You Are On The Jury

_{Barry Arrington

October 13, 2007

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

My tongue-in-cheek response to Denyse’s last post got me to thinking seriously about a practical way to demonstrate the lunacy of materialists’ invoking the “multiverse” to get around the statistical impossibility of life arising though blind unguided natural forces through pure random chance . See here for an example of this hand waving in action. I came up with a thought experiment. See below for more.

First an explanation and a little math:

The materialists do not deny that the odds are stacked very heavily against them. For example, the peer-reviewed article cited above calculates the odds of the random unguided generation of life at 10^-1018. To put this number in context, many cosmologists estimate that the number of particles in the universe is between 10^72 to 10^87.

Materialists attempt to get around the math be invoking the “multiverse.” The term “multiverse” means a system that contains infinite universes. In other words, the thought is that the universe we live in is not the only universe. Instead, it is just one of an infinite number of universes. The materialist then says something like this: “Yes, if there were only one universe, the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter through blind unguided natural forces would be so wildly improbable as to be considered, for all practical purposes, impossible. But if there are infinite universes, then every universe that is not logically impossible actually exists, and we happen to live in a universe where this wildly improbable – though not logically impossible – event is instantiated.

My thought experiment involves the Powerball lottery. The chance of winning this lottery is approximately 1 in 150 million. The chance of winning the lottery five times in a row is approximately 1.32*10^-41.

Now that the stage is set, here is the thought experiment:

Assume you are on a jury in a criminal fraud trial. The defendant’s name is Harry. Harry is charged with defrauding the Powerball lottery. The following evidence is presented a trial.

The district attorney puts on only two witness. The first witness is the police detective who investigated the case, and he testifies that the ONLY evidence of fraud he has is that on September 1 Harry showed up at the Powerball office with the winning ticket. Harry also showed up with the winning ticket on September 8, September 15, September 22, and September 29, for five wins a row. On cross examination the detective admits that he does not have any evidence or even any plausible speculations as to how Harry committed the fraud.

Next, the district attorney calls a math expert, Dr. Iksbmed. Dr. Iksbmed’s testifies that the odds against winning Powerball five times in a row are 1.32*10^-41. On cross examination, Dr. Iksbmed is forced to admit that, while winning the Powerball five times in a row is wildly improbable, it is not, strictly speaking, logically impossible. The prosecution rests.

Harry exercises his 5th Amendment rights and does not take the stand. His lawyer calls a single witness, Dr. Snikwad. Dr. Snikwad does not dispute Dr. Iksbmed’s probability calculations. Instead, he testifies that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that life spontaneously arose through blind unguided natural forces. The probability of this event happening is 10^-1018. Therefore, the overwhelming number of scientists believe that we live in a universe in which an event occurred that is many hundreds of orders of magnitude more improbable than winning the lottery five times in a row. The explanation for this, explains Dr. Snikwad, is simple. We live in one of an infinite number of universes, and we just happen to live in a universe were the highly improbable event of the spontaneous generation of life was instantiated. Similarly, explains Dr. Snikwad in a condescending British accent, he has no doubt of Harry’s innocence. This poor, unfairly maligned, and falsely charged gentlemen simply lives in a universe where his winning the Powerball five times in a row, admittedly wildly improbably on its face, happens to be instantiated. But only stupid, insane, benighted or evil religious fundies would insist that Harry’s five-peat was anything other than the result of purely random unguided natural forces.

The defense rests; the prosecution elects not to put on a rebuttal case. The judge charges the jury and sends you and your fellow jurors to the jury room.

The comment thread of this post will substitute for your deliberations. Let the deliberations begin.

Comments

Something causes design sequences in our universe - and might have even caused the design sequence of our universal laws. What that something is (God, MWI) is irrelevent to finding a model that successfully describes those design sequences
and
if it allows for the possibility that the designer may be an organizing principle in nature and not necessarily a person. Those that insist that the designer must be a person would be setting the bar TOO HIGH for ID science.
The explanatory filter is a criterion for distinguishing intelligent from unintelligent causes. At the first stage, the explanatory filter determines whether a law can explain the object in question. I'm not sure if a self-organizing principle/law in nature or the inevitability of infinite MWI should be considered an intelligent causation. That would be like calling the physics behind snowflakes a minor intelligence. Now let's assume the MWI is correct but it is only infinitely expanding into the future but has a finite past. If the original verse in the multiverse self-organized into an intelligence or hivemind via an organizing principle that makes MWI more compatible with ID theory. But, this scenario is entirely speculative and goes beyond my main point.Patrick_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Obviously, I meant that intelligence HAS always been associated with personality.StephenB_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Patrick wrote, “If the explanatory filter results in a positive how can there not be an intelligent causation in the form of a designer?” I agree with that statement, if it allows for the possibility that the designer may be an organizing principle in nature and not necessarily a person. Those that insist that the designer must be a person would be setting the bar TOO HIGH for ID science. Having said that, I have always believed that an impersonal designing force is implausible, because my experience teaches me that intelligence is always been associated with personality. William J. Murray wrote, "Whether one calles the designer “God” or “MWI”, you still have to develop a scientific description of the design sequences." I agree with WJB that, from a scientific perspective, the identity of the designer is irrevant. But I disagree that multiple universes can ever serve that purpose. It does matter "what" the designer is insofar as the designer, whoever or whatever, must be capable of planning and directing. In that sense, I think WJB sets the bar TOO LOW for ID.StephenB_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Of course the incident is not merely highly improbable but also conforms to an independent specification. In the real world ... Here in Canada there is suspicion concerning the number of lottery wins by lottery vendors. Here we have a statistical analysis of the events, a conclusion of design, the use of a probability bound (1 in 10^9), and an admission that the analysis cannot, and need not, invoke a mechanism. "We note that the statistical analysis does not (and cannot) describe the mechanism giving rise to the excess wins. Therefore, this mechanism must be identified by other means." http://www.alc.ca/English/AboutALC/MediaRoom/CorporateReleases/Article.aspx?id=1669&categoryId=1000 The problem seems widespread in Canada's lotteries: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/196088 The odds against the number of vendor wins in Ontario:
The Fifth Estate reported that retailers in Ontario won large prizes nearly 200 times in the past seven years. There are roughly 60,000 lottery ticket sellers in Ontario. A University of Toronto statistician, who crunched the numbers for the television show, said the chance of retailers winning that often is "about one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion," and estimated the number of wins should be closer to 57.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2006/10/26/ombudsman-probe.html Yes, improbable things happen all the time.Charlie_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

