Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Catholic Darwinist Ken Miller claims increasing information in life forms is easy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

What’s needed to drive this increase? Just three things: selection, replication, and mutation.” – Kenneth Miller, Only a Theory, p. 77

Thoughts?

See also: Wow. Catholic Darwinism goes nuts. A mass for Darwin. Or is this a joke?

Open a window, someone, please.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Popperian,
harry: The article concludes as follows:
I have proved that the physical processes that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory relies upon are possible under no-design laws, provided that the latter permit information media (and enough generic resources). Under such laws, accurate self-reproduction can occur, but only via von Neumann’s replicator–vehicle logic; and a high-fidelity replicator requires an accurate self-reproducer. My argument also highlights that all accurate constructors, under such laws, must contain knowledge—an abstract constructor—in the form of a recipe, instantiated in a replicator.
I am inspired. I think I will go ahead and prove that given an automated factory accidentally falling into place complete with robotic equipment directed by the correct digitally stored instructions, and the availability of the necessary resources, a laptop PC will be mindlessly and accidentally produced. Popperian: Do you have any criticism of the actual proof present in the paper? After all, you’ve only quoted the summary. Also, what you described isn’t evolutionary theory, as no one thinks even the most complex organisms we’ve aware of “accentually fell into place” all at once, as you suggested.
The arguments being made led to a silly conclusion, which demonstrates the silliness of the arguments. The conclusion was extremely qualified, and filled with reservations, including the admission of the necessity of information media and knowledge being involved in the process. My response was only making fun of that. If one is supposedly refuting the notion that intelligent agency was a required causal factor in abiogenesis taking place, and includes the necessity of information storage devices and the necessity of their containing knowledge in their "proof" that abiogenesis was an accidental, mindless process, then one has refuted one's own position.harry
June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Popperian:
How does God cause our minds to have a correspondence with reality, in practice? “God just wanted us to have rational minds” doesn’t actually explain anything. Rather, it’s a form of justificationism, which has significant problems. Theism is a special case of justificationism.
Why should there be any such thing as a mind, in practice? Why should one collection of atoms be conscious and rational and not another, in practice? Why should there be matter at all, in practice? Atheists insisting matter just always was is a very special (so special it is irrational) case of justificationism. Matter just always was or it had a beginning. One or the other. If matter had no beginning, and if truly "scientific," "objective knowledge" is that it is the primary reality and just always was and is, then truly "scientific," "objective knowledge" is that the primary reality is a miracle, and one with no explanatory value whatsoever. Matter just always having been would be a stupendous miracle, in that that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws. So if the fundamental reality is an inexplicable, meaningless miracle, how do we build upon that? Progressiveness is one of the things Popper demanded of a good tentative theory. Progress assumes a starting point from which progress can be made. An inexplicable, meaningless miracle is no foundation upon which to build objective knowledge. Using Popper's "P1 » TT » EE » P2," P1 is the Problem to be be solved: "What is the meaning of life, anyway?" TT, the atheistic "Tentative Theory" is: "The primary reality is just some mindless stuff that miraculously always was and is, and some of it accidentally turned into us, so there really is no meaning to life." EE, the attempted "Error Elimination" is: What can be erroneous, what is an error, if the primary reality is an inexplicable, meaningless miracle?" And of course, P2, the problem that Popper believed always arises from a solution to P1 is: "Then why don't I just commit suicide rather than experience any discomfort?" On the other hand, if matter had a beginning then that beginning had a cause which couldn't have been material. Again using Popper's “P1 » TT » EE » P2,” P1 is, "What is the nature of the necessarily non-material reality that brought matter into being?" TT is: "That reality must be supremely powerful since it created the Universe, and must be supremely intelligent since it fashioned it such that life became not only a possibility but an actuality. Hey! If intelligence existed before matter, then intelligence must, in its essence, be non-material. Hey! That would explain consciousness and rationality, it is now just a matter of figuring out how they have been integrated with the matter of which our bodies consist. Hey! The existence of a non-material entity, the One Who launched the Universe, an uncaused first cause, makes much more sense than the notion that the series of causes and effects that has brought things to where they are presently goes back infinitely with no beginning! Hey! The One Who created us must have had a reason for doing so! There must be some purpose for His doing that. Hey! Life has meaning! Hey! ..." And on and on the theistic TT goes, so filled with truth it keeps explaining more and more as it is being formulated. Theism make progress. Theism's miracle is rational. It has explanatory value. It makes sense that the natural must have originated in the supernatural. Atheism's TT very quickly goes nowhere. It ends in meaninglessness which is the antithesis of Popper's "objective knowledge."harry
