On the Shoulders of Giants and Still Unable to See
by BradfordA frustrating view of complexity is the title of the linked column discussing progress toward uncovering deep levels of relatedness among disparate phenomenon. Yet disagreement about basic questions like defining complex systems still exists. This has a familiar ring, sounding much like inquiries about the origin of life. The author demonstrates difficulties with some specifics:
Imagine, for example, three subatomic particles — such as quarks, for example, that make up atoms — that can spin up or down. Suppose the particles are arranged in a triangle, and that each particle is required to spin in the opposite direction of its two neighbors. Unfortunately, no arrangement meets this goal. So in such a system, the particles would flip their spins over and over in complex patterns, frustrated by the conflicting demands and never able to settle into a stable configuration.
And there is this:
Another perspective on complex systems is that their fundamental attribute is that they behave differently on different scales. DNA, for example, functions very differently from an entire human cell, which in turn doesn’t act much like an organ or a whole person. An eddy that overall moves clockwise may have small sub-eddies that turn counterclockwise. The needs of an individual may be at odds with the needs of society as a whole. Binder describes this as “scale frustration.”
And this colorful concluding remark:
Binder says that the situation in complexity science is a bit like the blind men feeling the elephant: The description given by the person feeling the trunk would seem totally incompatible with that of the person feeling the belly. Binder hopes his notion of dynamic frustration may help identify the full animal. “I think it might be more like a platypus than an elephant!”
A common theme to be drawn from all this, it seems to me, is the need to acknowledge that unknowns may be much greater than we imagine. Nature should be approached with humility.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Yes, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything at all. In particular, we know that complex, emergent behavior doesn't require a telic source.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2008 @ 11:45 am
October 27th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Zachriel:
We know that about emergent behavior which we can explain but as the blog piece points out explainability is in short supply with regard to complexity.
Comment by Bradford — October 27, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Your own cite points to examples of complexity arising from non-telic sources, e.g. weather. Complex behavior does not require a telic source.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Zach:
How do we know that weather comes from a non-telic source? Is it scientific to say that we can determine that certain forms of complexity are not telic in origin?
What criteria do you use to make this determination?
If we know scientifically how to identify some complexity as nontelic before we can describe it exhaustively or fully understand its components and how they relate why can’t we use the same criteria to decide that other complexity is telic in origin?
In other words
Why is it ok to say that
weather is nontelic because of “X”
and not ok to say
life is telic because of “non X”
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 27, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
To answer your logic question, it is a logical fallicy link
"if A then not B" does not imply "if not A then B"
As for your questioning whether or not we can say for certain the weather is not telic, I suggest that is a fundamental issue of ID.
How can we determine whether life is designed or not if EVERYTHING is designed?
It could be that the weather, the moon, the entire universe is designed.
Which is another reason that understanding people's position on NOMA is key to understanding what they are suggesting. If they are suggesting an Intelligent Designer designed everything then that is their worldview, their Truth.
That's only a problem if they are claiming their Truth is the one and only Truth for us all.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 27, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
From a scientific perspective, we have significant knowledge of how weather works, including testable models, and a total lack of evidence of telic involvement. If there is a God of Storms, he apparently doesn't huff and puff, but merely sighs imperceptibly. If you prefer, we could say that teleology with regards to weather is scientifically vacuous.
Maybe the godess Tyche picks lottery winners, but the evidence indicates that winners are random with regards to every measurable trait—save for having bought a lottery ticket.
As for the broader point, that complexity can emerge from simple interactions, we could make that point just as well with the general n-body system, or even with a computer simulation.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Zachriel:
Telicians do not cite telic sources for all phenomenon. So it is no surprise that examples can be cited for which consensus could be reachable. That though would not eliminate telic sources for all phenomenon.
Comment by Bradford — October 27, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 7:33 am
TP
Actually Denying antecedent would take this form
If x then design
Not x then not design
What I presented was a classic Modus tollens
If x then (untelic in origin)
Not X
Therefore (not untelic in origin)
I agree
The whole force of my argument rests on Zach’s contention that we know weather was untelic that is why I asked him if he knew this scientifically.
