God and Chance
by MikeGeneTT member Nick (not Matzke) outlined his views as a theistic evolutionist. He summarizes as follows:
I'm content with the label "theistic evolutionist," and I believe that:
a) God is the Creator;
b) the history and process by which God created living things is best explained by modern evolutionary biology, rather than "Intelligent Design" in its various incarnations;
c) that process included events that we (correctly) perceive as chance or the results of natural selection, but
d) those events were nevertheless known to God "before" the creation of the Universe, the universe is sustained by God's will, and nothing happens contrary to his will.
I bring this up because this is very close to my own theological views. I would quibble about (b) because I am not convinced modern evolutionary biology and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive and keep an eye on ID for reasons I have explained before. But perhaps more interesting is point c). From my experience, many theists seem uncomfortable with chance playing a significant role in history. But I think God works through chance. What say you?
March 27th, 2008 at 12:49 am
I don't believe one can argue that chance is fundamental. Rather, chance is context dependent: i.e., chance depends on an a-priori sample space, its boundary condition. Surely, chance can be designed, for example throwing dice, but this does not reduce the dependency on the prior context. The sample space returns to the fabric of space and time, and while this fabric is more fundamental I see nothing that would let me leap to the conclusion that chance is fundamental. Chance is only a caricature of the space-time fabric.
Comment by Stephen — March 27, 2008 @ 12:49 am
March 27th, 2008 at 1:07 am
I believe God is eternal, defined as 'without time'. I think perhaps an eternal perspective is one where probability is always equal to one. I don't quite know how else to grasp a view which encapsulates our current space and time: past, present, future.
Chance, it seems to me in the simplest terms, is our way of measuring or factoring uncertain or unknown future events. I think it is more a measure of our lacking perspective than God 'using' chance. A being which can simultaneously 'be' at the beginning, middles and end of space-time does not merely tweak one end until it unfolds at the other end as desired. Such a being is in and through and over and under all at once. It is a time spanning sovereignty of being and effect which cannot possibly know 'chance' as we know it and does not look forward or backward. We cannot hope to grasp this perspective.
(and if we are indeed created images with our own eternal component, each ought to spend due diligence chewing on the implications)
Comment by todd — March 27, 2008 @ 1:07 am
March 27th, 2008 at 6:03 am
I guess it all depends how one defines chance.
Comment by inunison — March 27, 2008 @ 6:03 am
March 27th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Mike:
Probably due to background and experiences, I don't believe in "chance" (or even "coincidence"). Sure, unpredicted and unpredictable things happen all the time, on all levels of reality, but that mostly gets assigned to chance because we didn't see it coming or can't trace its sequence or don't know its cause. Which seems more like our limitation than any "law of nature." Synchronicities of experiential quality are usually trying to tell us something.
Of course, I'm not so big on "laws of nature" either, see them sort of like the Pirate's Code… more like 'guidelines' (or habit). That view comes from seeing some very, very odd things no 'law' would have pre-ordained, but which indeed did have probability from the git-go.
Does God work through the appearance of chance? Hmmm… experience suggests to me more that God works through consciousness, and consciousness works through the world of manifestation. If I don't recognize that action when it's aimed in my direction, then I'm not paying attention. Doesn't mean he's not sending signals! §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 27, 2008 @ 9:41 am
March 27th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Chance is never a cause. There is no efficient cause by that name.
Chance is better understood as our description of the intersection of two or more uncorrelated, causally unconnected streams of events (or at least not tightly connected, or causally unconnected as far as we know). Each stream is fully caused, whether according to natural law or by something extra-natural.
On that view, chance is never fundamental, and it's fair to view of it as a way of measuring or factoring uncertain or unknown events (not just future, in my view, but that's not a big disagreement). Joy calls it something we didn't see coming or don't know its cause, and that's consistent with this view as well.
The main thing is to guard ourselves from treating chance as a cause. That would be seriously inconsistent with theism. Thankfully we can see that it's inconsistent with the rest of reality, too.
Comment by TomG — March 27, 2008 @ 10:20 am
March 27th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I think a belief in a God that is outside of time, knows the outcome of all events, and set the universe in motion to unfold exactly as it did, with no chance from his perspective, but including much chance from our perspective due to our lack of knowledge, if perfectly feasible. Whether this God matches Yahoweh of the Bible is a different issue for a different blog (or at least different topic).
Comment by One Brow — March 27, 2008 @ 10:27 am
March 27th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Mike,
I think it would be helpful if you could expand on this a little.
Comment by chunkdz — March 27, 2008 @ 11:30 am
March 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
One Brow:
I agree basically with you here that a deity of this sort is perfectly feasible, and it quite well matches mystical traditions underlying a majority of humanity's religious traditions polytheistic, monotheistic, non-theistic and pantheistic. A very baseline apprehension of the 'More' that's out there, in here, and working in the world, that gets extrapolated to cultural proclivities and traditions as formalized religion.
This is why I don't closely claim any particular religious system, though I grew up with your basic orthodox Christianity (Scottish political version). I think they're all pretty much about the same baseline apprehensions, then human cultural peculiarities and political nit-picks get incorporated to corrupt. It's an inevitable thing, happens to all collective human endeavors eventually.
I've been saying for years that our 'Ultimate Answers' will finally boil down to the true nature of time, which we honestly do not know much about. We experience time and observe time, but we are creatures bound by time too, and that necessarily limits our view. Some say it's entirely illusion, but my creaky arthritis and increasing wrinkles (and experiences with death) inform me it's sure enough real FAPP to count. Some say it's entirely a product of consciousness, the way we process information. Again, the stark reality of birth, development, mid-life, old age and death makes a total mockery of this view. Time is most certainly real, FAPP.
I like to think of its FAPP nature as analogous to the three states of matter - the past is solid, the present is liquid, and the future is gaseous - as yet unformed. But I am not foolish enough to believe FAPP is all there is to it, it's just what we experience and observe of it. Now that physics has given us a couple of 'extra' forms of matter, we might consider how those fit into the puzzle. At the same time [pun intended], it's not difficult to conceive of the possibility that our experience and observations are a subset of a totality that we do not experience or observe. At least, not normally. That's where the mystic's experiences of altered states and expansions of time fit in, to inform us of 'More'.
So long as reality points toward a greater number of dimensions in existence than those our physical bodies have evolved to experience, we can't rule anything out. Including the active existence of consciousness in any or all of them.
Comment by Joy — March 27, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Mike Gene,
Your ideas on God and the way the universe works are similiar to British genius and polymath Charles Babbage. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Charles Babbage was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Oxford (Stephen Hawking now holds the chair), Babbage proposed that God programmed the universe (front-loading??) with stocastic variables (the values of which are supplied by free human acts, thereby rendering God the source of all power but allowing free will and an element of chance.
"The polymathic Charles Babbage"”of calculating machine fame"”made God a divine programmer, he argued that argue that God did not tinker with creation to make the myriad forms, but rather
that all those forms were latent in the original design of the laws
of nature themselves, and the "engine" of the universe proceeded to
manifest from the original moment without intervention."
Welcome to the Machine — The Babbage Machine
Comment by Observer — March 27, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
PS:
When you say that "you still keep your eye on ID", do you mean you are less certain of the Design Matrix thesis now? I find this confusing.
Forgive me, I have yet to read the Design Matrix. It will probably be amongst the first things I do over summer vacation though.
Comment by Observer — March 27, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Theologically speaking, I don't see a lot of difference between the ID position and the theistic evolution position. Ultimately, I see the theistic evolution position as an ID position. If God esstablished the laws that, of necessity, produce us, or some intelligence like us, then there is design in the laws themselves.
I hold to an agency style ID position for one reason alone — because the scientific evidence seems to call for it.
Comment by bFast — March 27, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Interestingly, even though Ken Miller doesn't consider himself to be a theistic evolutionist, his book, Finding Darwin's God, helped me to see theistic evolution as a theologically acceptable position. According to his view in the book, God has allowed free will not only to human beings, but also to quantum events. Miller thinks (or thought?) that God had fine-tuned the constants and laws of nature, and that plus chance ( the free will granted to nature), was sufficient to guarantee that eventually there would be life. And eventually that life would evolve into intelligent life. It's been a while since I read his book, but if I remember, Miller thought that even though God did not intervene in nature, He had intervened in human affairs (though my memory may be faulty here).
So theologically I have no argument with Miller (or at least as I remember his position). What I see as the problem is that there seems to be more signs of intelligent activity in the origin of life than can be accounted for by the laws of nature and chance alone. Whether or not we can ever say there is enough evidence to scientifically conclude design is another question. But Miller seemed to think there were strong theological grounds against such a conclusion. But I think his arguments were faulty.
Meanwhile, I am curious whether Nick Matzke thinks there are theological objections to ID.
Comment by Bilbo — March 27, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Aside from being unsure of just what comprises true 'chance', I'd probably find my views on par with MikeGene's. Closer still to Babbage's view - maybe it's because I'm the product of my age, but God as programmer seems an apt, grasping depiction of said God (Catholic as I am). In fact, I think advancements in computation have provided an extraordinary boost to the whole theistic concept, even if no one's yet written the book that lets everyone know as much.
Comment by nullasalus — March 27, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Nullasalus: I like Babbage too!
I think Dr. Dembski wrote in THE DESIGN REVOLUTION that his ideas might right on the money.
Especially if "Complete series of transitional fossils never existed."
Then the mechanism that drives forth the sudden bursts of creativity, Body
Plans, could be the result of the realizing of the design of the cosmic computer program ala Babbage.