#85: Quote: "If the explanatory filter results in a positive how can there not be an intelligent causation in the form of a designer?" You know there is a designer; I know there is a designer. However, the designer is irrelevant to the success of the theory. If materialists wish to avoid the implication of a designer by referring to MWI as the originator of design sequences in our universe, so what? Something causes design sequences in our universe - and might have even caused the design sequence of our universal laws. What that something is (God, MWI) is irrelevent to finding a model that successfully describes those design sequences - not explains them, but describes them scientifically. In other words, you can't get from A to Z without God or MWI (or something) organizing the steps in an apparent teleological method. DESCRIBE that method, i.e. ... what is the search formula? How many steps must be organized? Does it look more like "A builds B to get to C, then finds potential for E and builds D to get to E ...", or is the only explanation that A is trying to get all the way to Z from the onset? How much entropy must be overcome to keep, develop and encode the necessary information? Can we model the information code necessary to express such design sequences? Can we use that to predict certain interesting aspects of biology or the universe? Is the intelligent organization of historical events consciousness-related, like the collapse and instantaneous transmission of information in wave-collapse experiments? Can one alter historical pathways according to the nature of observation? Does DNA react to intelligent observation the same way photons do? Can we predict evolutionary changes based on extrapolating a "motive" by considering the interesting variations in a sequence? Can we find a way to test that motive? Can it be extrapolated into some kind of formula that can be meaningfully tested? This is why "the designer" is irrelevant. Whether one calles the designer "God" or "MWI", you still have to develop a scientific description of the design sequences.William J. Murray_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

bfast,
With this scenerio, you have design detection without identifying the designer, or knowing how it was designed.
That's not the point...and I've already discussed those distinctions above. The point is that Murray said "MWI isn’t the enemy of ID theory; it’s just the enemy of ID ideologues that demand the theory imply a designer." If the explanatory filter results in a positive how can there not be an intelligent causation in the form of a designer? The identity and nature of the designer and how the design was enacted are separate issues which may be discovered through alternate methods.Patrick_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