True, but that does not mean that we could not know that life is designed before we were sure about the rest of the universe.
My whole garden is designed but some areas appear more designed than others
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 28, 2008 @ 7:33 am
October 28th, 2008 at 8:05 am
That's true. For instance, we might agree that the Mona Lisa was designed by Leonardo Da Vinci. But it does mean that just because we see complex emergent behavior, we can't just assume that it's designed.
I restated more clearly as teleology with regards to weather is scientifically vacuous. You didn't respond. I thought you had been making a metaphysical claim about the limitations of human scientific methods and understanding.
Comment by Zachriel — October 28, 2008 @ 8:05 am
October 28th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Hi Bradford,
I really liked what you said:
“A common theme to be drawn from all this, it seems to me, is the need to acknowledge that unknowns may be much greater than we imagine. Nature should be approached with humility.”
I’m totally for going after the unknowns with all our human resources, but that touch of humility is such an important quality. If everyone had that approach toward nature and each other I think a lot of the culture war conflict would evaporate away. Humility is undervalued.
Comment by interested bystander — October 28, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Zach,
I’m sorry I was not quick enough for you I was busy making a living.
It seems I misunderstood and all you were arguing for is that you had no scientific evidence that weather is designed. That is not much of a claim considering that you also claim that there is no evidence at all for design in nature.
I could restate your argument like this
“I have seen no scientific proof that weather is designed therefore nothing complex need be designed.”
Pretty weak stuff Zach.
Is that all you got?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 28, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Hi Interested Bystander,
You wrote…
I suggest false humility is greatly over-valued, especially by organized religions.
I can boldly and truthfully say "I don't know the Truth".
Can you?
I can boldly and truthfully suggest that science and philosophy (i.e. religion) have different goals and use different toolsets and it is a mistake to try and mix the two (i.e. Gould's NOMA).
Would you agree?
If everyone embraced NOMA with true humility then the words "Under God" wouldn't be in the pledge of allegiance and topics like prayer in school or teaching creationism in science class wouldn't be an issue.
Is this the kind of humility you were thinking would end the culture war, or were you thinking more along the lines of having everyone being in awe of a higher power?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 28, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I said it was scientifically vacuous.
Just to review, you're conflating two notions: whether we know, or whether we have scientific evidence to support a tentative belief. We may know that we like chocolate, but we may not have scientific evidence to support that belief. We may know 2+2=4, but this is not a scientific claim.
On the other hand, to ask for a scientific claim means to evaluate the claim with the scientific method. A scientific theory is comprised of a number of interrelated, testable assertions concerning the phenomena in question. Part of the scientific method is the rejection of extraneous entities.
We have every scientific reason to believe that weather is due to how energy dissipates through Earth's atmosphere and oceans, and there is no scientific evidence of teleology. Do we know it with absolute certainty? No. But you specifically asked for a scientific answer. The scientific understanding of weather is sufficient to reach a very reasonable, albeit tentative conclusion that weather is an atelic system. To deny that is just perverse. May as well suppose Intelligent Falling.
Comment by Zachriel — October 28, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Hi Interested Bystander and others,
If I had the power to sent my last comment to the memory hole, I would. It was off-topic, poorly written and unfair. Please excuse me (even thought I have no good excuse).
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 28, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Zach
We have every scientific reason to believe that the climate in my house is due to how energy dissipates through it. Does that mean that it's atelic?
Before the observation of red shift we had every scientific reason to believe that the universe was eternal. Science has a funny way of marching forward and making statements like yours seem foolish
No I asked how you knew and now you admit you don't scientificly or otherwise.
Are you making a scientific claim that the weather is atelic? what sort of pridictions would flow from that claim please list 5.
Sufficient to whose standards? Is there an anti telic board that complex systems are submitted to that evaluates the evidence and issues rulings?
Have your conclusions been convinceing to those who hold to the Gaia hypothesis?
Zach you are too easy
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 28, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
We have every scientific reason to believe that houses are climate control systems manufactured by humans.
Did we? I thought it was just a metaphysical predilection.
But as already mentioned, a feature of scientific knowledge is that all claims are considered tentative. So we don't know in some unspecified fmm-manner that gravity causes objects to fall rather than Demons of Downwardation.
Help yourself. In science, that would just require evidence. (To convince yourself, handwaving apparently suffices.)
You said, "The whole force of my argument rests on Zach’s contention that we know weather was untelic that is why I asked him if he knew this scientifically." I had suggested you were making a metaphysical statement about the inherent limitations of human scientific knowledge (but you brushed it away).
Science has a definition.
The Gaia Hypothesis does not posit consciousness or purpose, but homeorhesis as a naturally *evolved* mechanism. Most scientists don't consider Gaia a workable scientific hypothesis.
Comment by Zachriel — October 28, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Zach:
So what we think about the telic origin of weather is influenced by what we think about other things like our knowledge of the space that contains it? If the universe is the result of telic forces then we would expect the weather to be so as well.
I agree
Most folks thought so, including scientific folks like Einstein. That’s the problem with people we tend to think our present knowledge is based on solid science when often is based only on metaphysics.
Actually you don’t know anything at all really do you. In spite of this fact you continue to say things like
I find this kind of stament odd in light of the fact that all you mean is you haven't seen any proof that the weather is telic. A little humility goes a long way.
According to the Gaia Hypothesis the “purpose” of the earths weather is to support life on the planet In exactly the same way that a respiratory system's purpose is to support an animal's life.
Do you disagree?
Some do. Is this anti telic board of yours selected by majority vote?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 28, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Scientists point to evidence that the Solar System formed from the natural collapse of a nebula.
No. We might suppose so. But it is quite possible for the universe to be have been manufactured without every detail being designed.
Handwaving. Again.
Science doesn't deal in proof, but evidence. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make an argument. I am quite certain that the cited author considers weather a non-telic phenomena. However, as I already pointed out, other examples would suffice to demonstrate the point about the origin of complex behavior, including the general n-body system. Or a weather simulation, for that matter, which clearly shows how a few simple interacting variables can generate complex and emergent behavior.
You had claimed the Gaia Hypothesis as a telic theory. However, the Gaia Hypothesis posits unconscious, naturally occurring mechanisms.
The Gaia Hypothesis remains largely speculative at this time.
The science of weather is called meteorology. Meteorologists have journals and conferences like other fields of study. They propose and test hypotheses. The ability to propose and test valid scientific hypotheses is the measure of any scientific theory. Sometimes theories remain speculative, awaiting new evidence or new methods of inquiry. Meanwhile, extraneous entities without empirical implications are stripped from working theories. This is all part of the scientific method. Ignoring the evidence, ignoring the meaning of common terms, and refusing to accept simple, testable scientific facts is just non-productive.
Science is a limited perspective on the world. If God created the universe, and minutely controls every aspect of it, we have no scientific evidence of this. That doesn't mean it can't be true. It means the claim is scientifically vacuous. If someone presents a valid theory of how particles interact, and it lacks a telic component, then we say the theory is atelic. If this theory is robust, that is, if it can reasonably predict the entire system's behavior, then we can say with reasonable scientific certainty that the system itself is not influenced by some external agency. That is as far as science goes.
Comment by Zachriel — October 28, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Hi interested bystander. You wrote:
I think there are strong differences in values which fuel the culture war but I do believe vitriolic exchanges, which make it ugly, would be mitigated by doses of humility. Humility allows for the admission that one might be wrong. While most are willing to acknowledge this in the abstract, few are willing to make specific admissions they perceive as adversely impacting their pride.
Comment by Bradford — October 28, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
October 28th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
No problem Thought Provoker.
Comment by interested bystander — October 28, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Umm it is still called the nebula hypothesis for a reason.
And if science requires evidence then the theory of evolution is in big trouble for there isn't any evidence that shows an accumulation of mutations can bring about the changes required in a universal common descent scenario.
Comment by ID guy — October 29, 2008 @ 7:37 am