A Voice from the Middle Ground
by MikeGeneThe following essay was written by Thought Provoker and the views/arguments contained within do not necessarily reflect the views of Mike Gene. Mike Gene hosts such essays simply to provoke thought and promote discussion and communication.
On October 4th, Paul Nelson and Michael Ruse are/were scheduled to have a debate for discussing what it would take for them to switch sides. Here is a link to Paul Nelson's announcement where he said "Michael Ruse and I are going to have a sort of un-debate." I am making the easy prediction of a non-outcome to the un-debate where the spin-masters on both sides will claim victory. This is my overt attempt at preempting with my un-spin to provoke thinking about the polarization that this represents. Allow me some hyperbola to illustrate the point; one extreme view would be to ask for the equivalent of the random assembly of a 747 from a pile of junk another extreme view would be to ask for the equivalent of an Intelligent Designer saying "I am" accompanied by a pyrotechnical display of local shrubbery.
In other words, the basic conflict is generally about randomness verses a designer.
There is a lot of ground between these two extremes. What would it take to convince both sides that a middle ground hypothesis that presumes neither randomness nor a designer is not only plausible but likely?
I have previously presented the concept that there is no such thing as randomness in a post titled The Magic of Intelligent Design. This post has appeared in Telic Thoughts and in After the Bar Closes. For a proposed design agency, I have offered the orchestrating properties of quantum effects generally outlined in the Penrose-Hameroff model called Orchestrated Objective Reduction or Orch OR for short.
What would it take to convince either side that quantum effects are interconnected?
How about seven decades of physicists performing experiments demonstrating non-local behavior and paradoxical behavior that can only be explained if nature is "entangled" at the quantum level?
What would it take to convince either side that life is directly dependent on quantum effects?
How about if respectable scientists at Berkeley lab reported something like"¦
Early in 2007 a team of Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley researchers identified quantum mechanical effects as the key to the astonishing ability of photosynthesis to utilize nearly all the photons absorbed by the leaves of green plants. Now a different team has found new evidence that points to a closely packed pigment-protein complex of the photosystem as the key to those quantum mechanical effects. "¦
How nature manages to pull off this stunt was a long-standing mystery until the spring of 2007, when a study led by Graham Fleming, Deputy Director of Berkeley Lab and a UC Berkeley chemistry professor, found the first direct evidence of what he calls a "remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence." Quantum-mechanical effects enable a plant's photosystem to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways from pigment molecules to reaction centers and choose the most efficient one. link
"¦?
What would it take to convince either side that evolution is under the control of interconnected quantum effects?
What if it turned out the DNA search function is a quantum algorithm that requires quantum-like superposition?
From Patel's Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code"¦
Replication of DNA and synthesis of proteins are studied from the view-point of quantum database search. Identification of a base-pairing with a quantum query gives a natural (and first ever!) explanation of why living organisms have 4 nucleotide bases and 20 amino acids. It is amazing that these numbers arise as solutions to an optimisation problem. Components of the DNA structure which implement Grover's algorithm are identified, and a physical scenario is presented for the execution of the quantum algorithm. It is proposed that enzymes play a crucial role in maintaining quantum coherence of the process.
From Patel's Towards Understanding the Origin of Genetic Languages"¦
The initial and final states of Grover's algorithm are classical, but the execution in between is not. In order to be stable, the initial and final states have to be based on a relaxation towards equilibrium process. For the execution of the algorithm in between, the minimal physical requirement is a system that allows superposition of states, in particular a set of coupled wave modes.
There is more support for the possibility of life's direct dependence on interconnected quantum effects for functions like cellular awareness (i.e. consciousness) as an artifact of quantum computation in microtubules. "Bio-quantum physics" appears to be an emerging science. While it is still speculative, that is not the point.
The question is"¦ What would it take to convince ID/Darwin extremists to agree on a scientific hypothesis that supports neither philosophical agenda?
BTW, a quantum mechanical explanation can be thought of as a tool of an intelligent designer just as much as the result of a non-teleological universe that occurred "randomly" from multiple universes. However, these are metaphysical concerns, not scientific ones.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Thank You Mike,
Pez and Steve Petermann had already asked some intreguing questions on this. I will respond tomorrow to give them a chance to update it if they want. It also gives others a chance before I put any more of my un-spin on this.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 3, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Won't happen. Doesn't even need to happen, really. Who cares whether or not someone can look to a hypothesis in a way that they'll argue supports their metaphysics? Both can look at the exact same evidence and the exact same hypothesis and ground it in their own individual worldviews. The only reason this is being seen as 'harmful' is because previously one worldview held the center stage - now that's changing. Neither is itself necessary for the science to unfold.
The real question should be, what will it take for both the established science crowd-at-large and the up-and-comers to tolerate those with different philosophies within their discipline(s)? And the answer there is going to be respect and calm. Challenge enough to get humans on that train.
Comment by nullasalus — October 3, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Looks like the "middle ground" is where the quantum mystics hang out and propose unnecessary quantum explanations for well-understood chemical mutation processes based on an extremely vague analogy between photon capture in chlorophyll and base pair mutations in DNA. C'mon folks, exercise a little critical thinking here…
Comment by Nick Matzke — October 4, 2007 @ 1:40 am
October 4th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Hi Nick,
Thank you very much for your comment.
For your information I have also posted this on After the Bar Closes. If you wanted to post this on Panda's Thumb (even if to belittle it) I would appreciate that.
You see, this is my attempt at provoking thinking about the fundamentals of the ID/Darwin debate. If you are going to dismiss this with the same contempt as "GodDidIt" then the ID proponents are right. They would be wasting their time putting together mechanistic explanations backed up, partially, by scientific observations. It becomes apparent until you personally see the burning bush and witness a miracle; you aren't going to accept its possibility. And even then, you might reject it because it is outside of your status quo thinking.
As you know, in 1905 a patent clerk was trying to make a big deal about an inconsistency in Mercury's orbit and a slight red shift in sunlight. This resulted in a special-relativity-in-the-gaps rationalization. BTW, for those who don't know, Einstein's special relativity was wrong. Of course we don't say that because of its importance. We say it was "incomplete". The god-in-the-gaps like argument was that there was no inertial reference frame. Later, Einstein corrected his mistake by embracing General Relativity which is based on an inertial reference frame presumption. General Relativity has been proven correct as much as anything can be scientifically "proven".
Another example from the world of biology…
In 1951 a pair of young loose-cannons slapped together a model of what they thought was the basis of genetics. Their DNA-in-the-gaps model was laughably wrong. They were chastised and told to quit working on it. Two years later the stubborn young scientists slapped together another model based on information they "liberated" from other scientists like Rosalind Franklin. This time they got lucky. Eventually their luck resulted in them receiving Nobel prizes. Rosalind wasn't so lucky. She died before her contribution was adequately recognized.
Nick, there is a role to play in protecting the Status Quo. But, is it possible the role might have evolved into Dr. Zaius' dual title of "Minister of Science and Defender of the Faith"?
Yes, there is a balance to be maintained and I will speak to the other side of the balance in responding to other comments. However, I suggest there is some truth to the complaints I am hearing from ID proponents.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 4, 2007 @ 11:21 am
October 4th, 2007 at 11:59 am
No. Gravitational redshift and the precession of Mercury's orbit are explained by general relativity, not special relativity.
No. Special relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, recognizes inertial reference frames and holds that the laws of physics are identical in all of them.
TP, if you don't even understand well-established physics such as special relativity, why should we pay attention to your boosterism of quantum woo such as Patel's?
Comment by keiths — October 4, 2007 @ 11:59 am
October 4th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Hi Keith,
From a paper titled Einstein's Ether: Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether?
"In (1905) Einstein constructed a relativity theory that was based on the assertion that the ether was superfluous. In 1908 Minkowski formulated the theory of the "absolute world". The nineteenth century ether no longer existed. A new kind of ether (space-time) came into being. One could keep on maintaining the ether, and at the same time strip it of the notion of absolute rest. Einstein seemed to agree, and after 1916 he returned to the ether. In 1920 he combined Minkowski's absolute world concept and Mach's ideas on rotational movements…"
The Twin Paradox was a paradox for special relativity because the problem's solution was inconsistant depending on which twin's reference frame was used. If everything was relative and there was no "ether" (inertial frame of reference) then this was a problem. Minkowskian geometry explained it was a simple geometry situation were the shortest distance between two points is NOT a straight line.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 4, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
TP,
I think the problem is that you're confusing the concepts of absolute vs. inertial reference frames. Special relativity says that there is no absolute frame of reference, but it most definitely does not say that there are no inertial frames, as you claimed. In fact, special relativity recognizes an infinite number of inertial frames and holds that the laws of physics are identical in all of them.
The so-called "Twin Paradox" is actually not a paradox at all. A true paradox is self-contradictory. The Twin Paradox is counterintuitive, to be sure, but it does not contradict itself. And contrary to your assertion, it can be fully explained in terms of special relativity.
Again, TP, I urge you to take some time to learn some basic physics. It will pay off in the long run, and it will make you less susceptible to woo-mongers like Patel.
Comment by keiths — October 4, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Quantum woo? Quantum mysticism? Neither TP nor Penrose are Deepak Chopra. He's asking a few "what" questions. What if this is true, what would it take to be convincing? He admits it's speculative, points at recent developments or ideas regarding QM in biology, and is generally being light on claims while suggestive of possibility. Sure, it could well be (or 'is very likely' if that's your opinion) wrong, but so what?
Comment by nullasalus — October 4, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
TP:
Of course life is directly dependent on quantum effects. Everything is directly dependent on quantum effects. It's just that most scientists aren't quantum physicists and do not have to be in order to function usefully at their FAPP level of approach.
Thus there's really no 'convincing' to be done. It's just that non-biophysicists don't care about quantum effects. They are quite comfortable with explanations from their own level of approach (i.e., consciousness emerges from neurons and their interconnections, how neurons work doesn't matter), as their own level of approach is all the knowledge they own and all they believe need be known.
That such scientists are very uncomfortable trying to learn things from another field they know basically zip about isn't surprising. The amusing part is when they insist their own limited knowledge is all the knowledge that counts.
They aren't very convincing.
Comment by Joy — October 4, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Nick Matzke:
Oh, give us a break! Surely you aren't trying to convince anybody that biochemical processes don't depend directly and fundamentally upon quantum mechanics. Everyone who ever learned any chemistry in school knows better than that.
You can assert your opinion that biochemical processes need not appeal to quantum mechanics in order to be perfectly understood all day long, Nick. Some non-chemists might even agree with you. But there's absolutely no scientific, sociological, political or ideological reason to expect those who know better to pay you any mind.
That's critical thinking.
Comment by Joy — October 4, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Hi All,
I will continue my running gun battle with Keiths in a moment, but first allow me to address the "other side" of the discussion.
Earlier Pez wrote…
And Steve Petermann wrote…
The apparent implication of the Nelson/Ruse un-debate is to discuss what it would take to cause a conversion. This is a kin to a conversion of faith with only two choices possible. Nelson defending his polarized position, Ruse defending his. Is this science?
It is one thing to be motivated by things that are of interest. It is another to be driven to support a desired Truth. Truth is for philosophers and theologians to argue over, not scientists IMO. However, if ID proponents want total freedom to focus exclusively on whatever they think is true, then turnabout is fair play. Public universities and biology labs are allowed to focus exclusively on whatever they think is true. ID proponents are free to talk to organizations like the Catholic Church and the Templeton foundation to fund whatever activities they wish to be performed.
If ID proponents want to focus exclusively on research that presumes God exists (regardless of what pseudonym is used) there is no reason to expect support from public institutions. In fact there is every reason to expect otherwise because of a first amendment prohibition against "respecting the establishment of religion". Note, it doesn't say "a religion", it says religion, as in religion in general.
With that rant verbalized, let's focus on science. Suppose the scientific interest just happens to be a curiosity about the possibility that an omnipotent, human-like designer was responsible for life on Earth. Fine, present a comprehensive model that explains how that is possible.
Note that in the historical examples I offered to Nick the running theme was that the scientists presented a model. In the case of Watson and Crick that was their primary accomplishment.
Please look at it from a practical point of view. There has to be a standard, otherwise scientific resources would be crushed by the anarchy. Wiccan, Tarot cards, voodoo, astrology, etc would all demand an equal places at the table. Should ID get special privilege because it is popular? Following the herd only leads to Group Think.
Look at the Third Choice as a challenge. Can you come up with a better model? If you don't like the hypothesis, why not? Does the Third Choice fail to answer your scientific challenges or your metaphysical wishes?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 4, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. And recall that the interpretation of amendments is left to not just one person or a single interpretation, but a selection of people who, shall we say, disagree about things.
Frankly, I'm fine with one way or the other. Let science be concerned with science, and philosophies be damned? Fine. Then IDers who cross the line join the likes of Steven Weinberg and others in being denounced. A firm, impassable boundary between the data and the philosophical interpretation of the data goes up. Or allow the mingling of philosophy and science, and allow everyone to fall into their respective niches. The results will be petty and chaotic, but universities and the research fields are already arguably there anyway.
But let's avoid hypocritical situations where certain philosophies are treated as exceptions to an otherwise firm rule. And let's not pretend that, no matter which way things go, the philosophical arguments - even once firmly removed from the sphere of science - won't keep on raging one way or the other.
Comment by nullasalus — October 4, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Captain's Log, star date 2006.1004,
We are on assignment in the Alpha quadrant to study planet cluster 623.
I have ordered the navigator to make it appear the planet cluster is moving in a circular pattern relative to the ship. Side note, I find it interesting that when the navigator does this it looks like the entire universe is spinning at the same rate, fascinating.
I have ordered Ensign Keiths to my ready-room.
Here he is now (wearing a red shirt, of course).
Ensign, we are sending down several survey teams to various planets in this cluster. This operation will occur over two years, ship time. The first year we will be dropping off teams the second year we will be picking them up.
However, it won't appear to be a year for you. Since, as you know, "…there is no absolute frame of reference…" and "…that the laws of physics are identical in all…" local frames of reference. Based on the ship's frame of reference, you will be constantly traveling at warp 0.9. At nine tenths the speed of light time will go slower"¦. err"¦ um"¦ or does it go faster? Hmmm, let's do the math…
ds^2 = dt^2 - (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
= (1 year)^2 - (0.9 light-years)^2
= 1.0 - 0.81
= 0.19
ds = 0.436 years
Ah yes, that's it. Less than half a year. Therefore, we will provision your shuttle to last you and your team half a year. We will be back before you know it.
Ensign Keiths?
Do you have something to say?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 4, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
TP,
I thought this was settled by Dover. No thoughtful board of education is going to risk a million dollar legal fee to push for overt religion in public schools. Also I often wonder why ID critics seem to think that only ID proponents are biased in their research.
Turn about is fair play. Suppose there is a scientific interest that unguided, purposeless forces are responsible for life on Earth. Fine. Present a comprehensive model that explains how this is possible. How would science go about doing that?
Sure why not? Each offers it's own take on empirical observations. It just turns out that for many people they don't convince. In other words, it's bad empirically. I think history has shown that but why set up some formal boundary for thinking? In Darwinian terms, let the fittest survive.
Irrelevant to my questions. However, I try to not let my metaphysical wishes overly taint my judgement. Do you?
Still I don't see how you have answered my original questions. How does your so called third choice move things forward? Does it answer the question of whether reality is constituted by mindless mechanistic processes or not? I don't see how. Just because quantum processes are at work, so what? Just because we locate the neural correlates of consciousness, so what? All those discoveries just push the questions even deeper.
Let me give an example. With regard to conscious experience, your (Penrose, Hamerhoff) third choice doesn't even touch it. This is why one of the preimment philosophers of consciousness, David Chalmers has posited conscious experience as a fundamental aspect of reality like the four fundamental forces.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 4, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Hi Steve Petermann,
You asked…
That isn't a science question, IMO.
Determining mechanistic processes is science. Whether or not the process is mindless is up to philosophers and theologians.
I suggest science is the search for knowledge, not Truth.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 4, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
TP,
I'm confused. Then, what is your third choice supposed to be as alternative to? What are the other two choices?
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 4, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Hi Steve,
I consider the two main choices to be; (1) a presumption of pure Random Mutation/Natural Selection with heavy emphisis on "Random" and (2) a presumption of an Intelligent Designer.
The Third Choice makes neither of these presumptions. It postulates that there is no such thing as randomness and doesn't presume an intelligent designer.
Now either non-teleological randomness (multiple universes) or an intelligent designer might be behind the interconnected quantum effects, but I am suggesting that is a metaphysical question we probably will never know for sure.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 4, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
TP asks:
TP,
I don't have the time or the inclination to walk you through an explanation of how special relativity resolves the so-called "Twin Paradox", but I did hunt down a Scientific American article on the the Web that explains it, so that you can convince yourself on your own time.
You can find it here.
This paragraph from the article explains why general relativity is not needed to resolve the paradox, contrary to your claim:
Comment by keiths — October 4, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
TP,
Let's do science.
So how do you make the postulation that there is no such thing a randomness?
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 4, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Hi Keiths,
I must say, I am surprised at how many references there are that try to rationalise away the Twin's Paradox.
You and I both know the way I formulated the problem made it practically impossible for you to explain it away. It defeated the out-and-back hand-waving.
Think for yourself. If you can't explain it, why do you believe it?
Here is something I found that might help you think…
The question of whether general relativity is required to resolve the twins paradox has long been a subject of spirited debate. On one hand, Einstein wrote a paper in 1918 to explain how the general theory accounts for the asymmetric aging of the twins by means of the "gravitational fields" that appear with respect to accelerated coordinates attached to the traveling twin, and Max Born recounted this analysis in a popular book, concluding that "the clock paradox is due to a false application of the special theory of relativity, namely, to a case in which the methods of the general theory should be applied". On the other hand, many people object vigorously to any suggestion that special relativity is inadequate to satisfactorily resolve the twins paradox. Ultimately the answer depends on what sort of satisfaction is being sought, viz., on whether the paradox is being presented as a challenge to the consistency of special relativity (as is Dingle's fallacy) or to the completeness of special relativity. If we're willing to accept uncritically the existence and identifiability of inertial frames, and their preferred status, and if we are willing to exclude any consideration of gravity or the equivalence principle, then we can reduce the twins paradox to a trivial exercise in special relativity. However, if it is the completeness (rather than the consistency) of special relativity that is at issue, then the naive acceptance of inertial frames is precisely what is being challenged. In this context, we can hardly justify the exclusion of gravitation, considering that the very same metrical field which determines the inertial worldlines also represents the gravitational field. link
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 4, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
October 4th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Hi Steve,
You wrote…
Did you read The Magic of Intelligent Design?
The short answer is quantum weirdness like GHZ states demonstrate the quantum effects are interconnected in Einsteinian/Minkowskian space-time. Time is just another dimension. The universe is fixed from the beginning to the end of time. Ergo, there is no randomness other than a possible role of a die that setup the universe in the first place. Either that, or GodDidIt.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 4, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Hi Mike,
You might want to take a look at qetzal and I discussing you and front loading link
You may not be overly impressed, but it is a start.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 12:38 am
October 5th, 2007 at 1:03 am
TP,
For someone who likes to say "I don't know the Truth," you get awfully prickly when someone agrees with your assessment and backs it up with concrete examples.
Um, no. All you did was to restate the problem with the ship in the role of the traveling twin and the scouting party in the role of the stationary twin. Same problem, same solution: time flows more slowly for the ship, because it experiences accelerations that the scouting party does not.
All of this is explained in the article I referred you to. Did you bother to read it?
TP, in this thread alone you:
1. Stated wrongly that gravitational redshift was a motivation for Einstein's special theory of relativity.
2. Stated wrongly that Mercury's orbital precession was another motivation for special relativity.
3. Confused inertial reference frames with absolute reference frames.
4. Stated incorrectly that general relativity was needed to resolve the Twin Paradox.
I'm afraid the evidence is pointing heavily toward you as the one who needs to do more thinking.
Regarding your quote: didn't you notice that it confirms my position? Let's review. You wrote:
I responded:
The quote you supplied confirms that there is no inconsistency when the Twin Paradox is explained in terms of special relativity:
Comment by keiths — October 5, 2007 @ 1:03 am
October 5th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Hi Keiths,
You wrote…
Yes, I read your article. Did you? Did you understand it?
Thinking for yourself isn't about simply believing "Ask the expert" articles. It doesn't matter how many people say black is white, if you don't understand it and can't defend it, you don't know it.
The article warned you about relying on acceleration for determining which frame of reference gets privileged status. For good reason. In my stated problem, both frames of reference experience acceleration. The ship due to its change in velocity vector in the single, absolute inertial frame of reference (i.e. General Relativity) the the survey team experiences acceleration due to the planet's gravity (i.e.General Relativity).
To complicate things further the same situation would happen if the ship's navigator accomplished his maneuver by orbiting a massive object, like a Black Hole. The acceleration effects on the ship would generally cancel each other out. The survey team would still die of starvation.
Face the inevitable. To solve the riddle, you need to ether implicitly or explicitly give preferential treatment to a frame of reference based on its relationship to the absolute inertial reference frame of General Relativity.
BTW, I appreciate your comments. I expect this has caused some listeners to start thinking for themselves on it.
Here is another example closer to home. The acceleration effects on Earth are cancelled out. Does that mean it doesn't matter to space-time physics if we think of the Sun as orbiting the Earth as opposed to visa versa?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 8:17 am
October 5th, 2007 at 10:35 am
TP,
Yes I'm familiar with the GHZ experiment.
Can you explain why you draw this conclusion? Afterall even in this experiment the choice of the observer effects the result.
However, even you are right that the universe is fixed, how does this provide an alternative? So things are interconnected? So they are not "random", whatever that means. What's so special about this third choice?
You substitute GHZ for the random in "Random Mutation/Natural Selection". In the ID debated the word random has always been a place holder for "unguided, undirected". According to your "third choice", if the universe is fixed then there really is no change. I can't see an ID critic feeling any discomfort with your substitute because it doesn't really have any effect on their position. From the point of view of the debate it's just another non-teleological proposal.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 5, 2007 @ 10:35 am
October 5th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Let's see how I can provoke Nick Matzke or someone like him to comment? I got it…
These discussions go to show the potential benefit of Intelligent Design.
It isn't so much a matter of who is right or wrong, the benefit comes from a radical approach to viewing scientific questions. It wasn't my intent to belittle Einstein, Watson and Crick for the incompleteness and/or incorrectness of their initial attempts at modeling. Quite the contrary. I point to their stubbornness in the face of adversity as an example of how science makes significant advances. Sometimes we learn more by being wrong than being right.
However, the trick is that hypotheses need to be understandable enough to expose everything, including the flaws. This is one of my major criticisms of the ID Movement leaders. They appear to be purposely hiding the details of their proposal and encouraging others to do the same ("…pathetic level of detail"). It doesn't help when understandable concepts are hidden behind unnecessary complications. For example, "-log base-2 (x) > 1.0" instead of "more likely than not" as Dembski does in his definition of Specified Complexity.
ID Science has potential merit. If we could openly and honestly discuss radical scientific hypotheses, even if they have flaws, it might provoke thinking about things in a different way. Who knows? If the flaws are exposed, we might figure a work-around and come up with a better understanding of the world we live in.
What would it take to resist the ID/Darwin polarization?
I suggest honest and open discussions in a blog like Telic Thoughts.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 10:36 am
October 5th, 2007 at 10:37 am
In the "Twin Paradox", the Travelor Twin measures a shorter distance to the Destination Star than what his Homebody Twin measures. Then the Travelor *changes* reference frames, when he reaches the Destination Star for his return journey to Earth, again measuring a shorter distance. There are three reference frames"”not two. Each observer makes consistent observations and agree upon meeting that their clocks no longer match. There is no need for General Relativity.
The Earth, Homebody and Destination Star are a single reference frame. Even if we were to suppose that it were this reference frame that moved relative to the Travelor, the Travelor would *still* measure a contracted distance compared to the measurement made by the Homebody. They would *still* make consistent observations and reach the same conclusion.
Comment by Zachriel — October 5, 2007 @ 10:37 am
October 5th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Hi Steve,
You wrote…
EXACTLY!
Well, to start with, the implication is that observers have no choice because conscious decisions are be directly interconnected to quantum effects.
The other part is that the Third Choice offers a realistic explanation to most, if not all, of ID's presumed scientific observations. Behe's Irreducible Complexity and Edge of Evolution provide arguments for quantum interconnectedness and retrocausality even if that wasn't his intent.
That is an ID proponent's framing of the debate. Let's try to position the other side into trying to prove a negative.
I also offer that more than one ID proponent has pointed to evolution as being fueled by randomness and chance hypotheses. I suggest this is the point behind Dembski's Upper Probablity Bound.
In short, I disagree with your assessment.
Tell that to the citizens of After the Bar Closes! They have been pretty energetic in questioning the Third Choice.
I offer the purpose of the teleological universe is to be consistent with itself. The universe will do anything to insure that happens. This isn't hard, since the deck was probably stacked to begin with. Was the deck stacked by God or a random luck-of-the-draw from a choice of multiple universes? THAT is a metaphysical question, IMO.
I don't see an inherent problem with ID scientists embracing the Third Choice. It wouldn't bother me to have both sides embrace it. However, I am not holding my breath.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 11:02 am
October 5th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Hi Zachriel,
You have given the standard answer. That is why I formulated my version the way I did.
I admit to a biased opinion of Special Relativity. I questioned the logic when I first heard it several decades ago. The teacher didn't understand it, but continued to pretend he did. That experience frustrated me greatly.
The out-and-back three frames of reference sounds good, but doesn't hold up under a constantly moving frame of reference as in my ship example.
I am willing to listen to an explanation of how the captain sitting on his constantly moving star ship is supposed to know the survey team's reference frame is the one that gets preferential treatment. The survey team is the one experiencing rapid decelerations and accelerations. The survey team is switching reference frames. The captain remains in one, constantly moving, reference frame.
I also offered the earth and sun example. Why does the sun's reference frame get preferential treatment?
I will make it easy. Do you agree with this assessment?
The question of whether general relativity is required to resolve the twins paradox has long been a subject of spirited debate. On one hand, Einstein wrote a paper in 1918 to explain how the general theory accounts for the asymmetric aging of the twins by means of the "gravitational fields" that appear with respect to accelerated coordinates attached to the traveling twin, and Max Born recounted this analysis in a popular book, concluding that "the clock paradox is due to a false application of the special theory of relativity, namely, to a case in which the methods of the general theory should be applied". On the other hand, many people object vigorously to any suggestion that special relativity is inadequate to satisfactorily resolve the twins paradox. Ultimately the answer depends on what sort of satisfaction is being sought, viz., on whether the paradox is being presented as a challenge to the consistency of special relativity (as is Dingle's fallacy) or to the completeness of special relativity. If we're willing to accept uncritically the existence and identifiability of inertial frames, and their preferred status, and if we are willing to exclude any consideration of gravity or the equivalence principle, then we can reduce the twins paradox to a trivial exercise in special relativity. However, if it is the completeness (rather than the consistency) of special relativity that is at issue, then the naive acceptance of inertial frames is precisely what is being challenged. In this context, we can hardly justify the exclusion of gravitation, considering that the very same metrical field which determines the inertial worldlines also represents the gravitational field.
While I still think the author is sugercoating it, I understand it and am willing to agree this point of view is reasonable. It is a compromise.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 11:19 am
October 5th, 2007 at 11:42 am
The observations are straightfoward and derive from basic algebra. There is no preferential reference frame. After decades of study, you should be able to understand what each Twin observes. Please grapple with the simple case first.
Comment by Zachriel — October 5, 2007 @ 11:42 am
October 5th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Hi Zachriel,
You wrote…
It doesn't get much simpler than the sun revolving around the earth.
Do you accept or reject the comprise link I offered?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 11:46 am
October 5th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
That is incorrect. A constantly accelerating object is not the simplest case.
Comment by Zachriel — October 5, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Do you agree or disagree with Math Page's assessment of The Inertia of Twins ?
P.S. I may have to reassess my initial sugercoat assumption. From the link…
"It is fundamentally misguided to exercise such epistemological concerns within the framework of special relativity, because special relativity was always a provisional theory with recognized epistemological short-comings. As mentioned above, one of Einstein's two main two reasons for abandoning special relativity as a suitable framework for physics was the fact that, no less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" exists only (aside from its historical importance) as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the phenomenological justification for those formulas can only be found in the general theory."
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Hi TP,
You've just said to Steve:
For further clarity, are you agreeing with Dembski and Behe that all of the design of life and the universe may have occurred at the Big Bang and has unfolded since?
But if so, to which observers are you referring here - all observers forever? You say that conscious decisions are "interconnected to quantum effects" but you also say that the observers have no choice. This means they have no conscious decisions.
How can you propose "intelligent" or "purposeful" where there is not choice?
And does this mean that your constant use of the word "interconnected quantum effects" has been a front for the word "determined"
As you offer a non-detailed model for the source of this design, and suggest it could be God or it could be luck, then it as we have said before - you've added nothing to the debate and have offered no change.
If the universe is a random, luck-of-the-draw fit which unfolded in a deterministic manner then you no longer have any kind of ID.
This is not because you have no need for God in your model, but because you have no intelligence and no design.
This would no longer accord with Dembski's assessment of the intersection of luck/law, Behe's observations about what our observed forces can accomplish, Gonzales' hypothesis on the design of the universe, etc.
Do you have evidence that a luck-of-the-draw universe, deterministic and devoid of conscious decisions and choice, can create IC or CSI from among the overwhelming options? This is exactly counter to the ID arguments.
If I'm reading your statement correctly, your model would not be a new choice at all, but rather, the same old choice, in which the claim is "there is, and we might discover, some purposeless, unguided, random circumstance that led to the apparent design - whether that is a universe-generating machine or a Law of Everything".
Comment by Pez — October 5, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
No. With the given simplifying assumptions (flat space-time) of the Twin Paradox, there is no preferential frame of reference in Special Relativity.
Comment by Zachriel — October 5, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
TP,
Where did you get the idea that this was a negotiation? Zachriel and I (and Lasky, the Scientific American author) hold that special relativity resolves the Twin Paradox. Our belief is supported by evidence and reason. If you want to convince us otherwise, you'll need to show us how our position is flawed, and why yours is better supported by evidence and reason. Negotiation is not part of the process, and a compromise would be meaningless.
Also, you keep referring to the Math Page article as if it somehow supported your position or represented a compromise between our positions. As I already showed you, the author of the Math Page article confirms that special relativity resolves the Twin Paradox without any inconsistency and without the need for general relativity.
In looking over your comments, I see another mistake that may explain some of your confusion. You wrote:
You seem to believe that the accelerations will cancel, and that this will somehow restore the appearance that the ship is in an inertial frame of reference. This is simply not true. If it were, then the accelerations would also cancel in the out-and-back case.
Comment by keiths — October 5, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
TP:
Steve Petermann is right, you know. The 'third choice' offers nothing new or different to the mix - it's still just dueling metaphysics, and those never change. Of course quantum processes are the substrate of everything arguably 'real' in physical manifestation. No amount of denial on the part of culture warriors on either side of the metaphysical divide can change that.
Bottom line is that it simply doesn't matter to the Dueling Metaphysics. Even if it does matter to the science.
People have beliefs. Worldviews. It's part of our nature, no matter where that nature came from. All their experience of life, all their knowledge and understandings are interpreted to the framework of those beliefs and worldviews. Scientists aren't any different from anybody else in that respect.
Orch-OR isn't going to change anyone's beliefs, nor will it 'save' science from the corruption in its members. The "More Neural Than Thou" crowd will still believe in zombies, the theists will still believe in God, the panentheists will still believe in woo. People will always war with each other over whose truths are more true, people will always die for stubbornly holding to their own beliefs and trying to force them on other people's minds.
Power is the name of that game. Always has been, always will be. For so long as human beings exist. Which, given our inherent inability to respect each other's freedom of mind, conscience and will, won't be much longer. We might take all life with us when we go. If not, the life that's left won't miss us.
Comment by Joy — October 5, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Joy, to Nick Matzke:
You're right. He isn't. What he's criticizing is the use of unnecessary quantum explanations for phenomena that are already well understood classically. You can, in principle, use quantum mechanics to confirm the structural integrity of a bridge, but such a move only obfuscates the real issues.
Name the folks who supposedly believe in zombies. The last time I challenged you on this, you couldn't come up with a single person.
Comment by keiths — October 5, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
There's some noise in here, sounds a little like a 'gator hissing. This one made it abundantly clear months and months ago that his only purpose here is to distract and diminish, to prevent constructive dialogue. I'd tell him to slither on back to his swamp where he's encouraged to insult, disparage and demean everyone here. But in my experience 'gators don't understand English.
In Florida we just called Animal Control.
Comment by Joy — October 5, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Hi Pez,
I thank you for the opportunity to reaffirm my explanation of what I call the Third Choice.
I have been very vocal and consistent about my embrace of Gould's NOMA. I have indicated that the Third Choice is a tool that can be used by either an Intelligent Designer or a random luck-of-the-draw from multiple universes.
This is even mentioned in the opening post of this thread.
It is the Third Choice precisely because neither randomness nor a designer is presumed.
However, if an ID proponent who rejects Gould's NOMA wishes to use the Third Choice to propose a single Truth for us all (both scientific and philosophical), I wouldn't object. In fact, I would be please even as I disagreed with the appropriateness of rejecting NOMA.
As to the question of whether a hypothesis must propose a designer in order to qualify as an ID hypothesis, I think there is plenty of precedence were that is not the case. Dembski has repeatedly offered flexibility in what is included under the ID rubric. Here is an example…
"To establish evolutionary interrelatedness invariably requires exhibiting similarities between organisms. Within Darwinism, there's only one way to connect such similarities, and that's through descent with modification driven by the Darwinian mechanism. But within a design-theoretic framework, this possibility, though not precluded, is also not the only game in town. It's possible for descent with modification instead to be driven by telic processes inherent in nature (and thus by a form of design)."
Another precedent is that Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis (EAM) has generally been considered an ID hypothesis. At the risk of having Joy correct me on my misunderstanding again, I suggest that the idea of consciousness at the cellular level via microtubules is supportive of EAM.
As for the definition of "design". I consider a Mandelbrot set to not only be an example of a design, but also to be designed by its equation.
As for the definition of "intelligent". We could start a whole new thread on that topic alone. You may consider free will to be a requirement for intelligence, but I don't.
In summary, the Third Choice doesn't inherently presume the existence of an Intelligent Designer, but that isn't supposed to be a requirement. The Third Choice deals directly with both design and consciousness. There is also an implication of a purposeful universe. The purpose of the teleological universe is to be consistent with itself.
If this doesn't satisfy your philosophical wishes, there isn't much I can do about that. Now, if you wish to outline your scientific observations, I would be more than happy to explore how they correspond with the Third Choice hypothesis.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Hi Zachrial and Keiths,
It looks like Zachriel rejects the Math Page article and keiths thinks the "…author of the Math Page article confirms that special relativity resolves the Twin Paradox."
This has become too much of a distraction.
For the record, I reject Zachriel's, Keiths' and Lasky's suggestion that Special Relativity is complete enough to explain the Twin's Paradox without an implicit or explicit preferential choice of reference frames. I embrace the Math Page article's assessment…
"As mentioned above, one of Einstein's two main two reasons for abandoning special relativity as a suitable framework for physics was the fact that, no less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" exists only (aside from its historical importance) as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the phenomenological justification for those formulas can only be found in the general theory."
If we continue to disagree, we continue to disagree. However, hopefully by now you understand my position even if you don't like it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
Then the ID critics are right. The only use for ID is to support a metaphysical presumption.
I had higher expectations than that. I still think it is possible that ID science has something to offer other than support for a political agenda publicized in the Wedge document.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Captain Thought Provoker: I have ordered the Navigator to make it appear the planet cluster is moving in a circular pattern relative to the ship. Side note, I find it interesting that when the navigator does this it looks like the entire universe is spinning at the same rate, fascinating.
[The Captain rolls two Dilithium Crystals in his hand, making an audible clicking sound.]Navigator: Sir, I assume you mean to keep the ship stationary relative to the system's primary star"”other than its rotation. That will make "a circular pattern relative to the ship". Or did you mean to match the survey crew's orbit?
Captain: Based on the ship's frame of reference, the survey crew will be constantly traveling at warp 0.9.
Navigator: But Captain, that's not quite correct. They are constantly accelerating. That means their relative velocity …
Captain:
[Glares.]Navigator: Sir, we have to integrate the …
Captain: Don't tell me what that means, Ensign! The Academy instructor didn't understand it, but continued to pretend he did. That experience frustrated me greatly.
[The Captain continues to roll the Dilithium Crystals in his hand, only much louder now.]Captain: That's probably why I'm spinning circles in this God Forsaken dust cloud instead of advancing my career at Star Fleet Headquarters.
[Shakes his fist in the air at some unseen ghost.]Navigator: But Captain, the calculations of time and supplies, the survival of crew…
Captain: Cast off the survey crew! Navigator …
Navigator:
[Stricken look.]Captain: Navigator!
Navigator: Sir?
[The clicking of Dilithium Crystals stops for a brief moment, then continues more methodically.]Captain: Navigator, just look at those stars and nebula revolving around us.
Comment by Zachriel — October 5, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Hi Zachriel,
lol
Good one. I knew you could lighten up if you tried.
BTW, for those that don't know. The two Dilithium Crystals bit was a parady of Humphrey Bogart's character in the movie, The Caine Mutiny.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Hi TP,
Great. So can a hammer.
That doesn't make it an ID proposal and it doesn't address the question ID proponents are asking. That is - is a random luck-of-the-draw universe capable of the producing the design we see?
As I said, Behe and Miller are way ahead of you in suggesting the possibility that the design is a direct result of choices at the quantum level. So to them you are offering nothing new.
And yet they disagree upon the evidences for this and what it means.
What ID does is claim to be able to detect design. Your proposal does not. It does not address the issue whatsoever. All you say is "if there is design, here's a way it may have been realized, if there isn't, here's a way that could be realized…". It is merely consistent with there being design or non-design, in the same way that a rock in a field may be there due to design or not.
But you actually go one step further when you suggest that your proposal not only can't distinguish between the two options, but that it is perfectly consistent with random luck-of-the-draw existence.
This is the same as someone saying that Darwinism is an ID proposal because a theistic evolutionist can tack on God without any reason otehr than his belief in that metaphysic if he so chooses.
That's not a definition and doesn't touch upon my questions (as did you neither touch upon my original questions even though you referred to them and were apparently addressing me). But thanks, I happen to think the properties of numbers indicate intelligent design as well.
Regardless, you say your ideas support ID.
In ID the case is made that randomness/luck/chance coupled with law/necessity cannot account for the design in nature.
You claim that your detail-lacking proposal can't tell us if it can or not.
ID says that among the myriad options available the probability of arriving at that design via randomness/luck/chance coupled with law/necessity and devoid of choice is prohibitive.
You seem to claim, and refuse to clarify, that in your proposal conscious decisions are an illusion and choices are determined. Hence, there are no choices. I asked for which observers this could hold, and you have not said.
Your proposal is consistent with the failure of Darwinism to explain the apparent design and it is consistent with its ability to do so.
It makes no requirement of the evidence whatsoever.
Does "consciousness" make choices?
Not only does it not inherently presume an Intelligent Designer, it is perfectly compatible with no intelligence and no design. It has nothing to say about ID.
Your asking both ID and Darwinist extremists (whomever they may be) to agree to this hypothesis is like asking them to agree to an hypothesis about the fat content in yogurt - it does not touch upon the differences in their own hypotheses.
I'm not looking for correspondence. We covered that quite thoroughly in your previous boast about your details when you accepted all of the scientific findings and models of ID theorists and used them as supporting evidence for your proposal without being able to add anything necessary of value.
As was pointed out in that previous thread where you said this - you are violating NOMA and making a metaphysical and philosophical claim here.
What is "purpose" What does it mean to have purpose devoid of intent, will, choice, etc?
And what evidence has demonstrated that the universe has a purpose?
Comment by Pez — October 5, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Joy wrote:
That's the sound of hot air escaping after pretense is punctured by a pointed question.
Comment by keiths — October 5, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
TP:
How convenient for you, an ID critic. Unfortunately, you've got it entirely backwards. The only use for NDS is to support a metaphysical presumption.
See how that works, depending entirely on where you're coming from? That's called "Dueling Metaphysics," and power to force a single metaphysic on everyone is the game being played by both ID supporters and NDS authoritarians. Moreover, you're playing too.
Politics is just politics. You can't cure it. What I'm seeing is that you want to enforce a recycled NOMA wall between sociopolitical and metaphysical combatants that they never bought from its original owner. Ain't going to happen.
Consciousness is a sideline debate. Orch-OR is just an extrapolation to universal fundamentals that may or may not apply or be demonstrable objectively. Someday, maybe. But not now. If evolution is conscious, it's intelligently designed. You'll never get the NDS die-hards to accept that, and religiously motivated IDers won't include Penrose in their liturgy.
Comment by Joy — October 5, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
You are looking for a negative. There are more than two answers. Disproving chance hypotheses doesn't mean squat.
Then why didn't Behe talk about quantum physics in Edge of Evolution? I wanted him to. I think he should have.
I disagree. The Third Choice makes predictions based on a presumption that the universe is designed. You and I may disagree over the definition of "designed", but that is another issue.
ID is about detecting design, not detecting design causation.
That is another possible causation of the design.
For a while Dembski and other folks at Uncommon Descent were making a big deal that Ken Miller's ideas fit inside ID's big tent.
If that is all it takes to be an ID hypothesis, the Third Choice does that in spades. The Third Choice offers empirical evidence that randomness/luck/chance can not account for the design in nature because there is no natural occurring randomness.
No scientific hypothesis can disprove a supernatural proposition. Fairies, pixie dust, deities and multi-universes can be proposed by anyone and science can't disprove them because"¦ wait for it"¦ they are SUPERNATURAL.
Which is what the scientific hypothesis called the Third Choice suggests based on empirical evidence. It can say nothing about metaphysical constructs that aren't testable.
This depends on definitions. There is an illusion of choices. FAPP we make choices. Our choices are interconnected with quantum effects separated both in space and time.
A lack of free will is a tough pill to swallow, but science has been here before with Newtonian Physics.
I disagree. Empirically the Third Choice has everything to do with design and consciousness.
So, you have been checking up on my After the Bar Closes comments have you?
Good.
Yes, I think suggesting purpose is a metaphysical and a philosophical claim. It is a violation of NOMA. A minor violation, IMO, but a violation none the same.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
I am a critic of the ID Movement. I am a critic of the use of science for political purposes.
I am a supporter of something I think of as ID Science.
This thread is an example of this support.
What about the IDers that are motivated by science and empirical evidence?
If it comes down to supporting your side in the dueling metaphysics and supporting Penrose-Hameroff, which will you choose?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Hi Pez,
Excuse the belated add on.
My first statement should have read…
Disproving chance hypotheses doesn't mean squat WITHOUT AN ALTERNATIVE.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Hi TP,
No, I had had enough of such forums long ago. I'm talking about our previous discussions.
Your smiley doesn't change the fact that, against your constant remonstrations, you are violating NOMA, as you admit.
Of course it does.
This is exactly why you embraced Dembski's UPB and Behe's arguments in EoE and rolled them into the evidences you use to justify your claim.
Because ID is about detecting design. He didn't talk about hammers either. Your proposed mechanism is irrelevant to the detection of design.
That's what I just said. Therefore, your add-on regarding your belief in how the design was implemented (or how random/chance/luck-of-the-draw universes unfolded) has no bearing upon whether or not an ID theorist feels he can detect design and does nothing to compel acceptance.
That was in regard to the fact that Miller was alluding to evidence that design is detectable (cosmological ID and evidence of providence), not because he was tacking on a metaphysical claim where a naturalistic explanation already existed.
Meanwhile, the ID critic was quick to argue that such was not an apologetic for ID for the very reason that they see the "theistic" in theistic evolution as superfluous - as is your proposal.
Then where did the luck-of-the draw universe come from?
How was it generated to be drawn if not by a blind, purposeless, unguided, unplanned process?
I didn't say anything about … wait for it … the SUPERNATURAL (although I do love all-caps). By the way, you are doing metaphysics and philosophy again and not science.
How can it when you affirmed (and confirmed below) that there is no such thing as choice?
Yes, an illusion, as I suspected.
Then your proposal is not an ID proposal as I outlined above, and as you claimed it was.
And why do you keep saying "interconnected" if what you mean is causally determined?
Where does the regress of causes end?
You claim a form of "design and consciousness" in a luck-of-the-draw universe, where all events are causally determined and there is only an illusion of choice and no real chooser.
As opposed to Dembski/Behe ID where they say that nature has too many options available to have arrived at the choices which lead to the apparent design (apparent to both you and me) and where purposeful choice is the determining factor. Your proposal does not accord with this.
I do appreciate your admission that you recognize the design and that the arguments of the ID theorists carry weight with you.
I even applaud your attempt to find a way to explain this empirical evidence to your own satisfaction (I tend to enjoy quantum physics arguments myself - have you read Tipler yet?)
What I disagree with is your boast that you have something more detailed and scientific than the very ID arguments which you are using to bolster your case and the presumption that it is due to a metaphysical bias that people will not join hands with you. You have not offered a different choice, or another option, as has been pointed out to you by several people other than myself.
[edit]
Your belated add-on doesn't change anything.
Comment by Pez — October 5, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Hi All,
Has anyone heard/seen anything on the Nelson/Ruse debate?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Thought Provoker:
No scientific hypothesis can disprove a natural proposition either.
But science can certainly disprove supernatural propositions.
Here's one: on the 18th day of each month, Satan's angels slaughter all blue-eyed children in selected small towns in Texas using chainsaws.
That's certainly disprovable scientifically
Multi-universes are natural entities if they exist.
Natural is probably de facto (though perhaps not at some ideal limit we have not yet reached) a broader category than scientifically detectable. For example, rational consciousness and agency are natural phenomena, but not scientifically detectable, if by the latter term one means something which is already postulated by the physical sciences.
This is the basic problem affecting the scientific status of all of the various ID hypotheses, including yours. We need to develop a scientific theory of minds in general, and whether this can ever be done adequately and rigorously enough is an open question. The real value of ID is that it raises this question, and in so doing it may precipitate a paradigm-shift in science even greater than that precipitated by quantum mechanics.
Observability is not the issue, since science already posits plenty of unobservable entities (gluons, quarks, gravitational fields, etc). The issue is what precisely it is among observable phenomena that justifies theoretical mental entities being incorporated within the purview of prediction-yielding theories. Psychology, sociology, history, and economics already hypothesize mental agents, but their predictive power is very imperfect. Once we are clearer on this generic issue, then we can move forward with, or abandon as hopeless, more specific ID predictive hypotheses.
But I myself see no reason in principle why God cannot be postulated as part of a scientific hypothesis, any more than any other mind, such as the mind of an Egyptian pharoah, cannot be postulated as part of a scientific hypothesis, say with respect to the construction of the Pyramids.
Comment by stunney — October 5, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
October 5th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
stunney,
I've been waiting for someone to say this, and I agree entirely. It's what keeps me both skeptical yet rivetted when it comes to ID.
Comment by nullasalus — October 5, 2007 @ 7:14 pm