ReligionProf. There can be no reasonable doubt that there was fraud. And all the evidence points to Harry as the culprit for the simple reason he's the one with all the money in his pocket. Remember, he put on no evidence concerning a frame; as members of the jury our deliberations are bound to the evidence, not speculations about what might have happened. He is clearly guilty. There can be no reasonable doubt. Your post illustrates confusion between proof beyond a reasonable doubt and apodictic proof (i.e, necessarily true or logically certain). When you are on a jury, you NEVER get apodictic proof. Instead you must determine whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In your post you seem to be insisting on apodictic proof when you say that the math is not sufficient. No, the fact that Bob took five winning tickets in a row down to the office to collect means that beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty of fraud.BarryA_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Bob: You have again, unfortunately missed the point -- exhaustion of probabilistic resources. Without diverting the thread, I will note on the point. 1] Clark and RSS Cf again my excerpt in 60:
[Ms Clark's] prosecution was controversial due to statistical evidence presented by paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who testified that the chance of two children from an affluent family suffering cot death was 1 in 73 million, when in fact it was closer to 1 in 200 . . .
The reason for that, in effect was, as the RSS said in their press release:
"This approach [multiplying individual probabilities on the assumption of independence without proper warrant therefor] is, in general, statistically invalid. It would only be valid if SIDS cases arose independently within families, an assumption that would need to be justified empirically. Not only was no such empirical justification provided in the case, but there are very strong a priori reasons for supposing that the assumption will be false. There may well be unknown genetic or environmental factors that predispose families to SIDS, so that a second case within the family becomes much more likely. "The well-publicised figure of 1 in 73 million thus has no statistical basis. Its use cannot reasonably be justified as a "ballpark" figure because the error involved is likely to be very large, and in one particular direction.
By contrast, on the reasonable assumption that Powerball lotteries are designed to be fair, a run of five wins would indeed be highly improbable, i.e BarryA's calculation is valid [as an upper bound -- the "run" factor implies a large further reduction in the probability!]. Thus, the null hyp just mentioned now becomes highly suspect in light of the observed outcome and leads to the point that Harry is implicated in agent action that subverts what should not be. 2] WD, Talpiot, Prosecutor's statistical Fallacies, etc I am not surprised, given the long thread on conditional probabilities in statistical inference we had at UD some time ago, that you would introduce this sort of issue. (That time it was the NJ politician, Caputo was it, who had an inexplicable run of D-favouring outcomes on ballots. He was a D, too . . .] The answer to the point is simple: when conditional probabilities can be worked out, that's fine. But, equally, that does not invalidate other estimates of relevant probabilities, especially where we can see that the available probabilistic resources are exhausted relative to a contingent outcome which would be dominated therefore by either agency or chance. In the case of Talpiot, WD was able to develop a conditional probability argument, relative to the observed high frequencies of certain names in C1 Jewish tombs from Palestine. He was also able to show that the researchers fudged certain names to fit their intended conclusions. Also, they failed to address the basic problem that Jesus' family was Galilean and working class, not Jerusalem based and upper class. This is, again, simply not relevant to the case in view. 3] Back to the Design Inference issue. Bob, why not look at my always linked, Appendix A? Address the scale of the configuration space for small particles in a liquid medium moving about at random, relative to reasonable statistical thermodynamics approaches. [You will see that I simplify to deal with locational cells in the phase space only.] Then show why my argument and conclusion that the probabilities of random clustering to form the key molecules and integrated machines, codes and information systems of life by chance + necessity only are vanishingly different from zero on the generally acceptable scale of the observed cosmos. (That is, some 10^80 particles and 13.7 BY.) 4] Quasi-infinite arrays of sub-cosmi I simply note here that lotteries are designed to not exhaust the available probabilistic resources. The sudden rise in popularity of so-called many worlds models is precisely due to the challenge just above. 5] Inference to design: Note, we begin with an observation -- chance, necessity and agency are the observed causal forces. Then, in cases dominated by large contingency, i.e large configuration spaces/complexity, we see that outcomes are driven by chance and/or necessity. When the outcomes - such as this blog post -- are in addition to being complex, functionally specific and often fine-tuned, then we routinely infer to agency. Indeed, in every such directly observed case, the cause is an agent. (Cf e.g. the posts in this thread, which are of course multi-state digital strings.) So we have excellent grounds for an empirically well-anchored inference to agency as the best explanation inter alia for OOL. But that cuts across a strongly entrenched worldview, evolutionary materialism. So, resort is now being made to raw metaphysical speculation [it is certainly not observationally anchored science] to avoid -- or at least stave-off -- the collapse of the worldview. The true balance of the case on the merits should be obvious. [And the gap between balance on the merits and balance of institutional power easily explains the pattern of misbehaviour by the powerful we are now increasingly observing. Appeal tot he stick is a well known fallacy, in short.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 17, 2007
October
10
Oct
17
17
2007
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @60 -
What Bob failed to do was to cite the reason the conviction was overturned, as was stated in the Wiki article he cited:
The reason is (largely) the same as the one I gave for the powerball problem - the prosecutor's fallacy. Read what the RSS wrote. That's the main reason why the probabilities diverge so much. If you don't want to believe me (and the RSS), then look at Dr. Dembski's explanation of the maths behind the Jesus Tomb affair. BobBob O'H_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

#79 & everyone: I appreciate the conversation and debate, but I can see that I'm either failing to express myself adequately, or I'm misunderstanding some basic component of the ID debate. I'll ponder this and for now wish you all the best.William J. Murray_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Fellow members of the jury, I put it to you that the only way to reach a verdict is to carefully examine the evidence. If there is clear evidence of tampering, we must convict. If not, then there is reasonable doubt, and in spite of Dr. Snikwad's condescending British accent, according to the principles of American justice, we must find him not guilty. The sheer improbability of his multiple consecutive wins cannot be a basis for conviction, since improbable things do sometimes happen. Unless we can demonstrate his winning streak to be not merely improbable but impossible in the absence of tampering, then we have reasonable doubt and must find him not guilty.ReligionProf_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

wjm The real problem with putting stock in a multiverse in order to explain extraordinarily improbable things is that it nullifies statistical mechanics which is underpinned by the 2nd Law of Thermodyamics. If you start throwing out laws of physics because they don't fit into your theories, and this is acceptable to the scientific establishment in general, then they might as well pack their bags and go home because they are no longer scientists. Fortunately engineers will still be around so progress will continue. Let's take a hypothetical example of statistical mechanics in evolution: it's theoretically possible for cockroaches to acquire through mutation fangs and toxic venom like a brown recluse spider on steriods, and a highly aggressive nature to go along with it. So why don't we worry more about this possibility? Because statistical mechanics informs us that the mutation in question is such a complex spontaneous reorganization of matter that we can rest assured it won't happen. Now suppose we actually saw a cockroach population like these suddenly appear? How would we best explain it? We could suppose that something nearly impossible happened and rule it a rare exception to probabilistic predictions. Personally I think an intelligent agency would be a better explanation because we know intelligent agency is possible. We positively know intelligent agency exists on the earth and acts to alter heritable traits in ways that statistical mechanics otherwise predicts is so improbable it'll effectively never happen. So the most reasonable explanation is not that there was some fluke exception to the laws of probability but rather that intelligent agency, which routinely manipulates matter into exceedingly unlikely patterns, was the culprit - whether we witnessed the act or not. DaveScot_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

William J Murray wrote, "ID doesn’t need to claim a designer in a court case, it only needs to make the distinction between wrongful death and death by natural causes - it doesn’t even require a suspect or deliberately caused death. While a designer is an obvious inference, it is left out of the theory as stated for good and specific reasons, IMO." Well, not exactly. It is not possible to discern wrongful death without positing the presence of an intelligent agent. To experience a wrongful act is to be the victim of an abuse of intelligence. The term "designer" does not apply because the intelligent agent in a court case is analogous to the designer in nature. In a broader sense, you seem to want to reduce ID to to a level at which teleology can no longer serve as a guiding principle. Granted, the ID bar can drop below the level of supernatural intelligence to the level of human intelligence or even to the level of a rational principle in nature, but no lower. There must be something there to detect. But how do you detect the presence of intelligence in a cosmic madhouse that has no boundaries? Where is the unity to contextualize all that diversity? Yes, you can hypothesize, but you can't detect. Unless the universe has been set up in advance such that our rationality corresponds to a single rational universe that can be identified as THE object of investigation, there is simply no way to know what you are investigating.StephenB_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

You have design detection without a designer! With this scenerio, you have design detection without identifying the designer, or knowing how it was designed. If I win the powerball 5 times in a row, we know that the cheat was designed before knowing how the cheat was implemented or who implemented the cheat.bFast_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

IE, we know that a cheat for powerball was designed, we don’t know who the designer is. Simple.
That's my point to Murray. You cannot have design detection without a designer but you do need different methods to connect the designed object to the designer.Patrick_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Patrick:
If we’re using formalized design detection (ID theory) in a scenario like a court case if ID theory cannot claim a designer then…well, ID theory seems pretty useless to me.
Let me just help you out here a little bit with this lovely example. If I win the powerball 5 times in a row any court in the land will conclude that shenanigans happened. What the court cannot determine from this simple fact is wether I fooled the powerball system or somebody else. Maybe somebody fooled it, but gave me the money to throw the world off of its trail, with the promise that I cut him in later. Maybe my ex-wife did it figuring that I would get caught and charged with it. IE, we know that a cheat for powerball was designed, we don't know who the designer is. Simple.bFast_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

quote: "If we’re using formalized design detection (ID theory) in a scenario like a court case if ID theory cannot claim a designer then…well, ID theory seems pretty useless to me." ID doesn't need to claim a designer in a court case, it only needs to make the distinction between wrongful death and death by natural causes - it doesn't even require a suspect or deliberately caused death. While a designer is an obvious inference, it is left out of the theory as stated for good and specific reasons, IMO. Quote: "Also, it seems to me you are conflating “goal-oriented” and “inevitability”. With infinite MWI everything is inevitable, not goal-oriented." As far as a scientific description of any relevant, interesting phenomena or processes, there is no difference between "inevitable" and "goal-oriented"; IMHO, one is mostly a materialist term for the process in question, and the other is a mostly non-materialist term for the process in question. And unless one is arguing ideology, I see no reason to debate the difference. Regardless if one calls it "inevitable" or "goal-oriented", the model describing the actual behavior is going to be the same.William J. Murray_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Murray,
As stated here http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....amp;id=697 and in many other documents describing the difference between intelligent design and creationism by leading ID proponents, and describing why ID is a scientific theory, a “designer” is only a possible implication of the theory and isn’t pertinent to the descriptive validity of the model.
I'm assuming you're talking about points 1 and 4. It's talking about a SUPERNATURAL designer being an implication of ID, NOT designer(s) in general. In point 14 Behe is discussing the specific identity of the designer and how he derives that outside of ID, not whether ID assumes that formalized design detection can infer a designer in the first place. In short, your entire argument in this thread appears to be based upon a misunderstanding of ID theory. If we're using formalized design detection (ID theory) in a scenario like a court case if ID theory cannot claim a designer then...well, ID theory seems pretty useless to me. Also, it seems to me you are conflating "goal-oriented" and "inevitability". With infinite MWI everything is inevitable, not goal-oriented.Patrick_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Professorsmith: I completely apologize if it seemed I was making a smear on your character, intelligence, ideology or position. I intended no such thing. I certain never meant to offend you or anyone else on this blog. I completely appreciate your efforts to discuss this with me. If I am currently incapable of understanding the resistance to MWI as anything other than an ideological bias, the problem lies in my inability to understand, and certainly not in others.William J. Murray_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

