Allen MacNeill:But it gets worse: there is also the "raven problem". According to the basic rules of logic, the following two statements are equivalent:

"all ravens are black"

"all non-ravens are non-black"

As Raevmo pointed out, no they're not.

Empirical observations can support both. Indeed, according to the rules of logic, every observation that supports one of the statements equally supports the other:

"this is a raven, and it is black; ergo, all ravens are black"

"this is an apple and it is green; ergo, all non-ravens are non-black"

However, simple intuition shows that the second statement is clearly false, yet its falseness cannot be demonstrated via induction, and in fact it counts as equally valid evidence for the first statement.

There have been numerous attempts to find a way out of these paradoxes, with IMHO little success. It seems clear to me that these would not present paradoxes to an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient supernatural entity. It also seems just as clear to me that this is a logical argument against the existence of such an entity. Indeed, postulating the existence of such an entity under these circumstances would constitute a form of question-begging, not explanation.

Allen, I think you've presented several strong arguments against belief in God in the past. However, I'm not sure I understand this one, and since it seems to rely upon a logical fallacy (All a is b, therefore all non-a is non-b), I don't think this would be one of your better ones.

I read Margulis's Acquiring Genomes several years ago. I enjoyed it. Since I'm not a biologist, I don't know if I would have anything particularly insightful to say about it, though.

How this relates to teleology in physics is that the temporal-spatial boundary condition might be dependent on some future condition. Psi(x,t) might depend on a constraining parameter in the future "” such as what happens with Scrhodinger's cat"¦.

Sal, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Schroedinger's cat is an extreme example of a quantum measurement. In the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (as well as in your current favorite, Cramer's transactional interpretation) the Schroedinger equation describes the continuous evolution of a quantum system, while the quantum measurement is interpreted as an abrupt process described by the projection operator and not the Schroedinger equation. Quantum measurements have nothing to do with initial (or boundary) conditions. They're a separate, and totally different part of the theory.

Olegt wrote:

Sal, boundary conditions normally refer to spatial boundaries, don't conflate these things.

From Differential Equations

The boundary conditions on a differential equation are the constraining values of the function at some particular value of the independent variable. For example, if the equation involves the velocity, the boundary condition might be the initial velocity, the velocity at time t=0.
…
In order to have a complete solution, there must be a boundary condition for each order of the equation - two boundary conditions for a second order equation, only one necessary for a first order differential equation.

My understanding is that boundary conditions may refer to constraining conditions in space and time, or even a specific value of the function or its derivatives.

For the one dimensional spatial case, if the probaility amplitude is represented by Psi(x,t) in Schrodinger's equation, and given specific values of x and t, these describe boundary conditions:

Psi (x,t) = some value
d/dt Psi(x,t) = some value
d/dx Psi(x,t) = some value
d^2/dx^2 Psi(x,t) = some value

That is my understanding of what boundary conditions are for a given form of Schrodinger's equation (in this case 1 dimensional in spatial coordinates).

How this relates to teleology in physics is that the temporal-spatial boundary condition might be dependent on some future condition. Psi(x,t) might depend on a constraining parameter in the future — such as what happens with Scrhodinger's cat….

In any case, in deference to the main topic, perhaps if Mike opens another bunny thread (open thread), I'll pursue the discussion in more detail there….and I also still owe you a revised simulation of gambler's ruin according to your specifications which I hope to post on the net.

You have corrected my misunderstandings in the past, and for that I'm grateful. So, if I am misunderstanding something again, I'm deeply grateful for the time you've taken to correct me…..

regards,
Sal

I don't recall stuffing socks down my brothers throat, Joy. But you should hear the atrocity stories my siblings tell about me at family reunions! I deny everything. I'm innocent.

That's a basic theme with IDers, isn't it?

But designers don't have to violate the laws of nature (God forbid! LOL) to do things that nature can't. All that is required of designers is knowledge of the laws of nature and some imagination. Obviously, the "laws of nature" (natural selection) permit design. But as you have recognized (?), they don't just "permit" but "enable" design.

STC, the notion of function is part of the causal vocabulary (the most basic part) of all scientists. Biophilosophers have argued that the notion of biological function is different. Arguing both that it is incompatible with "true" scientific descriptions and that it is unique to biology.

The unanimity of philsophical opinion is a reliable indicator that philosophers are wrong.

I think it could be explored in greater detail. I don't think that you are far wrong in your intuitions.

You certainly couldn't be more wrong than philosophers of biology.

A possible avenue for productive ID research.

(i) If the designer had a specific plan in mind (such the eventual development of man) then he's no ordinary designer because he would have no room for error. Not even one part in a billion billion: any tiny error would grow in time in a chaotic system frustrating the designer's plans. Calling such a designer supernatural would not be a stretch.

A few responses.

1) Sure, but calling Richard Feynman supernatural from the point of view of an American native circa 200AD wouldn't be much of a stretch either. The point is often made that the entirely natural looks supernatural from the perspective of the sufficiently non-advanced; I'd actually agree with as much, and argue that calling anything supernatural doesn't really place it in a true category unless the term is defined.

2) It depends on what you mean by 'the eventual development of man'. Human beings specifically down to the genetics, exactly at the time they arose? On the other end of the extreme, something with intelligence analogous to human at any point in time? This is a good time to point out that while I really like a lot of what I see in ID, I have my own views on these things.

(ii) The designer had a plan, the implementation was not perfect and he intervened from time to time to correct the accumulating errors. Someone needs to look for signs of intervention, I suppose.

I'd take issue with this one too in a subtler way: An intervention does not indicate an imperfect plan. It was an old claim that if a designer were perfect, they could handle everything via front-loading. While I think the idea has merit, I reject two things. First, the idea that a designer necessarily has a singular 'perfect' plan as opposed to an idea that involves a range of plans. Second, that a later intervention could not be part of a so-called perfect plan.

(iii) The designer had no exact plan: whatever the system grows into would suit him fine.

I think at this point, the question hits a wall. The designer could have had a plan that was open-ended; certain specific points were desired via either front-loading or intervention, but other developments were either not a concern, or were so only contingently. Again, I have my own thoughts on this - for all I know the designer achieved the desired result by setting up the odds so that 1 desired result would come out of an extraordinary multitude of seeds, and the unrealized seeds would serve another purpose. Maybe there was just one shot, front-loaded with an intelligence and understanding that we can barely grasp. Maybe there are barriers worked into development, such that once life reaches a certain point of development it can't help but go in a particular direction (Even chaotic systems, as far as I know, can have certain system descriptions imposed over particular parts of development that allow a great if comparatively imprecise prediction of future incidents).

I just jumped in to mention that chaos is not itself necessarily a barrier to front-loading. It's something that needs to be taken into account, absolutely, given particular goals. We can explore the ways in which such could be taken into account, given particular goals, particular plans, etc.

But front loading can occur without dependence on initial conditions. That's the stuff of minds. Heresy huh? Then the alternative is acknowledging that issues like the origin of life lie outside scientific boundaries.

My understanding of the concept of front loading is the designer set things in motion at some point and let it go. Life has evolved on its own since then. That's precisely what a physicist means by "setting the initial conditions."

And to address also nullasalus's point, if the system set in motion had chaotic dynamics, then there are the following possibilities.

(i) If the designer had a specific plan in mind (such the eventual development of man) then he's no ordinary designer because he would have no room for error. Not even one part in a billion billion: any tiny error would grow in time in a chaotic system frustrating the designer's plans. Calling such a designer supernatural would not be a stretch.

(ii) The designer had a plan, the implementation was not perfect and he intervened from time to time to correct the accumulating errors. Someone needs to look for signs of intervention, I suppose.

(iii) The designer had no exact plan: whatever the system grows into would suit him fine.

Any thoughts?

You can't use initial conditions to direct a chaotic system. An infinitesimal change in initial conditions leads to a totally different outcome"”that's the hallmark of chaos. So chaos and front loading are incompatible

That's not true, or at least not the way you're setting it up. Yes, if you set initial conditions and have incomplete knowledge of the coming changes, those changes will have a ballooning effect on the system. But you can front load as far as you have knowledge of those changes - and the specificity of your goal and its boundaries factors in as well.

The main ID journal Progress in Complexity, Intelligence, and Design has shown no progress since November 2005.

And this means… what? That ID researchers aren't publishing in this journal or the other you mention? What exactly does that have to do with definitions and encyclopedia entries? I'm not seeing the connection, apart from sponsorship. Can you flesh that out for me?

Another ID publication, the Journal of Evolutionary Informatics, has not even got off the ground.