June 1, 2015
June
06
Jun
1
01
2015
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT
Hello Popperian,
If the fundamental reality is a Mind, then as science gets deeper and deeper into the natural, it should not be surprised if it keeps finding that which has no explanation other than what must be a non-material reality. That doesn’t mean it stops doing research. On the contrary, it means that it admits the existence of non-material realities and then takes the first steps of what will probably be a very long journey that will eventually lead to a better understanding of how those non-material realities are integrated with material realities. Before one scoffs at that notion, consider that science has learned very much about the effects of gravity, a completely non-material reality as far as we yet know, on material realities. -- harry In Einstein’s theory of motion, matter acts upon space-time geometry, deforming it, and space-time geometry acts upon matter, accelerating it. How is this non-material? -- Popperian
How is "space-time" material? Empty space has no material basis because if it did it then wouldn't be empty space. Time itself has no material existence at all, it is only a concept that arises from matter in motion. Timelessness is the absence of matter in motion; time is not a material entity itself. So if gravity is the curvature of the fabric of non-material space and non-material time, it being so does not make it a material reality. Gravitons, according to those who theorize that there are such things, will be found to be zero-mass particles. Physicists keep concluding other elementary particles are zero-mass particles. Of what matter does a zero-mass particle consist? Planck was right. The matrix of all matter is a Mind. "In Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28)harry
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB. I think we are just fooling ourselves. I think that we construct two maps and to the extent the two maps agree with each other we call that the territory. And then we say silly things to each other like "you're confusing the map with the territory." Hah. Silly us.Mung
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Popperian
So, theories start out as conjectures, guesses that are not guaranteed to solve any problems, which are then criticized in some way and errors are discarded. See Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Instincts represent a form of subconscious criticism. Darwinism is a form of criticism which is based on variation and selection, which also falls under the umbrella of our current best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge.
I don't think you understand the question. I am not asking you how we develop theories or grow in our knowledge of how the world works. I am asking you why the mind of the knower, which is the map; corresponds with the thing that is known, which is the territory. Why is the map congruent with the territory?
Now, it’s your turn. How does God cause our minds to have a correspondence with reality, in practice?
The only reasonable explanation is that God created both the physical universe and the minds of human beings such that there was an affinity between them. That would explain why our mental concepts (the map) are congruent with the structure of the physical universe (the territory). It would also explain why we can use mathematical concepts to understand the quantitative elements of the cosmos.StephenB
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
StephenB:
You are taking an awful lot for granted. In the absence of a rational mind, how do you explain the fact that our minds are in correspondence with reality?
First, to put it simply: error. Ideas about how the world works are not out actually there for us to observe. Nor can we mechanically extrapolate observations to form theories. So, theories start out as conjectures, guesses that are not guaranteed to solve any problems, which are then criticized in some way and errors are discarded. See Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Instincts represent a form of subconscious criticism. Darwinism is a form of criticism which is based on variation and selection, which also falls under the umbrella of our current best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge. Sure if all we had to do was sit around all day and merely define things as true or false, you might have a point. But that omits the fact that we are constantly faced with problems to solve, in some way or another. That's where error comes in. That's how knowledge grows. Now, it's your turn. How does God cause our minds to have a correspondence with reality, in practice? "God just wanted us to have rational minds" doesn't actually explain anything. Rather, it's a form of justificationism, which has significant problems. Theism is a special case of justificationism. For example, one could just as well object on the grounds that you are taking an awful lot for granted. Does God's mind have a correspondence with reality? How do you explain how that correspondence? Do you have a unified theory for the universal growth of knowledge?Popperian
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Harry:
The article you cited by Chiara Marletto proposing the Constructor Theory of Life mentions Richard Dawkins by name three times in the body of the article, and Dawkins is found in the references six times.
I'm disappointed. Rather than criticize the arguments being made, you're focusing on the source. I had such high hopes! Harry:
Nor did the fact that the proposed theory’s “new mode of explanation to express exactly within physics the appearance of design,” is referred to as “no-design laws” make me suspect that Marletto might simply be promoting atheism rather than engaging in a purely disinterested, completely impartial pursuit of scientific truth. Noooooo! Nothing suspicious there at all! ;o)
I addressed this comment #15.
Given the [problem that evolutionary addresses], It’s a straight forward premise. If the design of organisms was already present at the outset in some form, then neo-Darwinism cannot be the explanation for the appearance of design in organisms. This includes design of organisms being present in the laws of physics.
Also..
...that design was already present in some form at the outset (or spontaneously appeared) is a key part of Lamarckism and ID. In addition to mice appearing spontaneously out of rags, Lamarck thought there was some natural law that mandated life became more complex. ID assumes the knowledge exists in some form or another at the outset or spontaneously appeared when organisms were created. If design was already present in some form, or spontaneously appeared, neo-Darwinism cannot be the explanation for the appearance of design in organisms.
It's unclear how there is an ulterior motive here. A claim that the design of organisms must have been encoded in the laws of physics, is a straight forward criticism that should and is addressed in the paper. This is because, if already present at the outset, the design could not be explained by evolutionary theory. Right? Harry:
I am inspired. I think I will go ahead and prove that given an automated factory accidentally falling into place complete with robotic equipment directed by the correct digitally stored instructions, and the availability of the necessary resources, a laptop PC will be mindlessly and accidentally produced.
Do you have any criticism of the actual proof present in the paper? After all, you've only quoted the summary. Also, what you described isn't evolutionary theory, as no one thinks even the most complex organisms we've aware of "accentually fell into place" all at once, as you suggested.Popperian
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Popperian @41
... my thesis [is] that a subjective experience, or a feeling of conviction, can never justify a scientific statement ... No matter how intense a feeling of conviction it may be, it can never justify a statement. Thus I may be utterly convinced of the truth of a statement; certain of the evidence of my perceptions; overwhelmed by the intensity of my experience: every doubt may seem to me absurd. But does this afford the slightest reason for science to accept my statement? ... The answer is, 'No'; and any other answer would be incompatible with the idea of scientific objectivity. -- Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
The article you cited by Chiara Marletto proposing the Constructor Theory of Life mentions Richard Dawkins by name three times in the body of the article, and Dawkins is found in the references six times. Not that that made me wonder about Marletto's objectivity. After all, who is better known for relentless, utterly neutral scientific objectivity than Dawkins? Nor did the fact that the proposed theory's "new mode of explanation to express exactly within physics the appearance of design," is referred to as "no-design laws" make me suspect that Marletto might simply be promoting atheism rather than engaging in a purely disinterested, completely impartial pursuit of scientific truth. Noooooo! Nothing suspicious there at all! ;o) The article concludes as follows:
I have proved that the physical processes that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory relies upon are possible under no-design laws, provided that the latter permit information media (and enough generic resources). Under such laws, accurate self-reproduction can occur, but only via von Neumann's replicator–vehicle logic; and a high-fidelity replicator requires an accurate self-reproducer. My argument also highlights that all accurate constructors, under such laws, must contain knowledge—an abstract constructor—in the form of a recipe, instantiated in a replicator.
I am inspired. I think I will go ahead and prove that given an automated factory accidentally falling into place complete with robotic equipment directed by the correct digitally stored instructions, and the availability of the necessary resources, a laptop PC will be mindlessly and accidentally produced. One remark in the article that actually rang true was
Although regular shapes of planets or crystals can be striking, these are explained by symmetries in the laws of physics; by contrast, even simple organisms, such as bacteria, display stupendously designed mechanisms, with many, different sub-parts coordinating to an overall function; they perform transformations with remarkable accuracy, retaining their ability to do so
Of course, that was followed with "— just as if they had literally been designed. This appearance of design ..." Even so, the distinction made between phenomena exhibiting order which is "explained by symmetries in the laws of physics" and those exhibiting order that cannot be explained that way, is important. It suggests something we all know intuitively: There are limits to what a mindless application of laws of physics to a natural environment can be reasonably expected to produce. One might say that the laws of physics applied to a given material environment will inevitably produce crystallization, and applied to another environment will inevitably produce a planet, but one never assumes that the laws of physics applied to a purely natural environment would inevitably produce a computer. When a phenomenon exhibits order that rises to the level of significant functional complexity it is not merely the result of the mindless, accidental application of the laws of physics to a given natural environment. That is the insurmountable obstacle faced by fanciful theories of mindless, accidental abiogenesis. An environment that mindlessly and accidentally produces computers is an automated factory. Automated factories do not come about mindlessly and accidentally. That is clearly an impossibility. An environment being mindlessly and accidentally arrived at that produces digital-information based, self-replicating nanotechnology the functional complexity of which is light years beyond the technology found in computers is then (to the rational) even more clearly an impossibility. Meditate on the meaning of "1 chance in 10^10^123." And that was just the odds of arriving at a Universe where such an environment was a possibility. Remember that does not include the improbability of the actual, accidental establishment of an environment that was far, far more unlikely than the accidental assembly of an automated laptop PC factory. Popperian, I am afraid your beliefs are "incompatible with the idea of scientific objectivity."harry
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Popperian
Nothing about a rational mind necessitates the intelligibility of nature. A rational mind could for some reason we cannot comprehend, decide to make nature unintelligible.
You are taking an awful lot for granted. In the absence of a rational mind, how do you explain the fact that our minds are in correspondence with reality? How is it that our mathematical tools for measuring the universe correspond with the physical properties being measured? How is it that the subject, or the knower, is even linked to the object, or the thing known, in the first place?StephenB
May 31, 2015
May
05
May
31
31
2015
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Nature’s intelligibility is what makes natural science possible. It is intelligible because the primary, underlying reality is a rational Mind.
Nothing about a rational mind necessitates the intelligibility of nature. A rational mind could for some reason we cannot comprehend, decide to make nature unintelligible. And it could so at any time. So could a committee of rational minds, for a vast number of possible reasons, for which the intelligibility may not continue. All you need is for the community members to change their mind, or get voted out and replaced with others that choose otherwise for some rational reason we cannot understand. For all we know, members can only serve a term of 13.82 billion years, in which the universe might become unintelligible tomorrow. Not to mention that it's unclear why an abstract, far removed rational mind who is perfectly self-sufficient and has no limitations, would necessary seem rational to us. In fact, theists appeal to this sort of idea all the time. God could have some good reason to allow X to happen, etc. IOW, this is an appeal to a logical possibility, not a good explanation that actually gives us guidance or improves the problem in some practical sense. The idea that God is just like us, only infinitely more powerful and perfectly good, appears to be a conclusion that a struggling tribe would make, which is merely refined over time.
Instead, it should remember that the whole thing is what God did and is still doing as He holds nature in existence.
If the designer still exists, then where is he? Why has he decided to stop making personal appearances? Yes, it's logically possible that a designer might choose to do so, but what good explanation do you have for this? Otherwise, this is yet another logical possibility which you have preferred over others, without a functional reason. None of the elaborate aspects of salvation are necessary for a rational mind either. For example, Satan's knowledge of God's existence supposedly did not prevent him from from disobeying him. Again, these aspects are not necessary consequences of with a rational mind.
If the fundamental reality is a Mind, then as science gets deeper and deeper into the natural, it should not be surprised if it keeps finding that which has no explanation other than what must be a non-material reality. That doesn’t mean it stops doing research. On the contrary, it means that it admits the existence of non-material realities and then takes the first steps of what will probably be a very long journey that will eventually lead to a better understanding of how those non-material realities are integrated with material realities
Until a supposed "non-material reality" plays a hard to vary, functional role, it's merely a logical possibility. And science discards an infinite number of logical possibilities, in every field of science, every day.
Before one scoffs at that notion, consider that science has learned very much about the effects of gravity, a completely non-material reality as far as we yet know, on material realities.
In Einstein's theory of motion, matter acts upon space-time geometry, deforming it, and space-time geometry acts upon matter, accelerating it. How is this non-material? Finally, a key problem with this sort of criticism and "explanation" is that it would have reach beyond what you've chosen to apply it. Why stop at God? What makes God's mind rational? What's the difference between my mind and God's? After all, if I have a rational mind, then why cant I use it to create ten bars of gold in my living room, in reality? Again, "a rational mind" does not play a hard to vary functional role. As such, preferring it over countless others is irrational or dogmatic.Popperian
May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Hello Harry, Harry:
Given a universe where life is a possibility, the mindless and accidental assembly of life is still virtually impossible, just as the accidental assembly of a laptop PC is a virtual impossibility, even though that is far more likely to happen than life emerging accidentally, because the technology required for laptop PCs is very crude compared to the nanotechnology of life, and does not have to have built into it the capacity to manufacture more laptop PCs..
From the referenced paper..
In the biosphere self-reproduction is approximated to various accuracies. There are many poor approximations to self-reproducers - e.g., crude replicators such as crystals, short RNA strands and autocatalytic cycles involved in the origin of life [11]. Being so inaccurate, they do not require any further explanation under no-design laws: they do not have appearance of design, any more than simple inorganic catalysts do.(4)
and..
The second point is that natural selection, to get started, does not require accurate self-reproducers with high-fidelity replicators. Indeed, the minimal requirement for natural selection is that each kind of replicator produce at least one viable offspring, on average, per lifetime - so that the different kinds of replicators last long enough to be “selected” by the environment. In challenging environments, a vehicle with many functionalities is needed to meet this requirement. But in unchallenging ones (i.e. sufficiently unchanging and resource-rich), the requirement is easily met by highly inaccurate self-reproducers that not only have no appearance of design, but are so inaccurate that they can have arisen spontaneously from generic resources under no-design laws - as proposed, for instance, by the current theories of the origin of life [11, 31]. For example, template replicators, such as short RNA strands [32], or similar “naked” replicators (replicating with poor copying fidelity without a vehicle) would suffice to get natural selection started. Since they bear no design, they require no further explanation - any more than simple inorganic catalysts do.(11)
Again, the author has referenced what it means to have the appearance of design. Specifically, the appearance of design is not merely the ability for something to serve a purpose, but when something cannot be easily varied without significantly reducing its ability to serve that purpose. The first self-replicators need not fit that definition, yet could still self-replicate to a degree necessary for natural selection to get started.Popperian
May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Popperian @37
Saying “a designer must have wanted it that way” just pushes the problem up a level without improving it. We simply do not know the answer. Appealing to a designer is a “designer of the gaps” argument.
Not really. I don't think God is the designer of the gaps. I think He is the designer of the whole thing. I think He created the Universe and the life within it and holds it all in existence. He does so in an orderly, consistent, rational way, which is why there are such things as the laws of physics, universal constants and natural science. Nature's intelligibility is what makes natural science possible. It is intelligible because the primary, underlying reality is a rational Mind. Science should never stop looking for natural explanations. It should never say, "I give up. That must be the part God does." Instead, it should remember that the whole thing is what God did and is still doing as He holds nature in existence. If the fundamental reality is a Mind, then as science gets deeper and deeper into the natural, it should not be surprised if it keeps finding that which has no explanation other than what must be a non-material reality. That doesn't mean it stops doing research. On the contrary, it means that it admits the existence of non-material realities and then takes the first steps of what will probably be a very long journey that will eventually lead to a better understanding of how those non-material realities are integrated with material realities. Before one scoffs at that notion, consider that science has learned very much about the effects of gravity, a completely non-material reality as far as we yet know, on material realities. There is no hope of science ever explaining consciousness and rationality until it begins that journey. Along the way it will learn that the non-material realities that make consciousness and rationality possible are "natural," too. It can call them something besides "rational souls" if it wants to do that. ;o) How did "natural" come to mean "strictly material," anyway? Is gravity supernatural? And, hopefully, it will finally take an objective look at the math (it is one thing to stop believing in God, but to stop believing in math?) and finally admit that the Universe and life within it coming about mindlessly and accidentally was an impossibility.harry
May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
Hello Popperian,
First, the most simple criticism is that you’re assuming life, as we know it, is the only kind of life that could exist, or that it was intentionally chosen by a designer. However, the laws of physics may not be finely tuned for other kinds of life.
If "the laws of physics may not be finely tuned for other kinds of life," then it is all the more likely that "life, as we know it, is the only kind of life that could exist." Even so, I am not assuming that carbon-based life as we know it is the only kind of life that could exist. For life to exist in our own or some other universe, complexification of matter must be possible, using whatever materials are available. More specifically, functional "complexification" of matter must be possible. Mere intricacy is complexity that is no more functional than a box rocks. If one flips a true coin ten times in a row and gets "heads" each time, what are the odds of the next coin toss coming up "heads"? The odds are still 50/50. In the same way, in any possible universe, matter and the laws of physics in that universe being mindlessly and accidentally configured such that the enormous functional complexity life requires becomes a possibility is virtually impossible just as it was in our own. Given a universe where life is a possibility, the mindless and accidental assembly of life is still virtually impossible, just as the accidental assembly of a laptop PC is a virtual impossibility, even though that is far more likely to happen than life emerging accidentally, because the technology required for laptop PCs is very crude compared to the nanotechnology of life, and does not have to have built into it the capacity to manufacture more laptop PCs.harry
May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Actually we do have a very good idea what existed before the Big Bang: What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914 “There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity? It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo — Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.” Jastrow – God and The Astronomers BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/bornagain77
May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Harry:
— It is so unlikely that the fine-tuning of the Universe for life was a mindless accident that it is simply irrational to assert that that was the case.
First, the most simple criticism is that you're assuming life, as we know it, is the only kind of life that could exist, or that it was intentionally chosen by a designer. However, the laws of physics may not be finely tuned for other kinds of life. Second, I would agree that the apparent fine tuning for life as we know it isn't random. This is because there would be vastly more universes where life as we know it would only just exist for a few moments. And we do not just barely exist. We simply do not know the answer to this question. Potential answers include the possibility that unverses can only have those specific properties or that properties are linked together in that changing one changes the other in a complimentary way.
— Therefore the fine-tuning of the Universe for life must have been the work of an intelligent agent
Saying "a designer must have wanted it that way" just pushes the problem up a level without improving it. We simply do not know the answer. Appealing to a designer is a "designer of the gaps" argument.
— Since matter did not exist prior to that intelligent agent bringing it into existence, that agent’s intelligence couldn’t have the product of “extreme, significant material complexity.
We simply do not know what the conditions were before the Big Bang. It is a singularly which we cannot see beyond. For example, it could have been the result of a previous Big Crunch. Or it could be the result of a black hole in some other universe. IOW, we simply do not know enough to reach that conclusion. Nor is it clear how a non-material agent "brings matter into existence. Furthermore, claiming we exist in a bubble of explicability, which exists in a sea of inexplicably, only leads to bad explanations. No better explanation can exist in this inexplicable realm other than "Zeus rules there". And, by nature of supposedly being dependent on that realm, no better explaination can be had in our bubble than "Zeus rules here" as well. IOW, our bubble would only appear explicable should one chose to ignore very specific questions.Popperian
May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Funny that you do not reference any of those competing quantum theories. Perhaps you would like to defend the epistemological failure that is represented by the many worlds interpretation? That would be entertaining! Care to play? Moreover, with your 'inexplicable' warrant, you are, in disingenuous Darwinian fashion, turning the empirical priority of science on its head just so as to support your a priori atheistic bias. Plantinga addresses the insanity of the Darwinian 'its not proven absolutely impossible therefore it must be true' mindset here: Darwinism Not Proved Absolutely Impossible Therefore Its True - Plantinga http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/ And as I said earlier, I have much more empirical evidence on the reality of mind, but since I have seen no willingness on your part to deal honestly with the evidence presented thus far, I will refrain from wasting my time since you will merely cite your own opinion as outweighing the evidence.bornagain77
May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
BA77:
And I provided solid empirical evidence debunking your claim. Evidence from quantum mechanics that mind precedes material reality. And I also provided evidence that material CANNOT EVER explain conscious mind.
Except there are theories of quantum mechanics that agree with all the same observations, yet do not suggest that observers play any special role or that the wave function actually collapses. Those theories say nothing about the mind preceding reality. Not is it clear how you can present empirical evidence that indicates something is inexplicable, which is what you're claiming by saying the mind is immaterial. That is a philosophical position, not an empirical position. Finally, saying that evidence in science doesn't play the role you think it does isn't the same as saying evidence doesn't matter. That's a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote.Popperian
May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Popperian you claim that "intelligent agency is only known, in any empirical sense, to come about though significant functional complexity, including complex material brains." And I provided solid empirical evidence debunking your claim. Evidence from quantum mechanics that mind precedes material reality. And I also provided evidence that material CANNOT EVER explain conscious mind. I can provide much more evidence in that regards. So I took the full overview of empirical observation into consideration whilst you ignored, with your word play, what the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence says so as to suit your own purpose. That is the mark of a dogmatist. You claimed to make no claim to empirical evidence. then when shown otherwise, you claim you did make a claim, then when countered you say evidence does not matter. You are a friggin yo yo that would not know science if it bit you on the nose!bornagain77
May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
harry @32, I normally wouldn't bother to correct a typo that others would easily mentally adjust for, but "that agent's intelligence couldn't have the product of 'extreme, significant material complexity'" actually has a meaning. That should have been, "that agent's intelligence couldn't have been the product of 'extreme, significant material complexity'" Of course there are those who would agree with the first version of that. ;o)harry
May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
Hello Popperian,
I’m suggesting that induction isn’t possible. ... ... no one has formulated a principle of induction that actually works in practice. ... induction isn’t actually possible, in practice.
I see you have rightly chosen your internet moniker, "Popperian." ;o) Popper's belief that falsification is necessary to distinguish science from pseudo-science has much merit, yet I am not ready to accept his belief that inductivism is completely worthless. It was the basis of the scientific method for centuries and must still have value, since one would find it difficult to argue that it is nowhere to be found in the contemporary scientific effort. Bertrand Russell championed inductivism:
(a) When a thing of a certain sort A has been found to be associated with a thing of a certain other sort B, and has never been found dissociated from a thing of the sort B, the greater the number of cases in which A and B have been associated, the greater is the probability that they will be associated in a fresh case in which one of them is known to be present; (b) Under the same circumstances, a sufficient number of cases of association will make the probability of a fresh association nearly a certainty, and will make it approach certainty without limit.
Thing A being significant functional complexity, and thing B being intelligent agency, since they are always associated, would, according to Russell's thinking, indicate that there is an extreme likelihood that significant functional complexity only comes about via intelligent agency, and that life, the most functionally complex phenomenon known to us, is extremely likely to have emerged via intelligent agency. Of course Russell, like many other atheists, would have looked for some way to weasel out of his own prior assertions if they were found to be useful in affirming theism. You don't suppose, do you, that your assertion that
Since intelligent agency is only known to come about though significant functional complexity, including complex material brains [it is] reasonable to conclude that the most intelligent agency would come about through extreme, significant material complexity
has been falsified because: -- It is so unlikely that the fine-tuning of the Universe for life was a mindless accident that it is simply irrational to assert that that was the case. -- Therefore the fine-tuning of the Universe for life must have been the work of an intelligent agent. -- Since matter did not exist prior to that intelligent agent bringing it into existence, that agent's intelligence couldn't have the product of "extreme, significant material complexity." I don't suppose you accept that deductive reasoning as falsification of your assertion. ;o)harry
May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
I wrote:
I used that example because I knew Harry would disagree with it, despite the fact that intelligent agency is only known, in any empirical sense, to come about though significant functional complexity, including complex material brains.
BA77
Popperian, if you think your opinion matters more in science than empirical evidence does you are delusional!
So, in addition to Harry, it seems that you too only appeal to empirical observations when it suits your purpose. Nor am I suggesting that empirical evidence doesn't play an important role. Rather, I'm suggesting the role evidence plays in science is criticism, not positive proof. And that's not just merely my opinion. But, even then, what we want from ideas, including criticism, is their content, not their pedigree. Where they came from is unimportant.Popperian
May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
Popperian, if you think your opinion matters more in science than empirical evidence does you are delusional! I could care less for your word play. When you have some actual evidence to support your position, as I do, instead of wordomatic fluff, let's talk, until then you've got absolutely nothing to work with!bornagain77
May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
I wrote:
In anticipation of your response: do not confuse not making an inductive argument for a specific conclusion with not agreeing with that conclusion for reasons other than an inductive argument.
BA77:
and yet your own words at 19 betray you:
Yet, you've done just that. Go figure. You've confused presenting an inductive argument for the purpose of criticism, (of which the conclusion I happen to agree with for non-inductive reasons), with actually making an argument (that I happen to agree with) via inductive means. I can agree with the conclusion, but not agree with the means by which it was made. Again, my point is that Harry only "appeals" to induction when it suits his purpose. I used that example because I knew Harry would disagree with it, despite the fact that intelligent agency is only known, in any empirical sense, to come about though significant functional complexity, including complex material brains. But I'm suggesting it's actually worse than that, because induction isn't actually possible, in practice. So, it would come as no surprise that Darwinism isn't based on induction any more than any other theories in science. To single out Darwinism is a red herring. Furthermore, nothing in Feynman's quote contradicts that in the least. If you think it does, you're confused about the problem.Popperian
May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Popperian you state "I made no such claim" and yet your own words at 19 betray you: "Since intelligent agency is only known to come about though significant functional complexity, including complex material brains, is it reasonable to conclude that the most intelligent agency would come about through extreme, significant material complexity?" Perhaps if you are going to claim that you did not make a claim it would help if you did not in fact make the claim? And I could care less for your word games. I provided solid empirical evidence for my position that consciousness precedes material reality, and from you I get fluff. No thanks, you can keep the fluff, I'll keep my empirical evidence! The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY Moreover, if you are so concerned with logically sound induction, perhaps you should drop Darwinism? Anti-Science Irony Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/bornagain77
May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
I wrote:
Since intelligent agency is only known to come about though significant functional complexity, including complex material brains, is it reasonable to conclude that the most intelligent agency would come about through extreme, significant material complexity?
Henry:
No, it isn’t.
Then you're not using induction consistently. This comes as no surprise to me as I'm suggesting isn't possible because no one has formulated a principle of induction that actually works in practice. Again, theories, such as the one you replied with, regardless of how poor, always come first. So, apparently, you appeal to induction only when it suits your belief.Popperian
May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
BA:
So extreme functional complexity only comes from mind, yet Popperian claims that mind only comes extreme functional complexity.
Except, I made no such claim. Furthermore, I'm suggesting that induction isn't possible. So, why would I make an inductive argument? Rather, I was criticizing the use of supposedly inductive arguments by ID supporters. Specifcally, appeals to induction are not made consistently. In anticipation of your response: do not confuse not making an inductive argument for a specific conclusion with not agreeing with that conclusion for reasons other than an inductive argument.Popperian
May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Miller wants to "buy" information on the cheap. In order for there to be selection there needs to be something to select. He's just assuming information is already present from "somewhere", and can be selected, replicated and mutated to every increasing levels of complexity. But where did the original information itself originate? He's just assuming it. The biological record, as observed in the Cambrian Explosion event of 550mya, doesn't help his case either as there are no pre-Cambrian forms with an information trail leading to the CE organisms. Perhaps Miller should read Stephen Meyer's book "Darwin's Doubt". Once again, Miller is just hand-waving away what is a significant issue in biology: the origin of biological information actually observed in biological systems.DonaldM
May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Popparian (19) and harry (23), what if you are both right? Max Planck hypothesized that the quanta (or possibly the strings) is one giant brain. If he is right, well, there is a giant complex entity that is responsible for the finely tuned universe. Let us call him -- God.bFast
May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Hello Popperian,
Since intelligent agency is only known to come about though significant functional complexity, including complex material brains, is it reasonable to conclude that the most intelligent agency would come about through extreme, significant material complexity?
No, it isn't. We now know the Universe had a beginning. Before matter, time and space existed there was no "significant material complexity." Yet the Universe exhibits fine-tuning for life the extreme precision of which can only be result of intelligent agency. (It is like that intelligent agent was planning on creating life, too. You don't suppose that is a possibility, do you? ;o) Just as we know gravity is a reality even though we know it only by its effects, not by the discovery of some material reality like gravitons that some theorize exist, we know the necessarily non-material intelligent agent responsible for the fine tuning of the Universe is a reality by that effect, one that can only be the result of intelligent agency. That the intelligent agent Who launched the Universe was necessarily non-material provides the rational with another clue: the essence of intelligence must not be material. To this day we have no idea by what principles matter must be configured such that intelligence and consciousness emerge. Maybe that is because there is a non-material component to intelligence and consciousness, and there is no way intelligence and consciousness can come about without it. That humans possesses a rational, non-material soul is an ancient and extremely reasonable idea. As Gregory of Nyssa put it 1600 years ago, the non-material "'mind sees,' not the eye." Science would probably by now have learned as much about the non-material component of consciousness and intelligence as it knows about non-material gravity if it hadn't been perverted by atheism.harry
May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
However, Song has replied. Perhaps his groundbreaking result stands? :-)daveS
May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply