Puddle Logic Revisited
by chunkdzThe “puddle analogy”, or "the sentient puddle" is an oft quoted parable by the brilliant Douglas Adams. So elegant and powerful is the puddle analogy that it is commonly used as a clear refutation of the Anthropic Principle by some of today’s top figures in popular science. But naturally, when the likes of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins heap praise upon a logical argument, my instinct is to whack it with a stick and see if anything falls off.
The first thing I notice about Doug’s puddle is it’s not very bright. In fact, it’s downright stupid. It’s as if Adams assumes that something so simple as a puddle should naturally have the intellect of a simpleton. Adams likens this condition to that of an early caveman who upon realizing that he has everything he needs simply figures that the world was made for him.
But this is one really stupid puddle. He thinks the world is made just for himself, even as he is slowly dying. I mean, even the caveman who barely graduated caveman school is smart enough to recognize that he is NOT a perfect fit for the world – that he is on any given day likely to be eaten, or get some horrible disease, or have some awful thing happen to him.
In other words, Doug’s puddle is dumber than the dumbest caveman. It’s also apparently blind since it cannot see that the rim of it’s crater is getting further away every day as it shrinks into oblivion. Adams has cast the blind, stupid puddle as the buffoon in his miniature farce. If the late Mr. Adams wouldn’t mind, my updated puddle analogy will endow the puddle with at least as much intellect as the dumbest caveman, and the potential to allow this intellect to grow.
A puddle with basic intellect sees that he is slowly dying, his hole is eroding, and he is constantly getting stepped in and contaminated. This world does not fit “staggeringly well” at all.
A puddle further examining the universe outwardly sees exploding suns, comets and asteroids colliding, black holes and light years of cold dead vacuum all around. Not a much better fit out there either.
A puddle who examines his world inwardly sees that microorganisms are using the sun’s power to colonize and take over his hole with green slimy goo, and that evaporation is sucking the life out of him. Man, this universe is conspiring against him on all levels great and small. Puddles don’t stand a chance in this happenstance, chaotic existence. “Maybe”, he thinks, “it all is just a big accident. It certainly isn’t designed for puddles, at least not puddles that last more than a blink in time. What purpose could that possibly serve”?
But given a chance, a puddle who thinks may eventually come to one realization: there is an underlying order to the chaos. A thinking puddle will then have reached the point that Einstein reached when he said “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible at all.” When chided about this view, Einstein replied “A priori, one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way”.
A thinking puddle will realize with just a little common sense that a blind, pitiless, and indifferent universe should not be expected, a priori, to produce that which is not blind, not pitiless, and not indifferent. Instead what we see is more akin to Vladimir Arnold’s cat reaching the end of it’s transform and meowing back at it’s creator. Mind, encoded in chaos, unfolding as mind – the only clues being a barely perceptible underlying order. We comprehend that which should not be comprehendable, and this speaks to purposeful order.
A thinking puddle might still see himself as an accidental product of blind pitiless indifference, but he may more easily say that the universe might be exactly what it looks like. As has been evident to many great thinkers (puddles and non-puddles alike) but perhaps put most succinctly by Freeman Dyson – “The universe in some sense must have known we were coming”.
Of course, the thinking puddle could be wrong. Thinking puddles could be nothing more than accidents, the product of happenstance and sheer luck. But while our thinking puddle may be ignorant, and other puddles may see the universe differently, he’s not as stupid and as blind as Doug Adams would like to portray him.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
At its core the puddle argument strikes me as an argument from ignorance. We encounter a puddle in our travels and assume that it was formed through forces of nature. Not unreasonable. But this begs the question of what accounts for the forces of nature. It truncates a causal trail so that we take nature's descriptive constants as a given, not to be further analyzed. That may be practical when calculating the acceleration of a falling body but it does not assign an atelic property to nature.
Comment by Bradford — February 24, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
February 24th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
And a lot of people buy lottery tickets every few days with a firm belief that if they keep doing so, eventually they must win it.