William J Murray, Agreed, we have divergent understandings and it doesn't seem as though we will agree. I still see inherent contradictions in your position that I don't feel you have cleared up to my satisfaction. And, while we agree that design is the better model for understanding our world, we do not agree whether MWI leads to design. I also don't agree that "Theory of ID" = "Theory of Massively Unlikely Events Achieving Virtually Impossible, Seemingly Organized and Deliberate Outcomes Made Possible Without Conscious Direction By MWI." And, once again, I deny your smears on my ideology by saying that I would accept your theory if I weren't "wedded to the designer implication." This is no way to debate, it is the tactics that evolutionists use, as I stated above. Your aim is to link me to some irrational rube that has no inkling of how great your theory is and only responds based on emotional belief, most likely based on my less evolved religious sensibilities. Much like how the materialists dodge the problem of improbabilities beyond the UPB by invoking "MWI did it," you dodge the problems of your own inherent contradictions by invoking, "Your ideologies made you do it."professorsmith_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Professorsmith: I appreciate the great conversation, but I think we have somehow divergent understandings of what it means when a biologist invokes MWI. You seem to think it is an avoidance of teleological theory because it avoids the implication of a designer; I see it as submission to teleological theory as long as no designer is required; since ID doesn't postulate a designer, I don't see why IDers argue against it. I don't see any meaningful scientific difference between "design by god" or "design by MWI"; either way, it's still an admission of an apparent teleological process. I guess it comes down to ascertaining the intent of the biologist who invokes MWI; in every paper I've seen that invokes MWI, it is to explain an apparent teleological process that has no apparent undirected explanation. Whether one calls it the "Theory of Intelligent Design" or the "Theory of Massively Unlikely Events Achieving Virtually Impossible, Seemingly Organized and Deliberate Outcomes Made Possible Without Conscious Direction By MWI", it's the same theory, unless one is wedded to the designer implication.William J. Murray_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

William J Murray, "So is saying “A Designer Did It”. Explaining why is irrelevant, as I pointed out. Describing the process is what ID theory is supposed to be about. You’re making an ideological argument here; I’m not." Nice red herring, but I am emphatically NOT stating "A Designer Did It" as a catch-all argument for ID. Again your attempts to tar my ideology are beneath us both. "It is an explanation of how our universe can come into existence; it describes nothing in particular inside it." Then it has nothing to say on the question of RM + NS vs. ID. Thank you, but you've just proved yourself wrong. MWI does NOT support ID. "It does if it is invoked as explanation in lieu of non-directed descriptions." No, it does not. This is a non-sequitor. If I invoke MWI as a way of subverting a design theory, it doesn't actually support just because you want to play cute rhetorical games and say, "Nyah nyah, you had to explain design away, so therefore you are supporting it." That would be like a Darwinist arguing that when you argue against RM + NS that you are actually strengthening his case because you are having to come up with claims to counter his claims. "It explains why, just as “God did it” explains why." And, I whole-heartedly agree, which is why I say it is no more science than to claim "God did it." "The only model left available is teleological - ID, whether “god did it” or “MWI did it”." What you mean to say here is, "The only model left when not invoking MWI is teleological." MWI is invoked to destroy the necessary teleological explanation. That you don't understand why that is doesn't mean that this somehow supports ID. "I don’t think most ID proponents have clearly thought this through, either, and are reacting out of ideological bias." And you would be wrong. I object because it simply isn't science, just as "God did it," is not science. Further, I think your interpretation of it and your understanding are sorely lacking. "How is asserting the existence of billions of non-autistic savants useful in understanding the autistic-savant qualities of the individual you are examining?" That's not the intent though, is it? The intent is simply to show that the potential outcome, no matter how improbable, can and will come true. That's what you are not getting here. That's what my coin flip example was about. If the odds of life arising are beyond the UPB for one universe, well with multiple universes you get that many more cracks at it and eventually you get one where life does arise. It destroys the long odds and replaces them with near certainty. With MWI, the materialists are free to rely on chance creating life because it is no longer improbable. Why do you not get this? "I don’t know how else to say this, but again, MWI is like “god did it”" And I agree with that completely. What I don't understand is how you can think it is scientific while fully admitting that it carries the same impact as "God did it." "What is my pet theory? I’m not advocating for MWI; my argument is that there is no reason for IDers to attack it." Your pet theory is obviously that MWI would somehow support ID if it were true. You seem unwilling and unable to recognize what MWI is, why it pertains to the question of ID, and what its implications are. "The more they toss up their hands and bleat, “MWI DID IT!” the better." Agreed, but only if we show it to be the unscientific pablum that it is. If we sit back and let the materialists dictate another unscientific "theory" onto us and try to co-opt it as our own, it will backfire. This is especially true because it simply does not support ID science.professorsmith_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

#65 Patrick: As stated here http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697 and in many other documents describing the difference between intelligent design and creationism by leading ID proponents, and describing why ID is a scientific theory, a "designer" is only a possible implication of the theory and isn't pertinent to the descriptive validity of the model. A "designer" is not required by the theory, nor is it "presumed from the outset" by the theory. Quote: "You cannot throw out design detection pointing to intelligent agency and still call it ID theory!" Unless Prof. Dembski or any other leading proponent of ID would like to contradict me, that is exactly what current ID theory does in order to be considered a scientific theory. The implication of a designer is one possible philosophical ramification, but isn't necessary to the theory at all. #66 Professorsmith: Quote: "All the materialists need to do is explain the presence of life in order to claim that we don’t need to invoke a designer to account for it, and that chance is equal to the task." Nobody is invoking a designer, including ID proponents, so they hardly have to avoid it by resorting to MWI. ID theory isn't about promoting a designer - that is, if the proponents are being honest - it's about asserting that a teleological model is the only one that can describe certain features and sequences. Quote: "It’s a cheap and easy way of explaining ... " So is saying "A Designer Did It". Explaining why is irrelevant, as I pointed out. Describing the process is what ID theory is supposed to be about. You're making an ideological argument here; I'm not. Quote: "Again, this is contradictory. If MWI is NOT descriptive of the processes of our universe, how can it describe a universe in need of teleology. You can not have your cake and eat it too." It is an explanation of how our universe can come into existence; it describes nothing in particular inside it. An analogy: sexual reproduction explains how billions of humans can come into existence with many diverse features; sexual reproduction doesn't describe how adults behave, or how their behavior developed over time. Quote: "And again you argue that MWI is superfluous to our understanding of the universe…" It's superfluous to describing how features of this universe actually behave in our universe. If part of your "understanding of the universe" includes how it could have come to exist in the first place, then it's not superfluous in that context. Quote"...meaniing it lends no support to ID." It does if it is invoked as explanation in lieu of non-directed descriptions. Quote: "This is your “at best” scenario. At worst, it explains why we have life overcoming the odds and works against ID.i" It explains why, just as "God did it" explains why. Explaining why is a philosophical matter and irrelevant in science; describing the process is what science is about. Whether "MWI did it" or "God did it" is irrelevant to describing the process. Quote: "Explain how." MWI is an explanation for how this universe could exist. So is "God created it." Neither hypothesis describes forces and processes in this universe. When a scientist resorts to "God did it" or "MWI did it", what they are tacitly admitting is there is no model using non-directed "natural" (as defined by our universe) forces and materials that can explain the phenomena. There is no reason to invoke MWI unless non-teleology clearly fails - unless the phenomena is clearly defying what we see as the natural order of known forces and material interactions. The only model left available is teleological - ID, whether "god did it" or "MWI did it". Quoye: "Once again it is an end around to avoid teleological explanations by showing how chance can account for the model of this universe." I'm sure that's what they think it does, and that's clearly what you think it does, but again, they (biologists invoking MWI) haven't thought this through. I don't think most ID proponents have clearly thought this through, either, and are reacting out of ideological bias. Furthering the analogy above: Let's say we are examining the behavior of an autistic savant - a very interesting individual, and we run up against something we cannot explain in terms of material history - lets say the savant can effotlessly and without instruction play any any tune on a piano and can invent incredible tunes without any instruction. One person argues "hey, we have billions of people, so eventually you get a person like this". So what? What have you described about the phenonema in question? How is asserting the existence of billions of non-autistic savants useful in understanding the autistic-savant qualities of the individual you are examining? I don't know how else to say this, but again, MWI is like "god did it"; it offers an explanation for the presence of our universe; it scientifically describes nothing in it, and is a tacit admission of ID as the only available option in regards to the phenomena in question. Quote: "I could easily turn this around and claim that you are holding to your preconceptions, which is why you’ve been unwilling to recognize the blatant holes that I and others here have pointed out in your pet theory." What is my pet theory? I'm not advocating for MWI; my argument is that there is no reason for IDers to attack it. It describes nothing inside our universe. It leaves a big gaping hole where there is no capable descriptive model other than ID. Let them invoke it all they want, wherever they want. The more they toss up their hands and bleat, "MWI DID IT!" the better.William J. Murray_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

GEM of TKI writes, "We can therefore see rapidly that OOL by C + N only on the scope of our observed cosmos is a hypothesis maintained in the teeth of abundant empirical data and knowledge. And, the multiverse hyp is in effect a resort to naked metaphysics to try to save the phenomena for a worldview that is in deep trouble on this front." Nicely put.BarryA_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

William J Murray, "I think this is where we are having a disconnect. There is no “unless you have many, many times …” in **our** universe, because while MWI might explain how such a universe with that feature exists, it doesn’t meaningfully describe the feature itself, in scientific terms, in our universe. It scientifically explains its **presence**, but it doesn’t describe the behavior in question in any practical, useful, scientific way like gravity or intertia has been described." All the materialists need to do is explain the presence of life in order to claim that we don't need to invoke a designer to account for it, and that chance is equal to the task. "You can ask, “why do we have gravity like we do?” and answer “MWI”, but it doesn’t meaningfully or usefully describe gravity." No, it doesn't tell us what the gravity constant is, but it does allow the materialist to say that it could have been anything and we happen to be in the universe where it is where it is. It's a cheap and easy way of explaining why without having to invoke odds beyond the UPB. "Asserting MWI doesn’t give us a descriptive model in this universe of the behavior of the phenomena in question; the only models that can (currently) successfully describe the sequences in question are teleological models. Assertion of MWI directly implicates that only a teleological model can be successful in describing the phenomena or process in question." Again, this is contradictory. If MWI is NOT descriptive of the processes of our universe, how can it describe a universe in need of teleology. You can not have your cake and eat it too. "Chance only has meaning INSIDE a universe that has defined what chance can or cannot do. Inside our universe, where “chance” has meaning, chance cannot describe certain features." That is incorrect. The "chance" of this universe being the way it is is definitely dependent on whether there is one universe or many. Again, it's like the coin flip argument. The more coins you have, the better the probability of getting at least one head. "Therein lies your misunderstanding, not mine. The ability of chance, or undirected processes, to successfully describe a sequence inside our universe has no connection to whether or not there are billions of other universes." Sigh. If I have a universe that has the perfect constants to form, the probability is very low. If I have many universes which run the gamut of constants, then the probability of having the right constants in at least one of those universes goes up significantly. The MWI is the same thing, only writ into a slightly different framework. Alas, it is not my understanding that is faulty. "We must develop in-universe models of behaviors and phenomena regardless of whether or not they just happen to be what MWI manufactured in our particular universe." And again you argue that MWI is superfluous to our understanding of the universe...meaniing it lends no support to ID. This is your "at best" scenario. At worst, it explains why we have life overcoming the odds and works against ID. "Intelligent Design Theory doesn’t postulate nor require a designer - you might want to read it again." I think you know what I meant. "This is part of our disconnect, I think, and it speaks directly to the point I’ve been making; IMHO your disagreement with the philosophical implication of MWI (no designer required to achieve intelligent design sequences) is clouding your assessment of the argument and what MWI means to ID theory." Again, back to arguing about philosophical implications? I find this rather distasteful. I could easily turn this around and claim that you are holding to your preconceptions, which is why you've been unwilling to recognize the blatant holes that I and others here have pointed out in your pet theory. I could also point out that you are argue as the materialists do; that if we don't accept your pet theory, it can't be because it has no merit, it must be because we are mindless fundamentalists that don't understand science and only shoot from the hip with a Bible in one hand and a cross in the other. This method of argumentation, however, should be beneath an IDist and you would do well to abandon it and face the facts and the arguments as presented. "While the MWI hypothesis removes the implication of a designer, it directly implicates and requires ID theory (a teleological process) to successfully model certain sequences we find in our universe." Explain how. Keep in mind that you also assert that MWI is completely non descriptive of the models of this universe. So, please do tell us all how it can not describe the models of this universe while simultaneously describing a teleological model. I've asked you this multiple times and all you've done is make assertions that it is so and impugn my ability to scientifically examine this argument. "Invocation of MWI is a tacit acceptance that non-teleological models in our universe cannot describe something..." No. Once again it is an end around to avoid teleological explanations by showing how chance can account for the model of this universe. "ID theory - teleological models - provide the only useful scientific or functional description of the sequences in question." Which is quite separate from MWI, according to you. So, whether we have MWI or not, we still find that teleological models best describe the "sequences in question." Again, at best MWI is superfluous, not beneficial to ID.professorsmith_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Intelligent Design Theory doesn’t postulate nor require a designer - you might want to read it again.
Murray, based upon your previous comments I thought that might be what you were arguing. While, yes, the specific identity or knowledge of a designer(s) is not required for ID theory--since it currently does not incorporate formalized methods for designER detection--the existence of an intelligent agency in relation to the designed object is presumed from the outset. Hence the confusion by all the ID proponents on here. You cannot throw out design detection pointing to intelligent agency and still call it ID theory!Patrick_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Professorsmith: Quote: "MWI does indeed mean an admission that natural law can not account for this universe due to the sheer improbability of it….unless you have many, many tries at it, where the improbable now becomes probable. I’ve said this now multiple times, but you refuse to acknowledge it." I don't acknowledge it because I don't understand how you think it relates to my argument. I think this is where we are having a disconnect. There is no "unless you have many, many times ..." in **our** universe, because while MWI might explain how such a universe with that feature exists, it doesn't meaningfully describe the feature itself, in scientific terms, in our universe. It scientifically explains its **presence**, but it doesn't describe the behavior in question in any practical, useful, scientific way like gravity or intertia has been described. IF MWI were true, then it also explains how we have the gravity we have, the inertia we have, conservation of energy, strong and weak nuclear forces ... but asserting MWI doesn't give you a descriptive model of the behavior of those forces in this universe. You can ask, "why do we have gravity like we do?" and answer "MWI", but it doesn't meaningfully or usefully describe gravity. Asserting MWI doesn't give us a descriptive model in this universe of the behavior of the phenomena in question; the only models that can (currently) successfully describe the sequences in question are teleological models. Assertion of MWI directly implicates that only a teleological model can be successful in describing the phenomena or process in question. Quote: “No, it’s a framework for why many models exist, including one where chance *is* a sufficient explanation for this universe." Chance only has meaning INSIDE a universe that has defined what chance can or cannot do. Inside our universe, where "chance" has meaning, chance cannot describe certain features. Quote: "Therein lies your fundamental misunderstanding. If I flip one coin, I have a 50% chance of getting heads. If I flip two coins, I have a 75% chance of getting at least one head. If I flip 100 coins, I have (1 - 1/2^n) chances of getting at least one head. And the odds go up as I add more and more coins. The materialists only need one head, so they throw infinite universes at the problem." Therein lies your misunderstanding, not mine. The ability of chance, or undirected processes, to successfully describe a sequence inside our universe has no connection to whether or not there are billions of other universes. The supposed existence of billions of other universes doesn't describe how gravity works in our universe, and it doesn't model how inertia works in our universe. Chance and undirected forces in our universe (as defined by the rules and laws of our universe) can successfully model a lot of sequences and phenomena, but there are other phenomena and sequences that chance and undirected forces **in our universe** cannot model. MWI hypothesis is an explanation for the existence of both; it is a description of neither. We must develop in-universe models of behaviors and phenomena regardless of whether or not they just happen to be what MWI manufactured in our particular universe. Quote: "Now, a probability of 10^-120 for one head becomes a certainty with infinite universes. Hence, with MWI, there is no need to invoke a designer since heads is bound to come up on its own." Intelligent Design Theory doesn't postulate nor require a designer - you might want to read it again. This is part of our disconnect, I think, and it speaks directly to the point I've been making; IMHO your disagreement with the philosophical implication of MWI (no designer required to achieve intelligent design sequences) is clouding your assessment of the argument and what MWI means to ID theory. While the MWI hypothesis removes the implication of a designer, it directly implicates and requires ID theory (a teleological process) to successfully model certain sequences we find in our universe. Invocation of MWI is a tacit acceptance that non-teleological models in our universe cannot describe something; if they could, there would be no invocation of MWI; MWI itself doesn't describe the behavior in question, it only allows for it. Look at it this way; both "MWI did it" and "God did it" are meaningless explanations that merely provide for the existence of the sequences we are talking about. Neither assumption provides a scientific description of the processes in question. We can also claim that MWI gave us the gravity we have, or that God gave it to us - both assertions are meaningless when it comes to functionally describing the characteristics of gravity in our universe. ID theory - teleological models - provide the only useful scientific or functional description of the sequences in question. That's what biologists don't really understand about their invocation of MWI, and what materialistic physicists have understood about MWI - and hated about it - for decades. An invocation of MWI is an actual abandonment of materialist description and a direct admission that certain things in or about our universe defy non-teleological description. They hate it because asserting MWI represents a failure of the descriptive capacity of materialistic determinism, and the inevitable conclusion is that there are literally infinite universes branching off from every quantum action, eliminating all reasonable materialistic determinism.William J. Murray_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

