Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why science can’t study the supernatural – A physicist’s view

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
boo
Oh please, let us guess just this once: You were going to say ... Boo! Right?

From Rob Sheldon

Why can’t the paranormal and spiritual realms be subject to scientific analysis? The materialist says “Because they don’t exist.” and therefore all signals are spurious and a waste of resources.

The intelligent design theorist says “coherence is not just a sign of extra dimensions, but a sign of front-loaded purpose”. Therefore the paranormal might not be “spooky action-at-a-distance” but a design feature of simultaneous causation. If A is correlated to B, it may be that A doesn’t cause B, or B cause A, but previous design C causes both A and B such that they are correlated.

Lipstick and breast cancer are correlated, but neither causes the other.

But if we look at the meta-studies, if we ask, what is the benefit of studying the paranormal versus ignoring it? We find the curious phenomenon that the Enlightenment advanced precisely where it ignored the paranormal. Thus it would seem that studying the paranormal wasn’t merely a distraction, but a degradation of science.

Stanley Jaki argues in “The Savior of Science” and several of his other books, that bad metaphysics, such as looking for paranormal effects, waylaid the nascent scientific progress of the Greeks, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Caliphate and even the Jewish Kabbala. Only the severe discipline of the Enlightenment materialism could negotiate the shoals of bad metaphysics.

I’ve come to a similar answer, though phrased a little differently. Inasmuch as the paranormal and spiritism are “personal”, possessing the characteristics of contingent personality, then it is dangerous to study them as a machine. This is like BF Skinner studying humans as if they were a computer program.

Economists can tell you the danger of doing this. Not only does this give the wrong answer, but it even gives the wrong questions. What makes people people, and what makes the divine divine is precisely the personal, and therefore science does a disservice to theology when it reduces the personal to machinery. But worse, it invites the ghost into the machine.

More precisely, the Bible condemns even the exploration of the occult, because of its parasitic relationship to persons.

We all understand computer viruses. And thanks to global warmists, we are beginning to understand the power of positive feedback and what money does to our science models. But we have yet to understand what psychology does to common sense, or what evolutionary biology does to our sanity.

Inasmuch as the paranormal is personal, it is forbidden for the same reason that the occult is forbidden–it infects our mind.

Thoughts? – UD News

Comments
It’s the result of differential reproduction of organisms.
The differential reproduction has to be due to heritable random variation. I will look into Dawkins- it has been a while since I read "The Selfish Gene"-Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Joe: I had (brick oven) pizza with artichokes, broccoli and roasted red peppers. I am sure the extreme heat killed anything that was living. My body is processing the information, matter and energy now. Chas: What are you doing with the information? Joe: Processing it- you read it, you responded to it, yet you ask?
I read and responded to the information in your pizza?Chas D
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
I don’t see that it’s a different matter.
Energetically the same constraint must apply, yes. That is, there is no free lunch. Whatever ordering must take place to form the 'first replicator' cannot violate the 2nd Law. But having a replicator that can replicate (with suitable energy input) is a different matter from getting a replicator that can replicate. It depends to some degree on the manner of specification. Once a replicator system can create copies of itself, with suitable energetic input, that system is off and running. But the very first replicator may conceivably have used a different energy source (or no energy source). Replicating a replicator needs energy, but forming one may not, if (for example) there is simply a random bumping of molecules that eventually hits upon some 'replicator configuration". I can hear the slumbering UD keyboards sparking up at such a suggestion! I don't think they are necessarily divorced, but nor are they necessarily entwined, is all I'm saying.
Most OOL theories propose some kind of temperature gradient that gives rise to convection cycle
I think that would be unlikely, myself. I think it is all about electrons, and I think that is a necessary start point. I don't see a temperature cycle turning into a more 'modern' system. You need a source of energetic electrons. And (I think) you need a membrane. The electrons pump protons across the membrane, and this stores the energy. The likeliest source of energetic electrons is a molecule such as hydrogen sulphide. You also need a terminal acceptor. Then there is no need to dream up a cyclic system. Energetic electrons flow from top to bottom. Gradually, you'd start to run out of energetic electrons, but not as long as there is a steady stream. The reason I favour the electron-first scenario is the central role of ATP in both energetic and informatic biochemistry. 3 or 4 of the main cofactors of electron transport pathways, and ATP itself, have ATP as a central component. And it is also an RNA subunit. Condensing RNA against the energy gradient both consumes the energy in ATP, and uses its 'stuff' as a subunit in an ordered configuration. This suggests a connection between energy and 'information' that I think runs very deep.Chas D
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Oops quite right. Meant to type: "No natural selection doesn't operate on the level of the gene, and Dawkins doesn't say so." My bad. You are right, I was a bit cross when I typed that. Still at least I didn't call you a wanker tanker. Although I have to say, I came so close. And yes, of course natural selection is a result, and Monod, Dawkins and I all understand that. It's the result of differential reproduction of organisms. And what the factors that determine that differential reproduction are factors that affect the organismElizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, Your anger betrays you. But it is entertaining-
No, natural selection doesn’t operate on the level of the organism, and Dawkins doesn’t say so.
Monod said NS operates on the organism:
For natural selection operates at the macroscopic level, the level of organisms.
YOU provided the quote. But anyway NS is a RESULT, which is something you nor dawkins seems to understand.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Oh read both, for goodness' sake, Joe. No, natural selection doesn't operate on the level of the organism, and Dawkins doesn't say so. Genes that make the organism do what benefits the gene end up being selected. Hence Dawkins' phrase "the selfish gene". He doesn't say that the gene can be selected on its own. Obviously, it can't. It's only selected for what it does to the organism. Although for a very different take, I recommend, as usual, Denis Noble: http://videolectures.net/eccs07_noble_psb/Elizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Processing it- you read it, you responded to it, yet you ask? I am starting to understand how a rag-tag group of farmers and merchants started the United States over the objections of the British.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
I know you said it- and only you know why. So tell us what does "“Living organisms order disordered chemistry”- have to do with the question "Are living organisms reducible to matter and energy?"Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
My body is processing the information, matter and energy now.
What are you doing with the information?Chas D
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
LoL!- “Living organisms order disordered chemistry”- doesn’t have anything to do with anything I have ever said.
Sigh. I said it. You picked it out of a prior post and declared it a "bald assertion", which I then defended. Now you are carping that it has nothing to do with anything YOU have ever said. Any other phrases you might like to pick out and cavil over, then start wondering what their relevance is to your mighty words? Or is it time to play the "YOUR position has no evidence" card?Chas D
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Dawkins says NS acts on the level of genes, Monod says it operates on the level of the organism, and Elizabeth sez they have precisely the same view.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
It had absolutely nothing to do with what Berlinski said.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Nice strawman. Or is it a non-sequitur?
You choose. It was a response to an argument from personal incredulity, examining a system where one does not tend to feel the same incredulity, for compare-and-contrast purposes. A relevant system, genetics, since evolution is multi-generational genetics.Chas D
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Sounds like Berlinski didn't actually read Monod. Here is Monod:
The initial elementary events which open the way to evolution in the intensely conservative systems called living beings are microscopic, fortuitous, and totally unrelated to whatever may be their effects upon teleonomic functioning. But once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident - essentially unpredictable because always singular - will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into millions or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of pure chance, the accident enters into that of necessity, of the most implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the macroscopic level, the level of organisms. Even today a good many distinguished minds seem unable to accept or even to understand that from a source of noise natural selection could quite unaided have drawn all the music of biosphere. Indeed natural selection operates upon the products of chance and knows no other nourishment; but it operates in a domain of very demanding conditions, from which chance is banned. It is not to chance but to these conditions that evolution owes its generally progressive course, its successive conquests, and the steady development which it seems to suggest.
So Monod and Dawkins have precisely the same view. I think they are both misleading, actually, as I've said, or, at any rate, out of date - I don't think it makes sense to call variation-generation "chance" and natural selection "necessity". I think both are stochastic process that are also highly constrained. But it certainly makes no sense to pit Monod against Dawkins.Elizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Both parents do not have to be present at the same time :) Chas goes three times a day...Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Joe, wanking into a tank won't do it. Both of the parents needed to be present.Timbo
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
LoL!- “Living organisms order disordered chemistry”- doesn't have anything to do with anything I have ever said. You seem to just say stuff as if it is relevant when in fact it has nothing to do with anything. Yes, do try to keep up...Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
After you remove matter and energy from an organism?
If done properly.
Is the carrot you ate for dinner still alive and full of information?
I had (brick oven) pizza with artichokes, broccoli and roasted red peppers. I am sure the extreme heat killed anything that was living. My body is processing the information, matter and energy now.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Whatever, I don’t do mc’s steak house
What? You'll be telling me you don't like celery next! Oh no, my whole argument comes crashing to the ground!
and what you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have claimed.
It specifically responds your statement "that is a bald assertion" wrt MY statement "Living organisms order disordered chemistry". So it has a lot to do with a claim you have made - ie, '"Living organisms order disordered chemistry" is just a bald assertion'. Do keep up.Chas D
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Chas spaz, wanker tanker. Nice strawman. Or is it a non-sequitur?Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Really? After you remove matter and energy from an organism? Is the carrot you ate for dinner still alive and full of information?Elizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Without energy, living things could not reproduce,
Question-begging- you can't use living organisms in your example because you need to explain them.
So are you saying that when a seed grows into a tree it violates the 2LoT?
More question-begging- where did you get that seed and the place to plant it?Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Amazing. Sheer dumb luck.
Berlinski schmerlinski! Sheer dumb luck picked the genes that made you from the billions of combinations that your mum or your dad could have made with one of the billions of other individuals on earth, or with each other for that matter, and so on back through the generations. Or do you think you were put together specially? In which case, your mum and dad were destined to meet, and none of your ancestors had free will. It all had to happen just so, so as little Joe could come into being. Awww. Stochastic or deterministic genetics?Chas D
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
Whatever, I don't do mc's steak house and what you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have claimed. And it certainly doesn't support any claim that living organisms are reducible to matter and energy.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
So, sorry, the basic point Sewell is making is on that challenge and opening up your lottery to blind inputs of energy is not going to make a difference.
Of course it makes a difference. Without energy, living things could not reproduce, and without self-replication there could be no exploration of the space of possibilities. Without energy, brains could not function, and intelligent designers could not design.
The sort of complex functional organisation in life is not going to come about by blind energy and mass flows into Darwin’s warm little pond. And for reasons relating to the strong tendency of systems to move to more disorderly states on injection of energy,
So are you saying that when a seed grows into a tree it violates the 2LoT?Elizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Chas: Living organisms order disordered chemistry. Joe: That’s just a bald assertion.
Well, it is an observable fact. That is what they do. A tree turns disordered molecules of CO2 and water into "tree-stuff" - complex carbohydrates, with a bit of help from nitrogenous compounds and trace minerals supplied by its mycorhizzal symbionts. You turn a month's worth of McDonald's and chicken and celery and Cheerios into "Joe-stuff". A billion billion copies of your enzymes are breaking down chicken-stuff etc and turning it into Joe-stuff. A bacterium absorbs carbohydrates through its cell wall and turns it into "bacterium-stuff" ... Well, you get the idea. Biology, Joe. Acting against the tendency of raw materials to remain in a disordered, or differently ordered, state.Chas D
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Bydand, It is safe to stay the position of Intelligent Design is that living organisms are not reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. IOW it isn't something that pertains to just me.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Information and life- the other two fundamental entities.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle, This will go in circles if you are at this stage going to object to a simple metaphor. You know full well that the issue of CSI comes up in a case where in a set of possible configurations W, we may define special, relatively isolated and rare zones T, which are separately and simply describable. You full well know that if you had a lottery with a set of prizes E1, E2 . . . En making up a set T such that |T| :|W| less than 1:10^150, such a lottery would be unwinnable on the gamut of our solar system's resources. That is, inaccessible to chance and necessity. You could use a warmer-colder metric to select better guesses, but that would be foresighted design. And so forth. So, sorry, the basic point Sewell is making is on that challenge and opening up your lottery to blind inputs of energy is not going to make a difference. The sort of complex functional organisation in life is not going to come about by blind energy and mass flows into Darwin's warm little pond. And for reasons relating to the strong tendency of systems to move to more disorderly states on injection of energy, Sure we have special ordered systems shaped by relatively simple configuration patterns like a hurricane, but these are irrelevant to the sort of information rich functional organisation we are looking at, just like crystallisation or the like. And, that is Orgel and Wicken, back to the 70's speaking. KFkairosfocus
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
So Joe - if we remove the matter and the energy from an organism, what's left?Bydand
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply