From Italy, Mathematics and the origin-of-life problem

What does Godel mean by “the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components”?

I believe that is a a figure of speach for saying something is impossible. For the atmosphere to spontaneously separate out it’s components (oxygen, nitrogen, C02, helium, etc.) from its mixed gaseous solution would be statistically impossible.

For the reader’s benefit, the Godel quote came from Berlinski’s article (linked above). Berlinski commented:

A premonitory chill may now be felt sweeping the room. “We cannot see,” Richard Feynman wrote in his remarkable lectures on physics, “whether Schrodinger’s equation [the fundamental law of quantum mechanics] contains frogs, musical composers, or morality.”

Cannot see? These are ominous words. Without the seeing, there is no secular or sacred vision, and no inferential staircase. Only a large, damp, unmortgaged claim.

And a claim, moreover, that others have regarded as dubious. “The formation within geological time of a human body,” Kurt Godel remarked to the logician Hao Wang, “by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.”

This is a somewhat enigmatic statement. Let me explain. When Godel spoke of the “field” he meant, no doubt, the quantum field; Schrodinger’s equation is in charge. And by invoking a “random distribution of elementary particles,” Godel meant to confine the discussion to typical or generic patterns — what might reasonably be expected. Chance, again.

Under the double action of the fundamental laws and chance, Godel was persuaded, no form of complexity could reasonably be expected to arise. This is not an argument, of course; it functions merely as a claim, although one made with the authority of Godel’s genius. But it is a claim with a queer prophetic power, anticipating, as it does, a very specific contemporary argument.

“The complexity of living bodies,” Godel observed, “has to be present either in the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].” In this, Godel was simply echoing Paley. Complexity must come from somewhere; it requires an explanation.

And here is the artful, the hidden and subversive point. The laws of physics are simple in that they are short; they function, they can only function, to abbreviate or compress things that display pattern or that are rich in symmetry. They gain no purchase in compressing strings that are at once long and complex — strings of random numbers, for example, the very record in the universe of chance itself. But the nucleic acids and the proteins are precisely such strings. We have no idea how they arose; filled with disturbing manic energy, they seem devoid of pattern. They are what they are. Their appearance by means of chance is impossible; their generation from the simple laws of physics ruled out of court simply because the simple laws of physics are indeed simple.

Godel wrote well before the structure of the genetic code was completely understood, but time has been his faithful friend (in this as in so much else). The utter complexity of the informational macromolecules is now a given. Using very simple counting arguments, Hubert Yockey has concluded that an ancient protein such as “cytochrome c” could be expected to arise by chance only once in 10 trials. The image of an indefatigable but hopelessly muddled universe trying throughout all eternity to create a single biological molecule is very sobering. It is this image that, no doubt, accounted for Francis Crick’s suggestion that life did not originate on earth at all, but was sent here from outer space, a wonderful example of an intellectual operation known generally as fog displacement.

Tribune asked:

OK, Sal. I suspect you might be better at this than me but if you were to somehow mathematically describe every material thing in existence how would you prove what you describe to be true according to Godel’s incompleteness theorm?

You cannot. Sorry to dissappoint you. :=(

You can not experience truth without some degree of faith, but you can falsify things (ala popper).

There are truths that are unprovable, so faith is in order somewhere! In fact, I was quite shocked when my math teacher told me that the basis of accepting math was faith! A consequence of Godel is that some of the truest things in reality cannot be proven, but only accessible through faith. Mathematician Douglas Hofstadter said it so eloquently: “truth is greater than provability”.

So it’s not a matter of whether one has faith, but whether the faith one has is in a true thing (more on that at the end of this comment).

Thankfully, it is possible to dismiss many false statements. If for example, someone said, “E = not-E” that is a false statement by the rules of logic. Darwinian evolution has many of such illogical square-circle statements. The scientific method and proof by contradiction gives us a technique to help us have a better chance at having a hold of truth….

What can be done via proof methods is occasionally demonstrate there are logical inferences from ones faith assumptions (presuming ones faith assumptions are correct). For example, if our faith assumptions about the reals are correct, then there are infinitely many prime numbers (can be proven using a proof by contradiction).

The reason we think our math is good is because it works so well! Is there a chance it’s incorrect? Logically speaking perhaps, but via faith we accept that it’s right until proven wrong. I recall my math teacher saying one day, “you can prove Zorn’s lemma if you assume the axiom of choice…There is the Apostles creed. The axiom of choice is like a creed. It is a mathematician’s article of faith.”

One can formulate falsifiable hypothesis (ala popper) both in math and in science and see if there are inconsistencies or counter-examples to our faith- inspired conjectures.

Let me give you a conjecture: “at least it seems that every number that is greater than 2 is the sum of three primes”. In fact this conjecture (Godlbach’s) has remained unproven for over 250 years and a 1,000,000 prize to solve it. We can use the scientific method and provisionally accept it as a true principle until it is proven or falsified (ala Popper). A disturbing fact is if this hypothesis is undecidable, it cannot be proven even if true!!!!

We tend to believe what we can prove, and perhaps one day we’ll prove or disprove Goldbach’s conjecture. But we are always faced with the possibility that what we believe is true but unprovable.

Now, back to the question of how we can possible know if something is ulitmately true, especially if it is unprovable. The physcist reverend John Polkinhorne said it so wisely in his Gifford memorial lecture, “by God’s gracious disclosure.”

That is, unless ultimate Truth is willing to help us along, to give us eyes to see and ears to hear, and minds to reason, and actually tell us the truth and help persuade us its true, we would not have any hope of knowing truth. Such truths then also require faith to be effective. The source of truth can do a lot to persuade, but one is not forced to accept it as true, even in math!

One more thing, because we are finite, some degree of child-like faith is needed to receive truth. Even science has this child-like faith that its methods can work, but there is no way to actually prove the scientific method is valid.

ID sympathetic Nobel Laraureate Charles Townes said, “I have faith in order that I may know.”

That’s about the most sensible thing I’ve heard in a long time.

See you all next week. Have a great weekend!

A5,

I’ll send it to you if the e-mail that you registered with is correct.

Also, ARN is a good place for a public discussion. All of the questions that I field regarding ID should be publicly accessible with the exception of identities of ID proponents and perhaps important work too sensitive to disclose.

Even I did not know about Biologic. I would have considered Biologic as too senstive a project. I make it a policy to not be involved in highly confidential matters lest there be a security leak. And frankly what is there to be confidential about regarding the science being discussed?

I make it a point not to know too many names of clandestine sympatheizers. Those I meet on the net, I encourage to remain annonymous.

All this to say, any questions about ID directed to me I will answer on a public forum like ARN. However, my e-mail address I send to you so you can alert me of a discussion.

Thanks for your interest.

Salvador

a5,

I just tried e-mailing your account. I was not able to get through.

Salvador

a5,

Yes.

Can you change your profile at UD with a working e-mail? I’m not savvy on the details, so I leave it to you to try.

Let me know if you succeed.

regards,
Sal