William J Murray, "I’m not sure what argument you think I’m trying to make that you believe I’m contradicting myself." That's why I quoted it and explained what I thought was contradictory. "MWI is a hypothetical explanation of how interesting sequences exist in our universe, not a scientific description of those sequences. If MWI must be invoked for a sequence, then it is a de facto admission that models of non-directed forces and laws in our universe cannot describe the sequences; however, MWI itself has no descriptive power inside our particular universe." MWI does indeed mean an admission that natural law can not account for this universe due to the sheer improbability of it....unless you have many, many tries at it, where the improbable now becomes probable. I've said this now multiple times, but you refuse to acknowledge it. "In other words (as it relates to the jury example) as a jury member if the defense attorney claimed MWI - that doesn’t have descriptive power, because it’s just a framework for why any model exists anywhere in any universe." No, it's a framework for why many models exist, including one where chance *is* a sufficient explanation for this universe. Therein lies your fundamental misunderstanding. If I flip one coin, I have a 50% chance of getting heads. If I flip two coins, I have a 75% chance of getting at least one head. If I flip 100 coins, I have (1 - 1/2^n) chances of getting at least one head. And the odds go up as I add more and more coins. The materialists only need one head, so they throw infinite universes at the problem. Now, a probability of 10^-120 for one head becomes a certainty with infinite universes. Hence, with MWI, there is no need to invoke a designer since heads is bound to come up on its own.professorsmith_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

I'll put a little humor in here. At work, myself and my coworkers frequently email each other stuff that is sometimes humorous. Earlier today, my coworker emailed me this:
I FELT SOMETHING IN MY SHOE SINCE I PUT IT ON THIS MORNING….FINALLY TOOK IT OFF AND A DIME FELL OUT…WHY COULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN A $100 BILL?..LOL
My response:
I WAS READING A BLOG EARLIER AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE "INFINITE MULTIVERSE THEORY", THE THEORY THAT THERE IS AN INFINITE NUBER OF UNIVERSES WHERE THINGS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE TODAY. IF IT'S TRUE, IN ONE OF THOSE UNIVERSES, A $200 MILLION WINNING LOTTERY TICKET FELL OUT OF YOUR SHOE.
His comeback:
THANKS…I FEEL MUCH BETTER NOW…LOL
country6925_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Only developing a theory in a way that no physicist is ever likely to discover will a truly scientific teleological model be constructed. So that, firstly, a quantum hypothesis needs to be justified and developed that assumes and describes in enough detail the action of a cause that acts with non-local effects in addition to all the forces . And then large scale natural evidence of where such a cause can be thought to act needs to be found to support the quantum hypothesis. Such is an account that could be called a general theory of natural organisation. http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.commerlin wood_{October 16, 2007
October
10
Oct
16
16
2007
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply