Dykes on Popper:
Then you have nothing to criticize from.
Out of nowhere, there is a holy “metacontext” that, unlike everything else, is beyond criticism. And suddenly there is also a “best explanation” for how knowledge grows. What are they based on? Where does certainty, this access to truth, come from?
Origenes, self referentiality will get you every time. They need to pay it notice. KF
@95
You would be right if the claim “there are no error-free sources of justification” itself presupposed an error-free source of justification. But it does not.
Rather, it is based on empirical survey of actually existing sources of justification and observing that none of them are completely error-free.
Now, you might be in better shape, arguing against Critical Rationalist’s Popperianism, if you were to point out that if fallibilism is based upon induction across actually existing epistemic resources, that would be in tension with Popper’s own avowed rejection of induction with regard to the methodology of science, since his falsificationism comes out of his belief that Hume’s “problem of induction” cannot be solved and therefore we must rationally reconstruct scientific reasoning on deductivist terms.
This is, incidentally, why my philosophy of science is basically that of Peirce and Dewey — especially with regard to Peirce’s insight that scientific reasoning requires the feedback and feed-forward loops between abductive, inductive, and deductive reasoning. Each makes its own unique contribution; we cannot hope to understand science on the basis of only one or even two of them.
PM1 @97
If so, then the empirical survey must be flawless in order to flawlessly observe “that none of them are completely error-free.” IOW the empirical survey must be an “error-free source of justification.”
98
Well, suppose you’re right: suppose that the observation and induction used in this survey were themselves flawed. That allows for the possibility that there really is an error-free source of justification, but one that the fallibilist has simply failed to notice.
In that case, I think the fallibilist response would be to say, “ok, show it to me!”
PM1 @
My larger argument against fallibilism is expressed by Kairosfocus in #96. Every position toward knowledge has to be based on axioms. They have to pay the notice like everyone else. Hyper-skepticism wants to burn every other position down to the ground and remain unscathed. Although this is doubtlessly inspired by the noblest of intentions, it cannot be done.
“The beliefs of others are all nonsense, but mine is not because mine is a ‘metacontext'” is simply not acceptable.
@100
I don’t understand this, perhaps because I don’t quite understand what you mean by “pay the notice”.
A deductive system that is based on axioms is a system that takes those axioms as given. They are not themselves justified, because they are the basis for all justification in that system.
In mathematics and logic, we usually do not worry about what grounds or justifies the axioms themselves. The Peano axioms of arithmetic or Euclid’s axioms in geometry are simply given — assumptions that must be granted in order to prove anything else in those systems.
To conceive of knowledge as an error-driven self-correcting feedback system (which is perhaps more Peirce than Popper?) is to reject the assumption that knowledge must be based on axioms.
PM1 @101
The correcting is done, according to CR, by “substantive criticism”, “error correction” and “rational thought.” I have asked him what they are based on, and what makes them valid. His answer is that they are not justified in the sense that I “seem to be implying.”
Meanwhile, one has to wonder what “rational thought” means for someone who does not accept that 2+2=4.
I am not clear at all on what you are asking for: what would it mean to say that “substantive criticism”, “error correction” and “rational thought” must be based on something in order to be valid?
Does he deny that 2+2=4?
PM1
Suppose that an attempt at correcting by “rational thought”, would imply stating that something is illogical, then it would be based on logic.
What do you make of post #65?
@104
We can take logic in the very broad sense to mean the rules of good reasoning — avoiding informal and formal fallacies, and so on.
Would a fallibilist need to say that even the rules of good reasoning are fallible? Perhaps, but even so, what does that mean? Fallible does not mean unreliable or untrustworthy — it means that they have broken down, stopped working, in some specific context.
For example, we usually regard eyewitness testimony as reliable — but we also know that it’s far from perfect. If I tell you that I saw a gorgeous hummingbird yesterday, you’ll be inclined to believe me — unless it turns out that some other factor is intervening (it was far away, I wasn’t wearing my glasses, I don’t know what hummingbirds look like, my neighbor was playing with a new drone, etc.). So eyewitness testimony is reliable and also fallible.
Likewise, we could take the rules of good reasoning as reliable guides — unless we had some specific reason, in some specific context, to think that they had ceased to function.
(In this context, I find it salutary to reflect on both why quantum logic failed and whether it could have succeeded.)
It’s an interesting exercise about what we might say about a world in which experience does not conform to the a priori truth “2+2=4”, which is different from denying that “2+2=4” is an a priori truth of arithmetic. I quite agree that it’s difficult to imagine what it would take to show that the axioms of arithmetic are so blatantly inconsistent that “2+2=4” makes no sense.
(Deutsch mentions “Dark Integers” by Egan. A more humorous take is “bistromathics” in Life, the Universe, and Everything by Douglas Adams.)
PM1 @
It would mean that reasoning ends. There would be nothing left to say.
It seems that fallibilists do not realize that. They want to go on talking about varying criticisms or whatever. And when you ask what their continued talk is based on, since they have destroyed the foundation of reasoning not only for others but also for themselves, they look at you as if it’s your fault.
The larger point is perhaps that, in line with Slagle, there is no outside of the circle. You cannot draw a circle around logic, step outside that circle, and proceed with making all sorts of arguments.
Popper….
Origenes
You continually seem to selectively ignore aspects of each excerpt when it suits your purpose. Then you add assumptions that are nowhere to be found in the quote, along with adding assumptions that are in conflict with the author, like “A universal and affirmative claim requires an ideal source of knowledge.” But that’s precisely what the author criticizes. It’s like a game of wack-a-mole. When corrected in one area, you switch to a misrepresentation in another area, and when corrected there, you switch back to some previous misrepresentation.
For example, Popper uses the words “propose” and “assume”, which you proceed to leave out of your “examination”.
Here’s a thought experiment: imagine someone claims a bank robbery was thwarted by Superman, who is now in the hospital due to gunshot wounds from a conventional hand gun and is a woman. Do I have to believe Superman actually exists to point out that Superman is supposedly a man and is supposedly impervious to conventional non-Kryptonian weapons? No, I do not. Regardless if Superman actually exists or not, we have good criticism that he would not be person that thwarted the bank robbery.
IOW, I do not need to actually believe Superman exists to take that proposition (theory) seriously, _as if_ it were true in reality, and that all observations should conform to it, _for the purpose of criticism_. If superman existed, there would be necessary consequences of that being true. The person in the hospital would be a man. And the person shouldn’t have injuries due to conventional weapons. Those observations conflict with that theory.
This goes back to the idea of knowledge as justified, true, belief.
01. We start out with a problem. Some new observation or idea seems to conflict with some theory we have tentatively adopted.
02. We conjecture explanatory theories about how the world works, in reality, for the explicit purpose of solving that problem
03. We take those theories seriously, for the purpose of criticism, as if it was true in reality, and that all observations should conform to it, in the hope of finding errors It contains.
04. Goto 01.
That’s it. Everything is held open with the possibility of criticism.
Again, going back to a previous misrepresentation, previously addressed….
IOW, you seems incapable of taking fallibilism seriously long enough to make it though to the next comment, then bringing up the same misconceptions.
Origenes
I’d note that you picked 2+2=4 as a shining example of an absolute, axiomatic truth, that is immune from criticism.
How did you come to choose that particular proposition as a candidate for immunity from criticism to use in your comment? Why 2+2=4 instead of, say, 3+4, why not the theorem of Pythagoras? Was it because you decided that proposition would be the best to make your point because it was the most obvious, unambiguous truth of all you considered using?