Speaking of lotteries, what are the chances that the following set of numbers will win (in a lottery in which six winning numbers are drawn from 1 million tickets)?
1,2,3,4,5,6
a) 1 million factorial (1,000,000!)
b) 1 million to the one millionth power ((1 X 10^6) ^ (1 X 10^6))
c) 1 million squared ((1 X 10^6) X (1 X 10^6))
d) extremely close to zero
e) extremely close to one
f) the same as any other sequence of six numbers
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — February 24, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
February 24th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
The point being, of course, that assuming that “the universe must have known we were coming” is equivalent to a lottery winner assuming that “the universe must have known I was going to buy a ticket”.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — February 24, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
February 24th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
What is "thinking", anyway? Is it like that so-easy-to-define-that-we-all-immediately-agree thing called "intelligence"? Would your answer change if you could somehow determine for certain that all living organisms could "think"? How about all animals? All vertebrates? All mammals? All primates? All Libertarians? All Libertarians from California? All Libertarians from San Francisco? All Libertarians who live on Lombard Street?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — February 24, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
February 24th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
The puddle logic argument is horse shit because if we view Reality holistically we don't know whether the puddle's "container" was intended or not. It's an impasse.
The real issue is why our universe's force constants are tuned the way they are. The multiverse concept is the weak, evidence-free attempt at a rebuttal. But let's be clear and underscore the fact: it's evidence-free.
This is the only universe we know about. And it's tuned for life. When somebody discovers a universe that is "dead" let me know.
Your imagination is not evidence.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 24, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
February 24th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Show us another universe, one not tuned for life, not "knowing we are coming", and you will stop the mouths of the naysayers.
Is this suppose to be a scientific argument, Allen?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 24, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
February 24th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Whatever it is, it is evidently something so important to you that you feel the need to come to this forum and take a stand. Why? Do you think your thinking is valid- really really valid? If so, welcome, continue to argue your case, and try to win converts (to what I consider a stultified position.) Otherwise, admit that it's all horse shit, it doesn't matter, and what you're doing amounts to nothing more than self-amusement.
Now what do you really think about your own powers of thought?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 24, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
February 24th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
kornbelt888:
I will only say this once: as I try not to use ad hominem attacks (as I find they greatly weaken my own position), I also do not respond to ad hominem attacks.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — February 24, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
February 24th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Allen,
The puddle analogy never appealed to odds or probabilities. It was all about perception. However, Adams' puddle was so stupid that it made the foolish mistake of perceiving that the universe was a perfect fit for puddles.
Comment by chunkdz — February 24, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
February 24th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
The puddle made the statistical error of extrapolating from a very small sample size (i.e. one) to a general case. Happens all the time…
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — February 24, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
February 24th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Thanks Allen, that part of my post was unnecessarily muddying the waters. I edited the piece.
Comment by chunkdz — February 24, 2009 @ 11:54 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Psst, the point of the puddle analogy is precisely that we cannot tell if the container was intended or accidental. You seem to be saying the anaology is bad because it means exactly what it's supposed to mean.
Oh, you were so close to connecting the dots, but then you veered away. The whole point of the analogy is that we, the puddle, cannot tell if the container, our universe, was intended or accidental either. So while you apparently understood the puddle analogy you seem to fail to understand how it parallels our own predicament.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 25, 2009 @ 12:03 am
February 25th, 2009 at 12:08 am
How easily Bradford creates a new meme, the 'the puddle is stupid' meme. Why refute what you can mock?
Extending the parallel, calling the puddle stupid for perceiving it's universe to be finely tuned is identical to us claiming our universe is finely tuned. So can I extrapolate from your statements that you think fine tuning arguments are also stupid?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 25, 2009 @ 12:08 am
February 25th, 2009 at 12:10 am
I didn't make an ad homimen attack. I made personal challege. That's different. Are you up to it?
Are you willing to defend your intelligence?
If you consider that a mere "ad hominem attack" then I guess you answered my post to my satisfaction.
Thanks!
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 25, 2009 @ 12:10 am
February 25th, 2009 at 12:19 am
So its victory through rudeness then? Enjoy your pyrrhic victory.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 25, 2009 @ 12:19 am
February 25th, 2009 at 12:30 am
chunkdz,
Adams would no doubt be pleased with your fine essay on this, well, deep subject. Still, I have a couple of nits to pick with this paragraph:
1. Arnol'd's original cat would not meow back at his creator. The poor animal would be sliced to ever thinner slices, never to be seen again. The periodic recovery you observed in the Wikipedia illustration is an artifact of discretization: a finite number of pixels in a digital image makes the transform periodic. Arnol'd meant to illustrate chaos with his map and chaos is anything but periodic.
2. Common sense can be spectacularly wrong. The Sun does not rotate around the Earth.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2009 @ 12:30 am
February 25th, 2009 at 12:36 am
This might be a little off topic, but unless I'm mistaken, this puddle analogy is supposed to be a refutation of the universe being "tuned for life", right? This thread and the one immediately preceding is difficult to follow because it seems that logic has been thrown out the window and just say whatever you want by just assuming that it's possible. How can anyone argue that the universe was not tuned for life? How can anyone argue that the universe was not tuned to have suns? How can anyone argue that the universe was not tuned to have galaxies? How can anyone argue that the universe was not tuned to allow for anything that exists in it? What is the basis for this reasoning?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — February 25, 2009 @ 12:36 am
February 25th, 2009 at 12:39 am
AnaxagorasRules,
To facilitate the discussion, could you explain what you mean, precisely, by tuning? How do you visualize the tuning process?
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2009 @ 12:39 am
February 25th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Olegt,
I happen to think he'd dig it too!
It's just a poetic illustration to say that the universe appears to be chaotic, yet gives hints of an unfolding purpose. The cat meowing back at Arnold is representative of the creation recognizing the creator, which seems to be a fairly universal human experience.
True. But the sky is blue, isn't it? At any rate, if we must have an a priori why pick the most UN-obvious and UN-supported one?
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 12:47 am
February 25th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Its not a question of whether the universe supports these things, but of whether these things are intentional or accidental; selected or necessary; tweaked or illusionary, or whatever other 'god did it' verse 'who knows' analogy you want to use.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 25, 2009 @ 12:57 am
February 25th, 2009 at 12:58 am
If you say so. Does he need you to carry his water?
By the way, Allen, if you're listening, I have nothing against you as a guy. I'm sure you're a fine fellow. And I'd be glad to buy you a beer. But this is TT, a philosophical website, and anything goes, really. No offense to you personally, in terms of everyday guy stuff.
Love and kisses all around.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 25, 2009 @ 12:58 am
February 25th, 2009 at 1:03 am
Hi, olegt,
I think that a good assumption is that the universe contained within itself all the necessary laws and elements to produce everything that is in existence. That includes all forms of matter. An analogy might be a computer language, with the periodic table representing the primitive built-in types (or fundamental tokens), and the fundamental forces representing the semantics within which the types can be combined into code. We can argue about what may be possible in the future, but the past is done. Those possibilites have been realized. To extend the analogy a bit, all the things that have come into existed have been "written", so to speak. I'm looking at "tuned" as a synonym for that.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — February 25, 2009 @ 1:03 am
February 25th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Perhaps "tuned" the way a guitar is tuned, which (I think) disallows certain frequencies? Back to the computer language analogy, perhaps "tuned" the way a program is tuned for optimization?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — February 25, 2009 @ 1:33 am
February 25th, 2009 at 8:56 am
The puddle isn't stupid. It's curious and observant. But it's perception is limited to the confines of the puddle.
When the puddle looks at the hole, and looks at itself, it notices that for every little impression in its body, there is a corresponding impression in the hole. In fact, it can measure this to all manner of detail and precision and discovers that it fits "staggeringly well".
If we calculate the CSI of a typical puddle, we note that the hole is complex (not describable except by listing all its attributes) and highly specified (conforming to the equally complex puddle). Therefore, the CSI is way beyond the universal probability bound. Ironically, if the puddle is a smooth artificial ditch, then the CSI is low.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2009 @ 8:56 am
February 25th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Well, we know the universe is consistent with life's existence. But that doesn't tell us it is "tuned" in the sense of the values being selected by an independent agent.
What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world. — Einstein
Consider that a rock can be almost any shape, most are not very regular at all. If we find one that is a smooth sphere, perhaps you might suspect design. But the planet Earth is very close to a perfect sphere (oblateness is less than 1%, the continents inconsequential). And though a rock you hold in your hand won't do this, a rock the size of the Earth will quickly compress into a sphere due to the force of gravity and the relative weakness of the material under compression. Give it a bit of a spin,and we can explain the oblateness as well. So was the world "tuned" to make the Earth an almost perfect sphere?
Nature is full of such examples. The speed of propagation of the magnetic field and light. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses. The stately movement of the planets across the sky. The staggeringly 'flat' geometry of the Cosmos. Someone could point to any of these as an example of "tuning" if they are ignorant as to the cause of the relationships.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2009 @ 9:17 am
February 25th, 2009 at 9:37 am
"But this is one really stupid puddle," should be attributed to chunkdz in my comment above.
Other examples of symmetries in nature include the periodic table and the odd property of hydrogen and oxygen gases to combine in the ratio of two to one.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2009 @ 9:37 am
February 25th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Hello Zachriel,
It seems that you still do not understand how to calculate CSI. No problem, but just don't attempt to pass of your assertions as evidence of anything without backing them up with calculations or at least evidence that you understand the concept.
Again, your comment above re: CSI does not deal with CSI correctly.
Puddles exhibit no CSI as I will show. Remember that first one must have a specified event — an event which is formulated as an independent pattern.
The equation for a specification has built within it the ability to deal with a supposedly specified pattern such as puddles. Apparently an event such as the boundary of a puddle can be formulated independently as the pattern/shape of the water which fills it. Well, plugging that into the equation will never give us a specification since 100% of puddles will also produce that water shape which matches the boundary of the puddle. IOW, 100% of the events are specified and thus the specificity = 1. In this case, you will get a number below 1 (and thus no specification) no matter how much or how little probabilistic resources (trials) you have since you will be multiplying the probabilistic resources by 1 and then calculating for negative log base 2.
Go ahead, do the calculations; let the math speak for itself — within the confines of a logically structured argument, of course.
That measurement would be analogous to the type of measurement you'd get if every set of laws mixed with some background noise would produce life and evolution. So far, no one has shown this to be anywhere near the case.
So, if you want to equate our universe, life, and evolution to the shape of a puddle and its boundary then you'll have to provide evidence that any arbitrary collection of laws (set of laws absent regard for future consequences — no teleology) and background noise (corollary to chance — measured as statistical randomness) will produce CSI and evolution of that CSI among other qualities such as subjective experience and foresight — both artificial modeling of the future and target setting and conscious modeling of the future and target setting.
Until then, it seems both intuitively obvious, as well as backed up by physics (the vast majority of possible mathematically describable universes couldn't support life and evolution) and the mathematical argument from active info and CSI, that instead of life merely being fine tuned to the universe as a puddle would would be "fine tuned" to its boundary, the universe itself is fine tuned for subsequent life and evolution. Any possible teleology in there … you be the judge. Any possibility for the system to set itself up absent teleology … you be the judge.
Comment by CJYman — February 25, 2009 @ 10:07 am
February 25th, 2009 at 10:14 am
CJYman wrote:
No one does, CJYman. Including you and Dembski. We've gone over that.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2009 @ 10:14 am
February 25th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Sorry, but you apparently don't understand the simple analogy. The puddle cannot swap out with other puddles. It has only its own small universe available for inspection. The whole point of the analogy is that we know something the puddle doesn't, so we can study how and why the puddle reaches its conclusions.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2009 @ 10:27 am
February 25th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Anaxagoras Rules,
I'm thinking more telic than this.
If the goal was "life" then a universe teeming with single celled blobs (ie: Adams' 'dumb puddles') would be sufficient.
But if the goal was minds that can comprehend and commune with the mind of the creator, that would require a very specific kind of life (Chunkdz's 'smart puddle'). And of course, if such a creature did reach this goal it would be reasonably justified in thinking that the universe was made with him in mind.
Adams' analogy only works with dumb puddles.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 11:22 am
February 25th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Zach,
False dichotomy.
Since neither Adams' nor my analogy appeals to probability I don't think it's appropriate to invoke a probability argument here.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 11:29 am
February 25th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Being curious and observant is an important quality of intelligence. The puddle isn't stupid—it just has limited perception.
Adams uses the phrase fits "staggeringly well". The hole is complex in that it can only be described by an exhaustive description of every bump and wrinkle. And it is very specified in that it fits the puddle exactly. It looks just like the puddle. Down to the 'whiskers'. It's Mount Rushmore!
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2009 @ 11:38 am
February 25th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? To see what’s at stake, consider Mount Rushmore… what if there were no direct evidence for Mount Rushmore’s design? What if humans went extinct and aliens, visiting the earth, discovered Mount Rushmore in substantially the same condition as it is now? — Dembski
The puddle sees its image in the hole. An exact replica. Someone sees the imprint of his foot in the mud. An exact replica. We find cavities in the Earth that match the form of a mother and child. An exact replica. Narcissus sees his image in the water. An exact replica. Without knowing "how they arose", there is no way to determine if these are examples of design or happenstance.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2009 @ 11:49 am
February 25th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Zach,
I never said the puddle didn't have intelligence.
No, the puddle isn't even aware that it is dying. Amoeba are more perceptive.
If one is going to anthropomorphize a puddle, why would one choose to portray it as the "Jethro Bodine" of puddles?
I'll tell you why. Because in order for Doug Adams to polemicize telic thinkers he needed to make them appear foolish. Any puddle (or other life form) that can think it's way out of a paper bag would realize that this world does NOT fit them staggeringly well.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
"Refuting" an analogy argument by saying, "puddles aren't that way," just demonstrates that you've failed to understand the analogy. Thinking that failing to understand an analogy is a good argument is just remarkably silly.
The analogy is valid for puddles. Figure out why. Then argue why the puddle analogy doesn't apply where it's being applied. Poking holes in the analogy itself just makes you look stupid.
There's a long tradition in ID for this class of argument, what I'd call "argument with ignorance" as opposed to "argument from ignorance". It goes all the way back to "science should accept things that can't be demonstrated."
Comment by don provan — February 25, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
If you think I'm "refuting" Adams, or saying "puddles aren't that way", then you are reading another essay.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
…
"Not very bright" and "downright stupid" mean lacking in intelligence.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
If you think this isn't saying "puddles aren't that way," we aren't speaking the same language.
Comment by don provan — February 25, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Then we aren't speaking the same language. I didn't say anything remotely like what you are hearing.
Here's an exercise to try, Don. Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, try quoting my exact words. Then form your counterargument around my exact words. In this way, you will not only hold me accountable for what I say, but you will also avoid injecting your preconceptions. This is the rudimentary beginning of critical thinking.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
*sigh*. Even a stupid puddle has some intelligence. Do you realize how boring you are?
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Comment by don provan — February 25, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
When you say, "The first thing I notice about Doug’s puddle is it’s not very bright," you are telling me that you think that puddles should not be considered as stupid as Doug thinks they are. You are questioning whether the analogy makes sense instead of trying to understand Doug by understanding why Doug thinks the analogy makes sense. If you actually do understand the analogy, you would demonstrate your understanding and then go on to discuss Doug's point. That way, we could all understand your point and not waste our time arguing about whether puddles are intelligent or stupid. It's an analogy. That means that puddles are precisely as intelligent or stupid as the creator of the analogy wants them to be.
Comment by don provan — February 25, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
You're not very good at analogies. The puddle doesn't see "exploding suns, comets and asteroids colliding, black holes and light years of cold dead vacuum all around". It's perception is limited to itself and the hole. It's an analogy to all observers who are also necessarily limited in their own perceptions and knowledge.
Freeman Dyson – “The universe in some sense must have known we were coming”.
Yes, it made a hole that fits the puddle staggeringly well.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Provan,
Not at all. Doug's analogy works very well – for puddles that aren't very bright.
Look, you somehow got it in your head that I want to refute Doug's analogy. Remove that thought because I actually think the sentient puddle analogy is quite brilliant (and said so in the OP). All I've done is extend the analogy by changing one very important parameter.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Zach,
Mine does. Use your imagination.
If there is a flaw in Adams' analogy it is that the puddle wonders about it's hole, and it's comfy fit, but never wonders about the fact that it is a puddle that can think about it's own creation. I simply want to explore the consequences of this occurance. A sort of unique take on "fan-fiction".
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
You could be wrong about that Olegt. Why don't you ask Zachriel. He claims to know CSI values.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
There is no problem with modifying an analogy, but you apparently don't understand the analogy, so the result is like the bad telling of a good joke.
Adams' puddle is curious and observant; *ignorant, not stupid*. And yes, if the puddle wasn't ignorant and knew everything we know, it wouldn't think the hole was designed for him.
But then the analogy wouldn't work!
But that's not what you did. Because you didn't understand the analogy, you lost what makes the analogy pertinent—the limitations of the observer. Try again. What if the puddle wonders about the fact that it is a puddle that can think about it's own creation.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
You're not extending the analogy, you're changing it. You're simply denying the analogy Adams presented. It's logically equivalent to responding to "It's OK to go through green lights at intersections" with "By green, I think you mean red, and you are wrong to say it's OK to go through red lights at intersections."
That's not a flaw in the analogy, that's a flaw in its application: unlike Adams's puddle, we think about our own creation. If that's your point, make it.
As your friend, I'm just telling you that the approach you're using doesn't merely obscure your point, it actually invalidates it. Why don't you trust that I'm trying to help you and rephrase in a way that makes more sense? As it is, I literally can't see what you're trying to say. Just look at the thread! Did you really mean for us to argue about the IQ of puddles? Or does the fact that we're arguing about the IQ of puddles suggest that your real point has been lost, just as I've said?
Comment by don provan — February 25, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
I don't see any need to go that far. I realize that "tuned" has many conotations, but however matter's building blocks is described, there should at least be a consensus that at a very fundamental basis, it is well-structured. There is no need to hypothesize about the agent. Simply refer to the early universe in the passive tense, making it the subject, and simply say that "The universe was structured." That is consistent, in that if something shows structure, then it was structured 'somehow'. In most cases, 'somehow' can usually be reduced down to reactions according to the fundamental forces acting on matter.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — February 25, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
One problem I see with the puddle analogy, that is if the puddle is supposed to represent humanity's observations about itself, is that the puddle has nothing to compare itself with except the 'hole', does it? Assuming that it was smart enough to discover its composition, it learns that it's made up of two elements, and that the hole is made up of a few more. So the puddle says, justifiably, "all that exists is just for me. The two elements that make me up and the elements that make the hole that I sit in." That might be a justifiable conclusion for the puddle, but it is in no way an apt analogy to compare to humanity's range of observations, and the myriad differentiated objects that exist that can be observed.
So why argue this puddle analogy? It's not apt.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — February 25, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Zach,
Wow, it took 2 days but you finally are getting it.
As I said multiple times, Doug's analogy only works if the puddle is stupid.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Provan,
Nope. I love Adams analogy. I just wanted to see what would happen if the puddle weren't an absolute dunce.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
You're still conflating stupid and ignorant. The latter can be cured.
All observers are limited in their knowledge and perception, hence Adams' valid analogy.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Then again, given the constraints, the puddle could be seen as a model of logical perfection, given what it is aware of.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — February 25, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Anaxagoras,
Yes. What's missing is the purposeful connection back to the creator. If the goal was to make life, then comprehension is superfluous. It is the ability to consciously comprehend and commune with the creator that hints of purpose.
Any puddle that could achieve this goal would then be reasonably justified in surmising that the universe was created with him in mind.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Hmm. I had responded to a direct question, providing a direct answer. It concerned how a puddle might reason about whether or not his hole is the result of design, per the thread topic. I offered that I could be wrong on the specifics. Yet my comment ended up in the Memory Hole.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Zach,
I said as much in the OP. And yes, Adams' analogy is valid and I am not trying to invalidate it.
If that didn't sink in, repeat it a few times.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Zach,
CSI is boring, and OT.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
I thought you intended to see if anything falls off because of its own faults. I didn't realize you meant, "Change it to see how stupid it would look if I were presenting it." I wouldn't have wasted any time if I knew that was your goal.
The point of the analogy is the puddle's limited point of view, not its intelligence. The puddle is, in fact, assumed to be exactly as intelligent as you or I. So you're still not really getting the point if you think Adams is presenting the puddle as an absolute dunce, no matter how wonderful your point is.
Comment by don provan — February 25, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
This point of the puddle analogy is that the puddle needs some other reason to think there's a purposeful connection back to the creator because we, from our superior point of view, can see the utterly mundane reason that it fits so perfectly into its hole.
Comment by don provan — February 25, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Provan,
No. I think I'm intelligent enough to understand that this world does not "fit me staggeringly well". Adams deliberately chose a stupid puddle because that's the only way the analogy can work.
Adams needs the puddle to "think" so that his analogy can work. He just doesn't want his puddle to think too hard because that would also spoil the analogy.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
OK, then I guess you're smarter than the people that think The Privileged Planet makes an interesting argument. That's the intended audience of the analogy.
His puddle thinks exactly as hard as people that are convinced by the privileged planet argument.
Comment by don provan — February 25, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
February 25th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Haha, this thread was a hoot. Apparently chunk thinks an analogy meant to deflate the Anthropic Principle is somehow wrong or deficient precisely because he apparently rejects the Anthropic Principle. Said differently, the analogy is so good that he apparently thinks its bad.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 25, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
February 26th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Todd,
A never ending source of fascination for me is the way closed minded critics react to perceived threats. Here in a single sentence Todd attributes three different arguments to me that I never made and to which I don't subscribe. I suppose Doug Adams, being a close friend of Richard Dawkins, becomes sacrosanct by association and any perceived threat towards him is deserving of however many ad homs and strawmen that it takes to protect the memory of St. Douglas the Pithy.
I do wish we could have explored the analogy further instead of spending all of this time parrying false accusations and poo-flinging. I had hoped someone would have stumbled upon the real reason WHY Doug Adams HAD TO choose a stupid puddle for his very brilliant analogy.
I had hoped that one of our poo-flinging friends had made the distinction between Adams' egocentric puddle and the theocentric puddle in the updated version. Perhaps this would have led to a discussion on the various iterations of the Anthropic Principle and why Adams very brilliant analogy is only designed to deflate a particularly limited variety of the Anthropic Principle. This might have led to an interesting discussion about cause and effect in chaotic systems, systematic theology and revelation, or the work of Barrow and Tipler, or any number of interesting avenues to explore.
Pity the mind that can't seem to get beyond an emotional defence of it's fragile worldview.
Yes, quite a lot of hooting and flinging of poo which thrills you monkeys so. Now that you have succesfully defended Douglas Adams from my vicious frontal assault you may now go back to picking lice from your fur. You may eat them if you like. They are crunchy.
Comment by chunkdz — February 26, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
February 26th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
And I am similarly fascinated by the way ID proponents take simple observations of logical problems as an irrational reactions.
Ah, only a matter of time before you describe your opponents' patiently presented, carefully explained, and well reasoned comments as "poo-flinging".
And, consequently, you've completely ignored numerous attempts to explain to you that the intelligence of the puddle is irrelevant to Adams's analogy.
We understood the distinction and explained to you why this made the analogy entirely different, not an "extension".
What's a pity is that you can't get beyond an emotional defense of your confused logic. If you'd drop that, we might have a chance of discovering what your real point is.
Comment by don provan — February 26, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
February 26th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Lol! This from the drooling bonobo who entered the discussion with a false accusation, an intentional misquote, two strawmen, two ad homs, and a bigoted generalization. All this in one big wet putrid steaming post that didn't even hit the bottom of the cage before you flung it.
You may now go back to chewing your toenails.
Comment by chunkdz — February 26, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
February 26th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Woot, now the thread has gotten even more fun as chunk has moved on to rampant direct insults. Hehe.
Ah, so even though you think, "this world does not "fit me staggeringly well"" you do support the Anthropic Principle? Please explain how precisely that works. Honestly this thread is so incoherent that I have no idea what, if anything, you are trying to say.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 26, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
February 27th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Hi chunkdz,
Can you describe or link to what you consider is a good explanation of the Goldilocks theory? I am familiar with the children's story about Goldilocks, but I don't remember it like this:
Goldilocks tries Pappa Bear's porridge and says, "It's too hot, and staggerinly unpalatable". Then she tries Mamma Bear's porridge and says, "It's too cold and staggeringly unpalatable". Then she tries Baby Bear's porridge and says, "It's just staggeringly unpalatable, they must have known I was coming!"
A little over two years ago, you wrote:
So, two years later, the design detecting is all wrapped up and you've moved on to conclusions about intent and identity – great! (Some notes on all that design detecting would be fabulous if you get a chance.) Up thread, you wrote, "It is the ability to consciously comprehend and commune with the creator that hints of purpose."
So the purpose (intent) is to commune with the creator and the identity should be obvious to someone who can consciously comprehend the creator. So, what is it? How big? Where? Come on, chunky, don't hold out on a lowly poo flinger, tell me about the creator.
Comment by JAllen — February 27, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
February 27th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Todd,
I'd like to Todd, and have in fits and starts begun to do so. But there is one problem.
You see, for three days I've said that Doug Adams' analogy is brilliant, it works, and that I am not refuting it, but I'd like to see what happens to the analogy when a couple parameters are changed. And after three days the most insightful thing you can muster is:
There is an explanation for this type of irrational comment. The partisan mind is accompanied by a markedly pronounced defense mechanism whereby the rational prefrontal dorsolateral cortex is subdued in favor of the emotional/pleasure centers of the brain. A partisan mind that feels threatened will retreat to these emotional centers and no amount of rational input will alter the output.
So for you to ask me for an explanation after you've already identified me as a threat would be like a chimpanzee asking for swimming lessons. It's not that I'm not willing, it's just that you're just not wired for it.
Comment by chunkdz — February 27, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
February 27th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
JAllen,
The idea that the earth is situated in such a place in spacetime as to support carbon based life.
Actually, if you read the OP I distinctly said the puddle could be wrong.
A critical thinker should be wary of putting words in someone's mouth. What I actually said was
Well I wouldn't waste my time if I thought you were simply a "lowly poo-flinger". But first let me ask you a question. Why do you suppose that communing with the creator is such a nearly universal human experience?
Comment by chunkdz — February 27, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
February 27th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Late to the party, but if anyone can show how to calculate CSI, or even suggest what a unit of CSI is or might be defined, please let us hear from you.
PS to fmm,
Persevere, as I am doing with "The Design Matrix"!
Comment by Alan Fox — February 27, 2009 @ 5:27 pm