If we are living in Babbage's "GREAT COSMIC MACHINE" then were are we headed? Perhaps the machine will eventually end in an OMEGA POINT.
http://www.math.tulane.edu/~ti...
Comment by Observer — March 27, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
"Babbage published his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise putting forward the thesis that God had the omnipotence and foresight to create as a divine legislator, making laws (or programs) which then produced species at the appropriate times, rather than continually interfering with ad hoc miracles each time a new species was required." http://www.charlesbabbage.net/
COOL STUFF
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
- Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics)
Comment by Observer — March 27, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
An even more interesting conjecture vis-a-vis the "Babbage hypothesis" is that changes in the underlying program might be made "on the fly" as the result of events happening in real time. This would mean that the "creation" produced by the "program" would quite literally be an "evolving creation", yet not in any way contradict the idea that Something set up the underlying program at the beginning.
Indeed, if one takes this perspective, the "original program" need not be particularly complex at all. Every subsequent event could potentially modify the original program (think integrated compatible subroutines), and the process would be quite literally open-ended in a way that would be compatible with a non-deterministic evolving universe.
It would also present no fundamental inconsistencies with current thought in evolutionary biology.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 27, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Indeed, if the "evolving program" hypothesis allows for constant "upgrades" then the Programmer itself could be part of the program, becoming more effective through constant feedback with the "creation" that arose from Its own program.
Think jazz improv, beginning with an extraordinarily simple theme, with 13.7 billion years of evolving variations, each reinforcing the next and providing the "ground" for the next variation.
Now that would be a theory that I would find VERY interesting.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 27, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
I prefer classical theism personally, for a variety of reasons. I also believe that "miracles" like the Israelites crossing the Red Sea was providentially programmed into nature by God.
Coincidences are not really coincidences but part of the divine plan.
Niels Bohr proved that human beings (intelligent observers) can by acting effect the entire universe. So there is a give and take between mankind, the cosmic machine and God.
Comment by Observer — March 27, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I think most accurate description can be summed up as such. I believe in a Creator who laid the foundations for the entire future at the beginning of time. Though there are various contingincies and all types of different possibile futures, God being all-knowing must know them all. So I guess that means that we do have free will, God still knows how it will all turn out.
I'm not a professional theologian, but it sure is fun to ponder tis stuff.
Comment by Observer — March 27, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Bilbo:
My problem with chance - as cause or effect, of which it can't be either - may have to do with my problem with the whole "necessity + chance" reiteration of RM-NS. I have the very same problem with the label random. Everything has a cause, even if we don't know what it is. All the range of probabilities does is give us the point spread on what is possible to appear from one moment to the next, even in complexities aggregated over a sum of histories. Things aren't really separate, they just appear so.
I just don't see how you can have an interventionist god that doesn't intervene in nature. Unless we are 'unnatural'. Though thinking about it, I can't reject the idea that if mammals hadn't evolved into us, dinosaurs might well have evolved into some sort of dino version of us. And I'd expect God to intervene in their affairs as easily as in ours. So maybe that 'image' thing doesn't have much to do with our animal nature, if we accept that our animal nature evolved to progressively express higher and higher level consciousness. It might have more to do with what is expressed than with the form through which it expresses.
Allen MacNeill:
What you describe is consistent with EAM, which I've long suspected would be where science would end up per the incoming evidence, gathered via ever-improving technology. EAM is also consistent with front-loading. You're right that it doesn't present fundamental inconsistencies with current evolutionary theory, which is fairly scattered right now due to incoming evidence gathered via ever-improving technology. That is, let's face it, inconsistent with RM-NS. Lots of add-ons don't fix the root problem.
At any rate, the die-hard defenders of the root problem are ideologically committed and will brook NO dissension. This is why it's called "Orthodoxy" by upstart researchers who for decades have been publishing that incoming evidence and pointing out where it 'challenges' current theory. IDers didn't make up telic design out of whole cloth, or even of vestment cloth, even if some movers and shakers in the 'movement' - including scientists who signed on - are as ideologically committed as the DDs [DarwinDefenders]. This is the aspect of these debates that is no more than Dueling Metaphysics. Science can't adjudicate that. It's not chartered to do so.
So even if a telic design theoretic that was compatible with current evolutionary thought and incoming biological evidence were put forward, we'd get the same old objections from the usual suspects pretending to speak for big-s Science. That's human nature at work. Perhaps we are indeed 'unnatural'.
Comment by Joy — March 27, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Except for the self-existent.
Those who have an ear, let them hear this ultimate "koan."
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 28, 2008 @ 8:55 am
March 28th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Joy,
I like the 3 states analogy. I wonder where plasma fits in?
You are correct, I think, about the nature of time. Our existence is bound within it, which is why I try to keep that in mind when mulling metaphysics, esp. as it relates to the Judeo/Christian/Muslim deity and apparent inconsistencies in those ancient religious texts. (Though I do believe Islam to be an apostate view of Abraham's god, which is why I mean the Judeo-Christian texts exclusively). Most of those inconsistencies can be explained in light of eternity. I distinguish literal bible words from figurative by asking what they are describing. Any passage which was not directly witnessed by the author (or related by direct witnesses, is likely figurative). From the creation myth - given in a vision, to the revelation of the end, also a vision - are fully symbolic. The stories of the Tribe in Kings and Chronicles, I take as literal reports (whether embellished or not is another level of inquiry).
For a YEC (by the way, what is FEPP?), who insists the figurative creation story must be literal, this is why I think they are wrong. I call it the error of the Scribes and Pharisees, who were Hebrew leaders tasked with discerning the coming Messiah - foretold by prophets in figurative terms. They allowed their present circumstances to shape their interpretation of the symbols and thus missed the humble man on a donkey because they were looking for a savior to throw off the yoke of Rome.
Anyway, to make a long post longer, I offer this letter from CS Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, which first illuminated the time boundedness problem of human perception to me:
Comment by todd — March 28, 2008 @ 11:20 am
March 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Understand the "The Enemy" in the above quote is God. The letter is purportedly from a senior tempter (demon) to a nephew, giving advice.
The key passage as it relates to time and our apprehension:
I find this interesting - that water be analogous to the present, the present being the state of human experience 'full of eternal rays' and the eternal God being referred in the bible as 'living water'. Is it sweet confirmation bias on my part? Probably. But interesting to me, nonetheless.
Comment by todd — March 28, 2008 @ 11:29 am
March 28th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Hi Mike
I was just reading (and enjoying) your new book and came upon this regarding "chance"..
Note the statement…
This is not logically possible!! This second "argument" is dead now and has been dead since 500 BC and it will always be dead. It is dead because the statement is a direct violation of logic. "Chance/randomness" is the opposite of "order." The statement "the universe was ordered by chance" is the logical equivalent of the statement "my computer screen was lit by darkness" (darkness is the opposite of light) or "my home was heated (infused with thermal energy) by refrigeration/coldness (the removal or absence of thermal energy)." "Hot" and "cold" are opposites. Nothing can be "heated by coldness." Nothing can be "ordered by chance."
Science requires strict definitions. As long as the human race refuses to scientifically/strictly define "randomness/chance" as the absence and opposite of both "order" and "form" as in "in-FORM-ation" the 2500 year old "debate" will just continue ad millennium.
"Chance/randomness" is the absence of order/constraint/targeting/specificity just as zero degrees Kelvin is the absence of thermal energy. The "debate" is being kept alive through the use of deceptive order-adulterated system examples "“ none of which has ever produced the logically forbidden "order by chance." By drawing from a pool of random variations in order-adulterated biological systems, NS is drawing from a pool of nothingness. Swiss cheese is produced by a cheese-making process, it is not produced by the holes(nothingness). While Swiss cheese does indeed include holes, these holes cannot be logically invoked to explain the origin of the cheese. The "absence of cheese" (holes) cannot explain the emergence of cheese. The "absence of order" (chance/randomness) cannot explain the emergence of order/stabilization/arrangements/configurations "“ the universe and/or biological order.
Now, there will be a quiz on this information — but not for another 2500 years. This will give everyone some time to think about what I just said
And Mike, you are right about the "debate" being ancient, I just wanted to point out the catastrophic flaw at the core of "door number two."
Comment by William Brookfield — March 28, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I am actually a big fan of randomness/chance for reasons which will be explained in detail in the summer Creation Research Society Quarterly - but here I will give you a short summary. The difference, though, is whether or not you are talking about statistical randomness or philosophical randomness. Philosophical randomness means that event X occurs outside of control mechanisms - similar in meaning to "haphazard". On the other hand, statistical randomness means that the event occurs with some very specific mathematical measures. This property of statistical chance is used by engineers of all stripes to actually regularize patterns. For example, the Quicksort algorithm in computer science uses randomness in order to make its average-case time much more predictable.
The difference is that engineers use chance as a tool which is focused on a problem, rather than letting it run amok. I think there are signals and systems that keep change mostly in check within the genome, but these same systems also signal which parts of the genome can be modified. Thus, the randomness is _constrained_. And, in fact, a deterministic outcome is the same as a randomized outcome with a sufficiently reduced set of possibilities (i.e. down to 1).
Comment by johnnyb — March 28, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Allen -
1) "Indeed, if one takes this perspective, the "original program" need not be particularly complex at all."
I think you are incorrect. I think that this perspective actually requires quite a complex original program. It has to be able to (a) survive as is [a complex task in ny environment] and (b) funnel information about its environment into changes for itself. [b] especially is an especially difficult problem because the chaotic nature of computational algorithms will mean that it has to have a lot of this information pre-coded to begin with.
2) "if the "evolving program" hypothesis allows for constant "upgrades" then the Programmer itself could be part of the program, becoming more effective through constant feedback with the "creation" that arose from Its own program."
I am taking this as being a slightly different perspective than what you put forward in the first quote. If so, what is the difference between this hypothesis and Progressive Creationism?
Comment by johnnyb — March 28, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
In science, it usually means lack of correlation. So mutation is observed to be random *with respect to fitness*.
Comment by Zachriel — March 28, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Joy:
In Finding Darwin's God, Ken Miller rejected this idea, and accepted the view that quantum events don't have causes, but were somehow "free." Frankly, I have no idea whether his view of quantum physics is correct or not. Joy, you're the physicist, and I'm willing to take your word on it, if you say that Miller was mistaken.
But I'm wondering about human free will, which I know you see as being really free. How would you reconcile your statement above with you views on that?
Comment by Bilbo — March 28, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Hi William,
I saw on your blog that your wife was reading it. Did she like it? As for the Dobson dude, just send him to Telic Thoughts with his questions.
Comment by MikeGene — March 28, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Hi, todd. I'm not at all sure where plasma or 'super-ordered' states would fit into the picture per time analogies. Then there's the state of matter where it no longer exists or takes up room in spacetime at all, leaving just its mass behind. Information loss - Singularity.
Still, eternity is all around us, in us, through us all the time. I like Lewis' conception of the 'liquid' present being shot through with eternity, because that's fair within the Perennial Philosophy of the sages. There is where reality gets actualized, formed of formlessness, to solidify as past history. I also like his setting of sin in the future where hope, desire, fear, avarice, lust and ambition lurk. The elusive goals sought in the mists of possibility as yet unreal.
We might have been anything that isn't an evolutionary dead end on the consciousness meter, so long as that which is expressed reaches a point where the revelation of 'More' can take root.
Comment by Joy — March 28, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I would ask him: if quantum events are "free" how is it that mass quantities of them taken together conform to very tight statistically predictable form? How free can they be given that?
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 28, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I like his "where time touches eternity." The ever-present "now."
Even Stephen Hawking's description of a "static four dimensional universe that simple IS" is lacking to anyone with a consciousness. Even Hawking himself had to ask, "what is it that breathes fire into the equations?" Indeed. Only a conscious thing (like Hawking himself) could ever ask a question like that. (And I ask, what makes consciousness "flow" through this static spacetime? If Hawkings if right, it would mean consciousness transcends spacetime.)
There is still hope for people like Hawking.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 28, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Bilbo:
Miller is confused by the statistical randomness of quantum events - their unpredictability from this end. There is only a certain set of probabilities that apply to each indeterminate superposition. That the likelihood is 50-50 doesn't mean something is actually 'free', because it's only free to become this or that. We do not know why it becomes this rather than that. This doesn't mean there's no cause. It just means we can't see it. What we can do is weigh the probabilities with habit. Because the sustenance of the universe boils down mostly to habit. On the quantum level time has no directional application.
This is a material simplification, of course, as some systems have more than 2 things they might become. Still the probabilities are constrained within the limits of that which a thing may be, and weighted by habit (which we call 'law'). Even in something so definitionally random as radioactive decay is highly constrained. We cannot predict which isotopes will decay because we aren't able to measure states in individual isotopes. But it's a sure bet that it's either this or that when we look. If it's this, it didn't decay but remained in the next moment what it was the moment before. If it's that, we know ahead of time precisely what 'that' is.
Quantum events have causes - Penrose hypothesizes a Planck-level spacetime separation collapsed by gravity. It must still collapse into this or that. Collapse itself isn't amenable to our ability to observe and measure. The constraints of probability is what allows physical engineers to be contemplating quantum computational devices. We call it 'random' even though we know it's really not. It's just unpredictable (thus indeterministic).
Humans enjoy a great deal of freedom, but even that's highly constrained. By all the factors that came before and all that is present now. That apparently causal collapse of consciousness (that seems by all reckoning to determine what is real moment to moment) often has more than 2 probabilities. It's a highly complex system, maintained mostly by habit of matter to be in the next moment what it is right now. But it could become something else, and that does happen. It's the exceptions to 'law' that make us aware of 'law' being mostly habit.
The ultimate freedom human beings possess is also that which makes us prone to sin - our ability to project our personal visions of the future onto what is in fact merely a mist of probability. We choose. It never quite works out the way we plan, so at some point along the way we become prisoners of the past (and our failure to actualize the reality we'd planned for). Traps us in an endless loop of recycled karma, as Siddhartha would say. Or, as I've quoted before…
A handful of nothing is all that I need,
it contains plus and minus everything.
The odd combinations are what make up
the world that you see before you.
In one hand I hold what people call good
the rest I hold in the other.
But these are just symbols to the perfected minds
of which we are but mere reflections.
I was born to synthesize
energize and catalyze,
I was born to synthesize.
Like waves on still water the forms reappear
quickly erasing the ones before.
But forms like these are born only to die
the life in them lives forever…
§;o)
Comment by Joy — March 28, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I just want to clear some stuff up. I was ridiculously sloppy last night, when I commented here on Babbage.
1. I do believe The Exodus was a real event in history. Now whether the actual Hebrew for Red Sea is "Sea of Reads", I don't know. Wasn't there.
My motivation was to show that the Creator programmed the universe to unfold in a way in which miraculous events would not break the laws of nature. Not sure if I am explaining this effectively.
2. Niels Bohr — Quantum Theory. Apparently we as observers are 'intimately' linked with the cosmos. You know like Jungian synchronicity and if a butterfly flaps it's wings in Oregon there is a typhoon in Tonga. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
3. The Universe is supposivly more like a cloud than a mechanistic system. According to James Jeans and John Polkinghorne.
Comment by Observer — March 28, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Hi Bilbo,
I agree. In fact, the science of the 1950-70s was far less ID-friendly than the science of 2008. Advances in molecular, cell, and evolutionary biology have resurrected the attractiveness of a teleological view, while the poor track record of abiogenesis research during the same time serves to amplify this.
Comment by MikeGene — March 28, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
If we flip a perfectly random coin, we can predict, with statistical measures of certainty, the probability distribution; e.g., as the number of flips increase, we can expect the results to approach 50% (After 1000 flips, we have a 95% confidence the results will be between 47% and 53%.)
In fact, every scientific experiment confirms the 'random' nature of quantum phenomena. There is no way to predict which will be the next atom to distintegrate in a lump of uranium; but we can predict, with statistical measures of certainty, the number that will decay over a given interval.
Comment by Zachriel — March 28, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Zachriel, you are grossly misinformed.
This is typical though of materialist claims.
Aren't you a biologist?
Comment by Observer — March 28, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Joy,
If you've never read Screwtape, I recommend it as a masterpiece of subtle apologia and deep spiritual insight.
Comment by todd — March 29, 2008 @ 12:13 am
March 29th, 2008 at 10:34 am
kornbelt888:
Statistically random processes actually have VERY predictable long-term features. In fact, in order to be statistically random, ALL algorithmically-describable infinite subsets have to have the same statistical outcomes in order for a process to qualify as random.
A good intro to the subject is:
Randomness is Unpredictability
Zachriel:
"In science, it usually means lack of correlation. So mutation is observed to be random *with respect to fitness*."
That is basically how I propose that it be tested in my paper - if mutations as observed are more likely to be correlated with fitness than arbitrary changes then the mutations are not random with respect to fitness. I also show some preliminary research into why this is reasonable, and in one of my next papers I'm going to use Dembski's "Active Information" metric to estimate the amount of information the cell contributes to its own change.
Comment by johnnyb — March 29, 2008 @ 10:34 am
March 29th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Genetic mutation is *not* random with respect to the genome. Some areas of the genome are much more likely to transmit novel mutations to new generations than others.
The original research on random mutations (with respect to fitness) dates to the mid-twentieth century with Luria-Delbrück (1943) then the Lederbergs (1952). Directed mutation has more recently been suggested by Foster and Cairns (1992), leading to increased scrutiny. The empirical support has generally been weak or ambiguous. Some correlations have been shown in the *rate* of mutations associated with stress.
Hope that helps.
Comment by Zachriel — March 29, 2008 @ 11:05 am
March 29th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Screwtape is now definitely on my list, todd!
Comment by Joy — March 29, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Precisely my point.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 29, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Joy writes:
Zachriel then writes:
Are you two contradicting each other? I'm becoming very confused.
Comment by Bilbo — March 29, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Joy, you write:
Yes, I'm not free to flap my arms and soar into the air like a bird; run as fast as a speeding bullet; be more powerful than a locomotive; or leap tall buildings with a single bound. Heck, I have trouble figuring out my income taxes. Yet I think I'm free to write this post or not. It is not caused entirely by previous conditions and events conforming to physical laws. Do quantum events have the same kind of freedom?
Comment by Bilbo — March 29, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Zachriel:
"Genetic mutation is *not* random with respect to the genome. Some areas of the genome are much more likely to transmit novel mutations to new generations than others."
I didn't argue that it was or that anyone was saying it was. The point is that _if_ the changes are random with respect to fitness, then they should give the _same_ fitness benefit or detriment as one that _is_ random with respect to the genome. That's how you would measure it whether or not the mutation was random with respect to fitness. Randomness with respect to the genome gives you the baseline which allows you to measure randomness with respect to fitness for mutations which are not rando m with respect to the genome.
My paper covers Lederberg and Luria-Delbruck extensively. Basically, they show that it is indeed statistically random, but not that the set of possibilities within the statistically random set are random with respect to fitness.
"Directed mutation has more recently been suggested by Foster and Cairns (1992), leading to increased scrutiny. The empirical support has generally been weak or ambiguous. Some correlations have been shown in the *rate* of mutations associated with stress."
Are you familiar with the somatic hypermutation of antibody cells? The mutations only occur in the _correct half_ of the _correct gene_ and _nowhere else_. That excludes over 99% of the genome from mutation and ONLY concentrates mutations on the V-region of the antibody gene where it could do some good. That is not random with respect to fitness.
Another one is Barry Hall's experiments.
Caporale has two books on this subject.
Barbara Wright has a whole series of inquiry on how the genome marks sites for changes using semi-palindromes, and modulates mutation through transcription. Search pubmed for: "Wright BE"[Author] mutation
There's quite a bit of other data out there as well, but that should get you started,
Comment by johnnyb — March 29, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Statistical properties of random variables can be derived mathematically. Like the properties of integers. So what point exactly are you making?
Yes. Based on the assumption of local realism, violations of Bell's Inequalty imply that there are no hidden variables. Quantum events are truly random.
That's an equivocation on the word "freedom".
Comment by Zachriel — March 29, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Bilbo:
Yeah, I was just sure I could fly off the garage roof when I was 11, if I just did it right. I could fly fine, it was the landings that were rough. Eventually I found that the 'right' way to land was to grab the branch of the crepe myrtle as I was flying by, and taking the branch to the ground. §;o)
Our minds - our consciousness - is almost completely free. We can travel all the way across space and time to the very beginning or the very end at the speed of thought! We can tame unicorns, live in molten metal on another planet, commune with higher beings in the center of the sun. What our minds aren't completely free to do is make any of that 'real' in the material sense (though we can write a book about it, and share the experiences with other minds).
Quantum events are physical events just like other physical events (with some extra degrees of freedom, particularly in the time dimension). Even if the physical mechanisms of consciousness turn out to be quantum computational, it's still a physical mechanism. What expresses through the mechanism is about as free as things get in physical manifestation.
Comment by Joy — March 29, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Quantum mechanics is apparently not compatible with local realism. Many of the best minds in science have tried to make that case, but experiment has consistently shown that position to be in error. In other words, quantum events are not "just like other physical events".
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2008 @ 8:44 am
March 30th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Zach:
??? And, if quantum events aren't an operation of physical reality, what the hell do you think they are? Little miracles? Divine intervention? Junior godlings? Angels dancing on pinheads?
You began with:
Quantum mechanics is a mathematical description of the behavior of what physicists call "elementary particles" (of indeterminate form) that make up the building blocks of matter and govern the forces and interactions that serve to construct the macro level material world [form]. An intelligently designed measuring tool.
QM describes a process - how information at one 'end' becomes whatever comes out the other 'end'. It does not describe the actual nature of what the world is like at that level, so there's ample disagreement and some mysterious aspects nobody pretends to understand. Insert your favored philosophical interpretation here, your interpretation in no way affects the mechanics or precision of the mathematical description.
Local realism isn't a requirement for quantum events, and apparently doesn't apply. Are you claiming that makes quantum events unreal? Not matter or energy or force? Not part of the material world?
Comment by Joy — March 30, 2008 @ 11:20 am
March 30th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
"Real" has many meanings, but in science realism means that objects have preexisting properties independent of the observation of those properties. Locality means that objects are in a causal relationship such that they can only influence objects in their vicinity. The combination of these principles is called local realism, and underpins all conventional physics, including causation. Local realism may not apply to quantum mechanics.
In other words, you abandon the principle of realism. That's one valid interpretation. But this is fundamentally unlike orthodox physics. When we say the Moon has a particular momentum, we mean that it has that momentum whether we measure it or not. This question may have a different answer for quantum objects. It may not even make sense to ask the question.
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Zach:
Give me a break, Zach. I don't need an 'intro to physics' from a biologist (you are a biologist, aren't you?).
What I'm saying is that the metaphysical or philosophical implications of quantum processes that are counterintuitive from a macroscale POV are entirely irrelevant to the mathematical mechanics that allows us to quantify what happens at the microscale of quantum events. To a spectacular degree of accuracy, btw. These events are indeed real FAPP, and that is all anyone needs to know about it - because that's all anybody CAN know about it. Everything else is metaphysical philosophy. Which, in case you hadn't noticed, is not physical science. It's not biology either.
I don't need your permission or approval for anything I know or anything I believe. Your condescension is not only boring in this matter, it's very weirdly out of place.
Duh.
Then don't bother. It's irrelevant to what's real.
Comment by Joy — March 30, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I agree with qualification.
Creativity (a feature of true intelligence) seems incompatible with strict determinism. If God is the creator, there is an aspect of Him which cannot be described by any sort of determinism, hence, there is (at least from a human perspective) uncertainty, or chance.
Salthe pointed out an interesting problem. Is our perception of chance due to:
1. our lack of knowledge, or
2. inherent capriciousness of reality
I think both factors play a role.
I think, "free will" implies an inherent capriciousness within logical constraints. Paul Davies argues for the existence of this in mathematics as well. So does Gregory Chaitin to some degree. Thus, I think Capriciousness (or shall I say creative and unpredictability intelligence) is at the heart of reality.
At first when I studied math, it seemed math was so constrained and immutable, and deterministic…that was until I learned the liberating ideas of Godel and that there are degrees of freedom, free will, even in math….
In God there is both deterministic logic and free will creativity. A computer programmer builds deterministic systems, but what ultimately constrains him to write one kind of software versus another? Nothing really….He has free will to create whatever kind of deterministic system he wants. Thus at the heart of reality is creative intelligence, one that is not describable by determinsim, but rather free will. Chance implies mindlessness….but even intelligence beings use mindless processes.
Now, are "random" statistics really random? I can build an random number generator that is deterministic and mearly appears to be driven by chance to an outside observer. Given that deterministic systems can give the appearance of being capricious, are there truly any "chance" events within reality? I think so. This is borne out in math and the modern view of Quantum theory (the famous Bell Inequality)….
Physicist Reverend John Polkinghorne also believe reality is supple, and not quite so deterministic and Newtonian as we once supposed. I think we see both determinism and freedom in the world, and I think that perception is not an illusion, it is reality…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 30, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Sal:
Thanks for that observation, Salvador. When we get all the way down to interpretations of the indeterminacy at the root of reality, some people just don't want to admit that their a priori faith investments (metaphysical philosophy) do NOT rule the roost. Or that at that level of reality, their metaphysical beliefs don't make determinate what is in fact indeterminate.
The argument from quantum weirdness is just another incarnation of Dueling Metaphysics, pertaining to questions science is neither chartered nor qualified to answer. Why can't they just live with that? I can. FAPP has a meaning, and that meaning makes metaphysical wonderments irrelevant to what's real.
The indeterminacy at the root of reality is indeed real. It's real no matter how anybody anywhere interprets it to their metaphysics. And metaphysics isn't physics. It should stop trying to pretend otherwise, from any metaphysical direction.
Comment by Joy — March 30, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
That Miller thinking that individual quantum events are "free" is a wrongheaded way to think about quantum events.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 30, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
March 31st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Joy wrote:
But Joy also wrote:
Joy, first you seem to be asserting that quantum events have physical causes. Then you seem to be asserting that we don't know if they have physical causes. If I knew what FAPP stood for would I realize why your not really contradicting yourself?
Comment by Bilbo — March 31, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
March 31st, 2008 at 5:11 pm
By the way, I think the question of whether or not quantum events have physical causes is important to our understanding of theistic evolution and ID. Maybe I'll write a thread on it sometime.
Comment by Bilbo — March 31, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
March 31st, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Bilbo:
Sorry, Bilbo. FAPP stands for "For All Practical Purposes." Which is the most we can expect of science - that we can quantify things well enough to put them to practical use. Everything else - including the Eternal Quest For Absolute Truth - is just an armchair metaphysical exercise.
I presume quantum events have causes. I don't know what they are, suspect they may have something to do with not-time sampling of the universal wavefunction's state prior to becoming whatever it becomes. As I mentioned, what any given piece of matter becomes is quite severely constrained by its energy level and its interactions with other matter/energy. Shrodinger's cat might be dead or alive, it might spontaneously combust, it might vaporize altogether, but it's never going to become a dog. A proton might become a neutron, but it'll never become an electron. An electron might become a positron, but it'll never become a quark. See what I mean?
I'm an "FAPP Realist." That's all I need to be, since I don't smash atoms for fun and profit anymore. I can live with the entire universe being entangled, and while I'd be sad if my cat Larry spontaneously combusted, I'd sure be amazed if he turned into a dog. If he did, I'd feed him dog food instead of cat food. I could live with that, too.
I don't know if it has any relevance to ID beyond the directionality of evolution (of consciousness), or the physical operations of consciousness, or the ability of life forms to adapt and evolve. They all die in the end anyway, and none of 'em really cares at that point how many offspring they contributed to the process of evolution. I honestly don't think it matters to the universe either, unless the universe is inordinately concerned about life. That might be just another armchair metaphysical exercise.
I've little time for that these days… have a new granddaughter, three others are coming this weekend, spring has sprung and the garden calls, it's fire season and the woods have to be de-fueled… Besides, the price of food is causing riots in Egypt and Asia, and it's sure not getting any cheaper down at the supermarket. I need tomato and pepper seeds, new fence posts, some planks for the decks, have to replace the termite spikes, and fix that darned fallen ceiling in the loft. Sorry. No words of wisdom here! §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 31, 2008 @ 7:27 pm