Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Difference between Organization and Order

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In my previous post Silver Asiatic asked:

“What do you mean by organization being of a higher order than simple order? Why don’t these [natural] forces produce organization? Those are better areas for discussion, in my opinion.” (comment #122)

Organization

I think the distinction organization vs. order is fundamental in the design / evolution debate. Perhaps the easiest way to help us understand this difference is to consider computer software. Software clearly implies the four basic aspects of organization I listed there: hierarchy of functions and tasks, control-power, inter-process communication. Also biological systems, from cells to higher organisms, show all these aspects (“organ-isms” contain organs). Life is software. (Disclaimer: obviously here I consider only the cybernetic aspects of biology, I am not dealing with mind, soul, spirit, etc..) Organisms are organized as computer networks. This sort of isomorphism (similar mathematical structure) between software and biology is also the reason why one needs the former to understand, model and simulate the latter.

Organization is what gives a multiplicity of parts an organic unity. In other words, organization is an holistic concept, according to which a true whole is higher than the sum of its parts (see here). The parts of an airplane per se don’t fly, their organization causes this capacity of the whole airplane. Analogously, the chemicals per se don’t make life, their organization causes the life capacity of the whole organism. Life is organization.

Box rightly said:

“These arguments from organization stem from holism. When we observe an organism, we observe a whole. We do not observe a bag of chemicals, as materialism/Darwinism wants us to believe.” (comment #82)

Similarly:

“The living being has inside himself his own principle of unity, superior to the multiplicity of the elements that take part in his constitution.” (René Guénon, “Autorité spirituelle et pouvoir temporel”, chap. 5 [my translation])

Order

Differently, order is lower in essence than organization. Order means simply configuration, pattern, layout of elements in the space. Examples: my books are ordered in their book-shelf; atoms are ordered in the crystals; cars are ordered in the parking. No one of the above aspects of organization is present. Order is simple static patterns, organization is complex dynamic systems. In computer programming order can be formalized by means of mere definition and assignment of variables (the simplest thing of software). Example, the bookshelf layout can be described (in Perl language) by means of a single variable $bookshelf:

$bookshelf = <<EOV;
BB BBBBB BB
———————–
BB BBB
———————–
BBBBB BBBB
———————–
EOV

No function, no task, no control, no communication is necessary to describe the bookshelf layout. In general, order needs simply the definition of variables and the assignment of values, which the computer will store in its memory. If to define order implies only the simplest software concept, while to define organization we need all the more complex stuff of software, that means that order has inferior rank than organization.

If we have to model the working of a biological cell we need all the organizational power of a programming language: functions, processes, controls, communication and many other advanced features. Example, in computer programming the simplest decision instruction able to perform a control or regulation has the structure:

# prior situation
if (_conditions_) {
_action1_
} else {
_action2_
}
# after situation

Note that decision implies choice among two or more alternatives, depending on conditions. A decision breaks the causal chain and inserts a choice discontinuity between "prior situation" and "after situation". These kind of decisional constructs can be nested ad libitum in a program to create complex control chains. Software is control. But "complex control/regulation chains" is a ritornello you find also countless times in the texts on cellular biology or systems biology. Norbert Wiener defines cybernetics as the science that deals with "control and communication in systems and organisms". Similarly, in Mike Behe's "Darwin's black box" the string "control*" appears 66 times and the string "regulat*" 62 times. Behe explicitly writes:

“The essence of cellular life is regulation: the cell controls how much and what kinds of chemicals it makes; when it loses control, it dies.” (“Darwin’s black box”, chap 9, pag. 191)

Why don’t natural forces produce organization?

Natural laws can be described by means of a basic set of equations. These equations represent the direct relations between variables, and directly assign values to these variables. Here a key point is the term “direct” and “directly”. Example, in classical physics the Newton’s formula “f=m*a” assigns a value to “f” (or “m” or “a”) when the other two are known. That’s simple. The formula doesn’t contain the least control structure, implying a discontinuity. In fact Newton’s second law of motion is not something like this:

# prior situation
f= {if (_conditions_) {_action1(m) _} else {_action2(m) _}} * a
# after situation

Note that in the original formula f=m*a, between a “prior situation” and an “after situation”, there is no discontinuity due to decisions that break the causation by introducing choices (as massively exist in software). This is an important point: in natural laws there aren’t decisions; natural laws have no choices. This is true for all physical laws, also when they are expressed as differential equations (wave equation, Maxwell’s equations, Schrödinger equation…). This lack of decision-control-choice implies that natural laws potentially contain no organization, in the sense I defined at the beginning.

Since natural laws contain in potency no organization to greater reason they cannot create organization. In fact in general what creates must always be higher in essence and more powerful than what is created. Otherwise we would have an illogic situation where more comes from less. In a similar sense Thomas Aquinas said “Since in the world there are many intelligent causes, the first Motor couldn’t cause unintelligently.” (Summa contra Gentiles, I, 44 [my translation]). If the organizational potential of the cause is zero, a fortiori the organization of its effects is zero. In Aristotelian terms, if a thing is null “in potency”, is also null “in act”. So it is impossible that natural laws, as we know them, produce organization.

Obviously if natural laws (necessity) are unable to create organization, to greater reason randomness (chance) is unable. In fact, randomness not even has the minimum power that natural laws have and provide. Chance is lower in rank than laws. If chance and necessity, taken alone, are incapable of organization, also considered working together they are incapable (the sum of two zeroes is zero).

Conclusion: given chance and necessity per se are incapable to produce organization, the best explanation for the formidable organization of the universe and its living beings is a designing Intelligence (Source of knowledge), who has thought it as an overall organic unique project.

Comments
fifthmonarchyman: As far as the phyiscal body of Adam it’s origin may be in the womb of some African hominid, but the interesting parts have their origin in God. Not just the womb, but the egg and sperm and genome. fifthmonarchyman: If you rule out common design as an explanation then yes. We haven't ruled anything out. The hypothesis is branching descent; human ancestors branching along with the ancestors of other apes from a common ancestor; human ancestors branching along with the ancestors of frogs from a common ancestor. We're talking eggs and sperms and mating and all that. So, do you accept that the evidence strongly supports common descent of humans and other apes? Humans and frogs?Zachriel
December 21, 2014
December
12
Dec
21
21
2014
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
zac says, As for the physical copy, it’s origin may be in Georgia, but the sonnets have their origin in England. I say, As far as the phyiscal body of Adam it’s origin may be in the womb of some African hominid, but the interesting parts have their origin in God. Zac says, So, do you accept that the evidence strongly supports common descent of humans and other apes? Humans and frogs? I say, If you rule out common design as an explanation then yes. I've already said as much beginning in 158. If on the other hand you allow for common design the evidence is not quite as strong. If you allow common design and HGT then the evidence is probably inconclusive at this time. Again none of this is interesting to me at all. Congratulations on derailing the conversation once again this time from the interesting topic of the meaning of the word evolution to the boring topic of Adam's bellybutton. As long as you wish avoid the real issues and dwell on these sorts pedantic subjects you will never convince the public. I'll let you again have the last word. peacefifthmonarchyman
December 21, 2014
December
12
Dec
21
21
2014
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Oops. The last quote should be attributed to fifthmonarchyman. fifthmonarchyman: So saying the the prince is the son of a frog is interesting because it provides evidence concerning the origin of the prince. Obviously. fifthmonarchyman: It’s not interesting to know that my copy of Shakespeare’s sonnets finds it’s origin in a tree farm in Georgia. Again, your level of interest is not relevant. As for the physical copy, it's origin may be in Georgia, but the sonnets have their origin in England. fifthmonarchyman: Not at all. not in the slightest Good, then you won't mind answering the question. So, do you accept that the evidence strongly supports common descent of humans and other apes? Humans and frogs?Zachriel
December 21, 2014
December
12
Dec
21
21
2014
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
ZAc says Because it would provide evidence concerning the origin of the prince. I say, What??? So saying the the prince is the son of a frog is interesting because it provides evidence concerning the origin of the prince. That makes no sense to me. It's not interesting to know that my copy of Shakespeare's sonnets finds it's origin in a tree farm in Georgia. What is interesting is what separates a particular bundle of papers from all the others. Zac says, The close kinship of humans and other apes clearly causes you consternation. I say, Not at all. not in the slightest What ever gave you that idea? I find it to be very awe inspiring to contemplate that despite being just an animal made of dust I have "eternity in my heart" Peacefifthmonarchyman
December 21, 2014
December
12
Dec
21
21
2014
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Mapou: Why? Because it would provide evidence concerning the origin of the prince. In any case, your level of interest is not evidence, and just seems devised to avoid answering the question. The close kinship of humans and other apes clearly causes you consternation.Zachriel
December 21, 2014
December
12
Dec
21
21
2014
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
ZAc said, Most people would find that important information about the prince, certainly biologists would. I say, Why?fifthmonarchyman
December 21, 2014
December
12
Dec
21
21
2014
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: My answer is I don’t much care. It adds nothing to my knowledge of the prince to know that the prince’s father was a frog Your lack of caring is not an answer, or evidence of any sort. Most people would find that important information about the prince, certainly biologists would. In any case, you won't answer the question. The point has been made.Zachriel
December 21, 2014
December
12
Dec
21
21
2014
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Zac says, Is that your answer then? That humans were born from frogs? Or what? I say My answer is I don't much care. It adds nothing to my knowledge of the prince to know that the prince's father was a frog unless I hold that "like" must always give birth to "like". On the other hand the interesting thing. The thing that needs to be explained is not what humans have in common with frogs but what is different between the two species. You can explain the similarities between me and Barack Obama by appealing to common decent or by or by common design or pointing out that we are both humans It seems to me that all these explanations are equally fruitful and equally uninteresting. What is interesting is the differences between us you say, most Intelligent Design advocates can’t even give a straight answer. I say Is my answer not strait? peacefifthmonarchyman
December 21, 2014
December
12
Dec
21
21
2014
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: I thought the question was, "do you accept that the evidence strongly supports common descent of humans and other apes? Humans and frogs?" Yes, that's it. fifthmonarchyman: And my answer to that question depends on how how large of a difference you could accommodate under the paradigm of common decent And we replied that we were asking you that question! fifthmonarchyman: For example could a frog in theory give birth to a prince? Not in theory, but in principle. Is that your answer then? That humans were born from frogs? Or what? fifthmonarchyman: I suspect that you on the other hand believe that “like” must produce “like” so I would have to say that in your world view common decent is impossible Well, that's obviously false. Our view is that common descent is not only possible, but strongly supported by the evidence. In any case, it's rather obvious that it's the relation of humans and apes that causes so much consternation, most Intelligent Design advocates can't even give a straight answer.Zachriel
December 21, 2014
December
12
Dec
21
21
2014
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Zac says, That’s not the question. I say, I thought the question was quote: do you accept that the evidence strongly supports common descent of humans and other apes? Humans and frogs? end quote: And my answer to that question depends on how how large of a difference you could accommodate under the paradigm of common decent For example could a frog in theory give birth to a prince? If you say that such a thing is possible in theory then I have no problem with the hypothesis of common decent. If on the other hand you demand that "like" must give birth to "like" I'm not sure how the evidence could ever support common decent. Now I have no problem with frogs giving birth to princes given divine influence. So for me common decent is not an issue I suspect that you on the other hand believe that "like" must produce "like" so I would have to say that in your world view common decent is impossible peacefifthmonarchyman
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: 1) I don’t know what common decent even means in the era of HGT It means that humans share a common ancestor with other apes; you know, sperm and egg and mating and all that. fifthmonarchyman: 2) I have no problem with Adam having a bellybutton That's not the question. fifthmonarchyman: 3) Humans share a common origin with other animals That's not the question. fifthmonarchyman: 4) There are vast and relevant differences between humans and other animals. It’s these differences that demand explanation not the similarities There are similarities and differences. Many of the similarities are posited to be due to descent from a common ancestor. fifthmonarchyman: Not sure how much more I can say about the topic. You could answer the question. fifthmonarchyman: If you are looking for a strait up yes or no you need to quantify how large of a difference you could accommodate under the paradigm of common decent That's not the question.Zachriel
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
ZAc, I have no idea how you got the idea that I'm avoiding the topic I've said 1) I don't know what common decent even means in the era of HGT 2) I have no problem with Adam having a bellybutton 3) Humans share a common origin with other animals 4) There are vast and relevant differences between humans and other animals. It's these differences that demand explanation not the similarities Not sure how much more I can say about the topic. If you are looking for a strait up yes or no you need to quantify how large of a difference you could accommodate under the paradigm of common decent If it is large I have no problem getting on board if it is not then not so much peacefifthmonarchyman
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: If you say yes then you are demonstrating that you believe there is no relevant difference between humans and animals. Who said there were no relevant differences. We said they shared a common ancestor. You, on the other hand, keep avoiding the topic.Zachriel
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
This might help to clarify Suppose I invented a time machine and went back in time to 100 years before the first human was born and killed an individual from the ancestor species. Would I be guilty of murder? If you say yes then you are demonstrating that you believe there is no relevant difference between humans and animals. This is what the public suspects that Darwinists believe. If you say no then you are acknowledging that you recognize a difference that must be explained other than by the equivalent of "spontaneous improvement". Either way you show that the controversy is about the differences and not the similarities peacefifthmonarchyman
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Suppose a human embryo was transplanted into a chimp The human embryo would not share direct ancestry with the chimp, not that it matters because it doesn't relate to the question. Gee whiz. You're working really hard to avoid answering.Zachriel
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Zac said, With regards to humans and apes, there’s virtually no ambiguity. I say, Suppose a human embryo was transplanted into a chimp would the surrogate be the "mother" of the child? I'm not sure Here is what I do know. When the baby was born we would give him all the rights afforded to any human child even though his surrogate would not be so entitled. Who his parents (genetic or otherwise)were makes no practical difference as far as I can tell you say In any case, you provided sufficient evidence of the public controversy associated with common descent. I say, Again the controversy is about the differences between the human and the chimp not about the similarities. Unless you are claiming that there are no differences peacefifthmonarchyman
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: In the era of HGT I have no idea what common decent even means any more. With regards to humans and apes, there's virtually no ambiguity. It means that you distant father was also a distant father to a chimpanzee. fifthmonarchyman: what do such characterizations even mean in a world where a gene in a particular soybean is just as likely to have come from a firefly as from its “Parents”? We didn't ask about soybeans. In any case, you provided sufficient evidence of the public controversy associated with common descent.Zachriel
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Zac says, So, do you accept that the evidence strongly supports common descent of humans and other apes? Frogs? I say, In the era of HGT I have no idea what common decent even means any more. for example Would you consider two individuals that shared 20% of their genome but differed in the other 80% due to genetic additions or manipulations to be "siblings"? What about 10/90 or 50/50? what do such characterizations even mean in a world where a gene in a particular soybean is just as likely to have come from a firefly as from its "Parents"? It makes a lot more sense scientifically while equally humbling in my view to hold to a universal common origin. but I have no problem with the idea that Adam had a bellybutton if that is what you mean. Peacefifthmonarchyman
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: You need to keep in mind that till the mid 19th century spontaneous generation was still very much a live option. Which was disproven by Pasteur just about the same time as Darwin published "Origin of Species". The controversy over human-ape kinship was rampant in the aftermath of "Origin of Species", and continues today. Indeed, it's hard to pin anyone down on this blog. So, do you accept that the evidence strongly supports common descent of humans and other apes? Humans and frogs?Zachriel
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Zac, You need to keep in mind that till the mid 19th century spontaneous generation was still very much a live option. In that intellectual environment Humans and animals sharing the same origin (dust) was the equivalent of common decent in that we all come from the exact same place. The controversial thing that Darwin seemed to claim was not that we all shared the same origin but that the obvious differences we see could be explained by something like spontaneous increases in complexity. Folks did not buy it then and they still are not buying it peacefifthmonarchyman
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: The Bible says that we share a common origin and a common destination with the animals (dust). They're both made of star dust. That doesn't mean they share a common ancestor. fifthmonarchyman: Perhaps by kinship you mean moral equivalence or that there are no differences whatsoever between humans and animals. No, we mean that somewhere in your past you share an ancestor with a baboon; you know, sperm and egg and mating and all that. Why are you playing with words?Zachriel
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Zac says, The relationship we’re talking about is kinship I say, The Bible says that Humans are beasts The Bible says that we share a common origin and a common destination with the animals (dust). I'm not sure how much more kinship you could possibly claim. Perhaps by kinship you mean moral equivalence or that there are no differences whatsoever between humans and animals. If that is what you are claiming then it is not just the public but science itself that you have a problem with peacefifthmonarchyman
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: NO, most folks have no problem with the similarities between themselves and animals. We didn't say similarity, but kinship, common ancestry. http://recreatingcannae.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpgZachriel
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
ZAc said, It’s the relationship of humans to the animal world that has generated the most controversy, not complexity. I say, NO, most folks have no problem with the similarities between themselves and animals. They have issues with the claim that the obvious differences between humans and animals (among other things) can be accounted for by the sort of spontaneous increases in complexity that the term evolution implies. again just my opinion peacefifthmonarchyman
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Not sure who you talk to but folks around here have known that humans were animals long before Darwin came around. The relationship we're talking about is kinship. That should have been obvious. Do we really need to provide support concerning the controversy over the kinship of humans to other apes? http://recreatingcannae.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpgZachriel
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Zac says, It’s the relationship of humans to the animal world that has generated the most controversy, not complexity. I say. Not sure who you talk to but folks around here have known that humans were animals long before Darwin came around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_animal quote: I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? (Ecc 3:18-21) end quote peacefifthmonarchyman
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: There is no reason that scientific terms can’t be modified or abandoned when they are shown to be inadequate. Sure, but word meanings usually change slowly, especially within a scholarly field. fifthmonarchyman: I would argue that even at the beginning the public and many scientists perhaps including Darwin himself assumed improvement or increasing in complexity when they heard the term evolution. Certainly, evolutionary theory was proposed to explain complexity, but the process of evolution can run in either direction. As the evolution of complexity was the primary problem that concerned early evolutionary biologists, evolution was often used in that sense. Modern biologists are more careful in their use of the term. This is an example of slow evolution of terminology. fifthmonarchyman: If Science simply said that life has “unfolded” since it’s beginnings I don’t think that you would have near the resistance in the public that you do for the term evolution. It's the relationship of humans to the animal world that has generated the most controversy, not complexity. There's no controversy about common descent, however, in the scientific community.Zachriel
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Zac said, the term evolution was given its current scientific meaning in 1859, and is now well-established as a scientific term. I say, There is no reason that scientific terms can't be modified or abandoned when they are shown to be inadequate. I would argue that even at the beginning the public and many scientists perhaps including Darwin himself assumed improvement or increasing in complexity when they heard the term evolution. I would also argue that that understanding of the term is a big part of the reason for so much continuing public controversy in this area. If Science simply said that life has "unfolded" since it's beginnings I don't think that you would have near the resistance in the public that you do for the term evolution. Events can "unfold" according to unknown but predetermined plan for instance but I don't think they can "evolve" in such a way. Event's can "unfold" to the good or the bad. "Evolution" on the other hand conjures up notions of spontaneous increases in value over time that are just not evidenced by what we see in nature. "Unfolding" works just as well whether we are talking about small changes or large ones. Evolution seems to require the addition of the prefix Micro or Macro to cover this semantic range. It's just a poor term all around Just my opinion. peacefifthmonarchyman
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
The terminology you want is "the evolution of complexity" or perhaps adaptation.Zachriel
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: I agree with Phinehas here. When Phinehas refers to how most knowledgeable people use the term, evolution can refer to either an increase in complexity, a decrease in complexity, or changes where the complexity doesn’t change. He is welcome to use a "special" definition, but you can't then draw conclusions from that about what most people mean based on that definition. fifthmonarchyman: Using the term evolution for the result of RM/NS is a subtle linguistic trick. It's a scientific definition. fifthmonarchyman: Before Darwin evolution meant gradual improvement over time The word "evolution" still retains its original meaning of "unfolding", which may or may not indicated advancement. For instance, a stream bed may evolve through erosion. fifthmonarchyman: the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. Yes, that's a definition. If you want to discuss that aspect of evolution, that's fine, but don't insist that it's the only meaning of term, certainly not the scientific meaning. fifthmonarchyman: If you don’t wish to claim that the change is directional toward better and more complex you should find another term The term evolution is from the Latin for unrolling, as of a scroll. It doesn't necessarily mean for the better. A tragedy can unfold, a character can evolve to become evil. In any case, the term evolution was given its current scientific meaning in 1859, and is now well-established as a scientific term.Zachriel
December 20, 2014
December
12
Dec
20
20
2014
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply