The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity
by chunkdzA recent paper by David L. Abel offers a challenge in the form of a null hypothesis.
“Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut [9]: physicodynamics alone
cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization,
computational halting, and circuit integration.”A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly
natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.
More interesting to me is Abel's reason for offering this challenge:
To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous
metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily
falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it
My question (and probably the subject of a whole other research project) is this:
Is it even possible to "focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination"?
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Sure it is, chunkdz. Just offer lucrative grant and funding opportunities. The grant applications will roll in overnight.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I see no reason to suppose "integrated protometabolism" would result from "chaos and complexity."
How far? Not at all.
Indeed.
I don't think so and believe this is where an inference for design is likely to be strongest.
A good starting point.
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
April 4th, 2009 at 9:13 am
[...] HT: chunkdz at Telic Thoughts [...]
Pingback by Michael Behe, Eric Anderson, David Chiu, Kirk Durston mentioned favorably in ID-sympathetic Peer-Reviewed Article | Uncommon Descent — April 4, 2009 @ 9:13 am
April 4th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Gobbledygook. A rehash of well-worn fallacies.
For instance, “ 'Self-organization' is logically a nonsense term. Inanimate objects cannot organize themselves into integrated, cooperative, holistic schemes." As they have defined 'self-organization' as logically nonsensical, also demanding empirical support is fallacious. They could have simply left out all the other words.
Comment by Zachriel — April 4, 2009 @ 9:37 am
April 4th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Self-organization is a process of attraction and repulsion in which the internal organization of a system, normally an open system, increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source. Self-organizing systems typically (but not always) display emergent properties.
The problem with #8 is that in theory autocatalytic processes lead to complex biological systems. But the observation of that is another matter.
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2009 @ 10:45 am
April 4th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Self-organization is a rather vague idea that is hard to put on a mathematical foundation. The Wikipedia article quoted by Bradford mentions lasers, superconductivity, magnetic order, liquid crystals, and a few other examples of self-organization from physics. Theoretical descriptions of these phenomena do not rely in any way on the vague concept of self-organization.
Comment by olegt — April 4, 2009 @ 11:23 am
April 4th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Agreed that it is hard to put on mathematical foundation. The paper tries to avoid defining Organization as something subjectively perceived, but I don't think one can get around that problem.
On the other hand, in the most formal sense, defining life and biological function mathematically is also a subjective perception.
If we argue that life is an objective reality, then we have argued at least one form of subjectively defined organization as scientifically valid.
The problem of Origin of Life is explaining why there is the perception of subjectively defined patterns in molecules. Even the ID side is a little reluctant to admit this, but I think the problem of subjectivity is inescapable.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 4, 2009 @ 11:53 am
April 4th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Stuart Kauffman, biologist
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
April 4th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Mentioned in the paper was:
This paper was discussed here at TelicThoughts here: Information and Functional Perspective.
On first glance it appears Durston and Chiu use similar measures of functional information as do Hazen, Griffith, and Schoztak.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 4, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
April 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Thanks for posting this Chunkdz,
This is a great paper IMO. While I do not agree with everything in this article (do I ever?) the overall content and thrust is great. I am very pleased to see the emergence of new ideas and formalisms for "information." While Dembski did some great pioneering work to bring forward "complex specified information" some of us (myself included) have found CSI a little awkward. Dursten's and Szostak's "functional information" is much more in line with my natural way of thinking about information and design and my own "correlational information." Abel's "prescriptive information" is another blessing in this regard. While Shannon and Kolmogorov "information's" have served as very useful shorthands for information they are both incomplete and are prone to misuse (particularly in controversial areas such as biology).
Comment by William Brookfield — April 6, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Like it or not, the basic premise of the null hypothesis remains. It really would simply take a single example from any of a myriad of disciplines or any one of a variety of dynamical systems.
Comment by chunkdz — April 7, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
You forgot to respond to the point raised.
Comment by Zachriel — April 7, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Abel calls "self-organization" nonsense for the same reason you call ID "nonsense". Zero scientific evidence.
Feel free to argue with yourself.
Comment by chunkdz — April 7, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Principles of the self-organizing system
W. Ross Ashby
http://csis.pace.edu/~marchese...
Comment by Rock — April 7, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Zachriel:
First, The author does not refer to the problem in the way you imply he does.
He doesn't state that self-organization is logically fallacious *and then demand evidence for it*. He merely states that even before the absence of empirical evidence, it already suffers on logical grounds — "logical nonsense" as you cite. Furthermore he finds self organization suspect also because of "sloppy definitions" of the term.
As the author states:
Second, even if the author demands evidence for something which he deems to be logically fallacious, what's wrong with that? If you tell me that the "x" can not be negated on logical grounds, you are well aware that no evidence will contradict your claim. If I tell you that you are wrong it is in no way logically fallacious for you to ask for evidence of any type, whether logical or empirical, all the while having full confidence that I won't be able to provide such evidence because of the logic backing your position.
Of course he states that self-organization, as is popularly being used, does not exist. I'm sure you would agree that a concept which is purported to be logically fallacious shouldn't exist, and *one way* to show that it is indeed not logically fallacious is to show that it does exist.
…next "logical fallacy"…
Oh, and you forgot to respond to the point raised by chunkdz.
Comment by CJYman — April 7, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
On "order" vs. "organization."
Pretty much summed up as the difference between "formal" and "physicodynamic" as explained by Abel.
Comment by CJYman — April 7, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
That is not what is meant by 'logical nonsense'. If it is logically nonsensical, then it is not subject to empirical verification.
Notice the use of the Bona Fide Scotsman fallacy.
It is a way of building the conclusion into the premise. If he actually has shown that 'self-organization' is logical nonsense, then no amount evidence would be relevant and a formal proof is sufficient. Indeed, such an overarching result would more properly be published in a journal for mathematical peers.
Of course I did. The so-called null hypothesis concerns 'self-organization'.
"Ecosystems evolve towards a higher level of organization rather than towards a higher complexity."
Comment by Zachriel — April 7, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Rock, is this a point of view that you subscribe to?
Comment by chunkdz — April 7, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Zachriel,
He's not asking for verification. He's asking for falsification.
So do evolutionary computer algorithms. So what?
Comment by chunkdz — April 7, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
If it is logically nonsensical, then it is not subject to empirical falsification.
Ecosystems self-organize, and do so through an evolutionary process that we can observe and model, showing that the global properties are not planned, but a consequent of local interactions. Like the weather.
Comment by Zachriel — April 7, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Abel is asking for falsification of his null hypothesis, not your pet metaphysical assumption.
That's self-ordering, not self-organization. Read section 14 for clarification.
Comment by chunkdz — April 7, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
April 7th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
You show no such thing, with regards to 'planned'. Making a judgment call about whether or not local interactions or any grounding situation is 'planned' takes you right outside of science and into philosophy. You can get as far as 'given these particular facts, you can reasonably expect X, if all else remains equal' – useful, undoubtedly, but it doesn't show what you insinuate it shows. And it doesn't need to either, for science to do the job it does.
Stop harming and otherwise threatening science with your vacuous declarations about design and planning.
Comment by nullasalus — April 7, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
April 8th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Finally we get around to my main question from the OP!
Comment by chunkdz — April 8, 2009 @ 12:00 am
April 8th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Nullasalus
The funding would have to come from outside orthodox science. Othodox science has no interest in examining its own metaphysical imaginings. Orthodox scientists wish to continue believing that life and its functional information simply raised itself from primordial dead matter — just like the weather.
Comment by William Brookfield — April 8, 2009 @ 12:56 am
April 8th, 2009 at 1:08 am
William Brookfield,
Ah, you have a profound lack of faith in the ultimate commitments of many scientists, Mr. Brookfield! I don't share that view. I think most scientists will gladly research, say… whether the number of spots on a ladybug's shell can be useful in predicting a drought or flood. You just have to pony up the cash.
There's a rock-bottom devotion at work. To what? Well, that's the touchier question.
Comment by nullasalus — April 8, 2009 @ 1:08 am
April 8th, 2009 at 1:40 am
LOL!
So they're in for the money, not some ideology that they( however misguidedly) believe to be noble? Actually, I didn't mean to post that one in quite that generalized form. There are indeed many good scientist who are doing their best within the system. Unfortunately orthodox science is now being represented by people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and I think they are giving science a bad reputation with their metaphysical imaginings and subsequent projections.
Comment by William Brookfield — April 8, 2009 @ 1:40 am
April 8th, 2009 at 2:08 am
William Brookfield,
I think, as with most people, outward commitments to ideology are a luxury in a professional capacity. Or, just as often, statements of metaphysics and philosophy are used to make what would normally be pretty damn boring scientific findings sexier and more likely to be published and boosted.
Now, at the risk of being overly optimistic – PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins represent orthodox science? I understand that perspective, certainly the belief that so often actual science tends to be communicated in the popular press in the most inane way. But I don't think either are acting as representatives in a personal sense. Dawkins at this point is known for his atheism, not his scientific 'accomplishments' (which added up to, what, writing popular books in a somewhat engrossing way? Meme ideas which not even he talks about at this point?) And even his atheist-representative position is on the level of pitting him against Lee Strobel, rather than a professional philosopher or theologian.
And PZ Myers? Again, when you hear the name 'PZ Myers', do you think 'Wow! Scientific accomplishment!' or 'Didn't he do something stupid with a Catholic host a few months back?' I suppose there are people who slobber over him as some kind of bearded science incarnate, but.. there are people who think Deepak Chopra has a better handle on 'true science' than anyone else as well. I don't think Myers or Chopra represent much of anything. In fact, I think the two of them are doing a bang-up job of promoting skepticism about press releases and popular science articles.
Comment by nullasalus — April 8, 2009 @ 2:08 am
April 8th, 2009 at 6:42 am
Yes, that is the very point. He is asking for empirical falsification of something he claims is logically nonsensical.
I was referring to CJYman's cite. We can show that ecosystems self-organize just as weather complexes self-organize. They are "unplanned" in the same sense.
Comment by Zachriel — April 8, 2009 @ 6:42 am
April 8th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Quoting Abel:
Chaos and complexity are concepts descriptive of physical phenomenon. Zachriel, Abel's view as to what is logically nonsensical is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a process, for example, would select function over non-function. The issue has applicability to RNA world scenarios where theorized self-replication would generate systems having component enzymes enabling biological function. An RNA molecule, at some point, would have to incorporate the requisite sequences of nucleotides required to code for multiple enzymes. IOW, a transition from a self-replicator to an information storage molecule either would take place- or not do so.
Comment by Bradford — April 8, 2009 @ 8:12 am
April 8th, 2009 at 11:11 am
I usually stop reading at the first egregious fallacy.
Abel applies his argument broadly to all evolutionary self-organization, including the self-organization evident in ecosystems.
Comment by Zachriel — April 8, 2009 @ 11:11 am
April 8th, 2009 at 11:32 am
“Rock, is this a point of view that you subscribe to?”
Yup. Pretty much. My views are quite similar to Ashby’s. On this and related matters my views have been informed significantly by Ashby, Wiener, von Neumann, Shannon, Kalman, et al those old-timer “cybernetists” and “systems” thinkers. For me they provide some clarity, which now seems so sorely lacking. (See Abel.)
Robert Rosen describes life as a system closed wrt efficient causes, i.e., a life form encapsulates within itself its own efficient causes and effects. External forces are not the efficient causes of life. This is a fundamentally different “philosophical” or “metaphysical” perspective. Quite different from what I understand to be the Neo-Darwinian perspective.
To be self-organizing requires to be a “self,” i.e., isolated from non-self.
The object of a self-adapting system (i.e., every life form) is to isolate itself from causes and effects that would drive it away from its own ideal state of ataraxia. Closure is effected by achieving this quixotic goal.
The object of such a “self-organizing” system is, in effect, “transcendent,” to remove itself from the causal order of the material universe. To “isolate” itself.
Comment by Rock — April 8, 2009 @ 11:32 am
April 8th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
No. He is asking for falsification of HIS null hypothesis. He is not presuming that it is impossible – (obviously systems exist above the cybernetic cut). He is saying that "self-organization" is wishful thinking because it simply doesn't happen, whether by necessity or chance. There may be some as yet unknown law which may act as a bridge across the cut.
Point is, falsification will require something more than Zachriel saying "naturedidit", and your appeals to "the weather" as an example leave us nonplussed.
Comment by chunkdz — April 8, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
April 8th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Rock:
No one, Abel included, denies the existence or efficacy of "self-organizing systems". He is asking for a system that can bridge the cybernetic cut.
Where is the clarity in "In any isolated system, life and intelligence inevitably develop. (they may, in degenerate cases, develop to only zero degree)."?
For me this boils down to "life is inevitable, but sometimes it's not".
Can you elaborate on this a bit?
Comment by chunkdz — April 8, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
April 8th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
He directly stated that self-organization is logical nonsense. Perhaps he meant something else, but that's what he said.
Comment by Zachriel — April 8, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
April 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Zachriel,
Then there are two obvious choices for you.
1.) Provide refuting evidence of a system that self-organizes across the cybernetic cut.
2.) Look for something other than "self" that does the organizing.
Comment by chunkdz — April 8, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
April 8th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
It suffices to show that his argument is inconsistent.
Comment by Zachriel — April 8, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
April 8th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Inconsistent?
It's the same argument you continually use against ID. 'ID is nonsense because it has zero scientific evidence'.
When Abel points out that "self-organization" has zero scientific evidence, Zachriel cries "Inconsistent!"
Ironic.
Comment by chunkdz — April 8, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
April 8th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
It's best to use exact cites in such a situation. I note you left out the key word "logical".
ID is scientifically vacuous. It posits an empirically extraneous entity. I suppose some constructs are also logical nonsense, but again, we would have to be specific.
As far as the rest of Abel's argument, I would be happy to consider it, but I found other such inconsistencies throughout the paper.
Comment by Zachriel — April 8, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
April 9th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Lol! You perceive it as inconsistent because you interject your metaphysical beliefs! That's the salient point which eludes you even though it is right here in front of your pre-frontal dorsolateral cortex.
You appear to be exactly the kind of overzealously metaphysical scientist that Abel had in mind when he wrote this paper I'm afraid. More's the pity.
Comment by chunkdz — April 9, 2009 @ 1:13 am
April 9th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Zachriel:
Yes. There is a process which *he claims* is logically nonsensical. As I already explained to you, in order to provide evidence that a process is not logically nonsense all someone has to do is provide one example of said process occuring. Abel understands this and thus provides a null hypothesis based on what he sees as the difference between that which makes logical sense and that which is logically nonsensical. Of course, in order to prove him wrong, all you have to do is to refute his null hypothesis and thus prove that self-organization from physicodynamics to formal systems is not logical nonsense. Or you can just analyze his argument and agree that based on how he has defined and explained his terms, the aforementioned process is indeed "highly suspect" on logical grounds and if it doesn't make sense on logical grounds then obviously it won't occur on empirical grounds (as long as our logic is correct).
Let me provide a little example (again!). What is fallacious with the following:
I say that the "reality" of process 'x' "is highly suspect on logical and analytic grounds even before facing the absence of empirical evidence" as Abel stated. I then explain myself and I then create a null hypothesis based on my understanding. I state, process 'x' can not be shown to occur. Then I invite you to provide evidence that I am wrong — that my idea of process 'x' suffering on both logical and empirical grounds is faulty. I am now inviting you to provide evidence that process 'x' is indeed not logical nonsense. What is the best way for you to take me up on my challenge?
1. You can provide a reasoned logical argument to counter my statement that process 'x' suffers on logical ground.
2. You can provide empirical evidence of process 'x' occuring, thus showing that I was wrong. Process 'x' does not suffer either logically or empirically.
3. You can agree with me that process 'x' is indeed suspect on logical grounds and thus is not worth searching for on empirical ground (as long as we are correct about the logic). We may then proceed to discovering a different process to take the place of the first proposed process 'x'.
What part of the above scenario engages in a logical fallacy? I propose that there is no logical fallacy in the process of the above scenario. What do you think? BTW, that is the same process that Abel engaged in and which you for some reason claimed was logically fallacious earlier.
Comment by CJYman — April 9, 2009 @ 2:28 am
April 9th, 2009 at 7:54 am
You've repeatedly failed to address the point.
He says the *term* itself is nonsense, "'Self-organization' is logically a nonsense term." Based on that, it has nothing whatsoever to do with empirical verification. If we find something we might consider to be "self-organized", it can't be "true self-organization", because the term itself is nonsense.
Notice the repeated use of the Bona Fide Scotsman fallacy.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2009 @ 7:54 am
April 9th, 2009 at 11:38 am
chunkdz Says: “No one, Abel included, denies the existence or efficacy of "self-organizing systems". He is asking for a system that can bridge the cybernetic cut.”
No one? I deny the existence and “efficacy” of “self-organizing” systems. I agree with Ashby’s argument that there really is no such thing as a self-organizing system. Ashby’s argument begins on page 268 (116). Two of us deny it. Abel denies it too. I know you read the paper you linked to, so you must have misspoken.
“… Can you elaborate on this a bit?”
Yes. Ashby’s gone Full Fu Manchu!
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Image...
I did say Ashby clarifies some things for me. Not you. I did say my views are quite similar. Not identical.
Comment by Rock — April 9, 2009 @ 11:38 am
April 9th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Zachriel, the only point you've made so far is that one would have to use reasoned argument to first show that Abel is incorrect in stating that "“Self-organization” is logically a nonsense term" and "the reality of self-organization is highly suspect on logical and analytic grounds" before even moving on to providing empirical evidence of self organizing emergence of formal systems from physicodynamics.
Thus, Abel is saying that obviously someone would *first* have to show that he is wrong in his logical assessment of "self-organization" before even moving to the empirical evidence and providing evidence which negates his null hypothesis — unless his null hypothesis can be negated without relying on "self-organization."
Thus, I stand by my claim that Abel has not come anywhere near using a "logical fallacy" and since you can't even negate his argument at the first level — the logical level — then he must have a point. Since his whole paper surrounds this idea, his paper must be taken seriously.
Comment by CJYman — April 9, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
April 9th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Abel:
Zachriel:
All I'm noticing is a necessary consequence of a logical argument.
It's like me saying that a square circle is logical nonsense, therefore any prediction that one will be found will never be fulfilled. Well, if anything, that is merely stating the obvious — "no one has ever or ever will provide empirical evidence of the existence of a square circle."
Comment by CJYman — April 9, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
April 9th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Insofar as I understand him, Ashby has considered the problem that Abel has no answer for (“cybernetic cut”). Abel has no “escape” route out of his “dynamically inert” switches. Physical systems switch states all the time. Nothing unusual, as Abel says, trivial. Somebody or something has to throw the switch. Ashby has argued how this might be done and actually anticipated this development:
A genetic timer through noise-induced stabilization of an unstable state
http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
Comment by Rock — April 9, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
April 9th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Rock,
Well, it apparently depends on the definition. Ashby kind of reformulated the definition but the prior definition still seems to have a foothold out there. It seems to hinge around whether the system accepts information or is closed to information.
But to address your comment, we can find any number of "self-organizing systems" (google it) but they all seem to suffer from the inability to bridge the cut. So no, I do not think "self-organizing systems" exist unless they are designed to be so and if so they necessarily are disqualified from using the term "self" in it's absolute form.
This example, along with the Homeostat, are designed systems. Did Ashby (or anybody else) ever observe a system jumping from physicodynamic to formalistic? Or did Ashby simply redefine "formalistic"?
Comment by chunkdz — April 9, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
April 9th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
So "bona fide self-organization" has a specific definition that is not open to reinterpretation at his convenience? Zach was alerting us to question why the "bona fide" is there if not to leave him an opening to declare "but that's not bona fide" for any specific counter example we might present.
Comment by don provan — April 9, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
April 10th, 2009 at 9:29 am
yes
It's there to make sure that those presenting a counter example adhere to the definition.
This is not rocket science DP words have meanings.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 10, 2009 @ 9:29 am
April 10th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Zach
It's not a fallacy unless the definition changes with each counter example that is not what happens in this case.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 10, 2009 @ 9:34 am
April 10th, 2009 at 10:05 am
I once had a professor who described for us mathematically how a low-pass electronic filter works. "It doesn't eliminate the high frequencies in the signal" he said, "it merely delays them for an infinite amount of time".
Ashby reawakens in me that same feeling of incomprehensible wonder. He also provides a mathematical basis, but when we ask "what happened to all the life and intelligence in the closed system" Ashby responds "All the life and intelligence is there – but it's only developed to the zero degree."
Comment by chunkdz — April 10, 2009 @ 10:05 am
April 10th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Having shown that a square circle is a logical contradiction in plane geometry, I would not then spend hundreds of words discussing how a valid empirical falsification would mean checking the corners of every circle in the universe.
It's up to Abel to support his own claims. Rather he defines it in terms of "true decision node", a construction that is flexible. What is an empirical test of a "true decision node" and how does it differ from other types of decision nodes?
Um, his so-called null hypothesis is defined in terms of "self-organization".
Comment by Zachriel — April 10, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
April 11th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Zachriel:
1. So, at the worst, you are stating the his argument is overdone — that he is merely spending too much time stating the obvious, that no one will be able to provide empirical evidence for a concept which is as Abel states "suspect on logical grounds … before empirical grounds" and is a case of "logical nonsense."
2. There is no need to check every corner of the universe, nor does that author call for such action. He merely calls for one example. First, merely show that his logic is incorrect, which will then mean that the null hypothesis may be able to be falsified on empirical grounds — on scientific grounds. The reason the author provides the null hypothesis is for those who have claimed that self-organization is a valid hypothesis. He is arguing on their grounds — if they want to use "self organization" as a scientific term they will have to show that it isn't logical nonsense by negating his argument in the paper and then provide empirical support for their position.
3. It seems you would agree with his conclusion that self-organization of a physicodynamic system into a formal system is "suspect on logical grounds" even if you continue to contend that the rest of his argument calling for empirical evidence somehow engages in a fallacy. On that note, are dropping "charges" of fallacy or a you willing to support your accusation?
CJYman:
Zachriel:
1. Of course its up to Abel to support his own claims. My response was to your accusation of a fallacy created by the author. My quote above provided the only real point that you had made thus far. Myself and fmm above already responded to your claim of "fallacy." I'm wondering if you have dropped your accusation of fallacy or if you wish to defend your accusation further.
2. As to "true decision nodes," it seems the author wishes to separate the definition of such nodes from mere "combinatorial bifurcation points."
Furthermore, Abel defines "true decision nodes" and ultimately "formal organization" in terms of being function oriented, being capable of computational halting, etc …
Do you wish to discuss this further?
Zachriel:
True. I was reading his null hypothesis from a slightly different angle. There may be other hypothesis out there that don't rely on any popularly used concept of "self organization" — as utilized by Kaufman I believe — [such as "lawful organization" (Denton) or just plain "freak accident" (Dawkins, maybe?)] to bridge the cybernetic cut from physicodynamics to formal organization.
Comment by CJYman — April 11, 2009 @ 12:42 am
April 11th, 2009 at 9:34 am
No. It's one of many errors. He defines 'self-organization' in such a way that his conclusion *seems* to be obviously true—to him at least.
He doesn't use logic. He merely makes the sweeping claim. Assuming a reasonable definition, it's an empirical question.
His 'null hypothesis' doesn't entail specific empirical predictions. It's not a usable scientific hypothesis. And again, it depends on a faulty definition.
Many systems self-organize. But they're apparently not "bona fide
Scotmenself-organizations".What is an empirical test of a "true decision node" and how does it differ from other types of decision nodes?
Yes, we see those types of functions in biology. So apparently those sorts of systems arise in nature.
Comment by Zachriel — April 11, 2009 @ 9:34 am
April 13th, 2009 at 10:40 am
What definition of "self-organization" are you using, Zach? Maybe you should include a definition of "organization" and "self" while your at it.
Comment by chunkdz — April 13, 2009 @ 10:40 am
April 13th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I'm referring to the author's definition.
Comment by Zachriel — April 13, 2009 @ 11:57 am
April 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
And I'm asking what you think the definition should be.
Please include definitions of "self" and "organization" as well.
Comment by chunkdz — April 13, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
You apparently don't even know what a null hypothesis is.
Are you really a professional scientist, Zach?
Comment by chunkdz — April 13, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
There are a variety of definitions, depending on what is being studied. Qualitatively, it refers to spontaneous ordering. We might draw a distinction between simple ordering and organization, with organization being a complex arrangement, that is, interconnected components that have properties beyond those of the individual parts. The author goes further to require "formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration".
A null hypothesis is a hypothesis. It predicts a certain result and is usually contrasted with some alternative hypothesis. We then compare this prediction to the actual result, usually in a real attempt at falsification.
Comment by Zachriel — April 13, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Then pick one. Abel gave you many choices of disciplines to choose from.
No, that's how Abel defines a "formally functional system", not "self-organization". Please pay attention.
No, sometimes a null hypothesis predicts the absence of a certain result. Since this is the case with Abel's null hypothesis you are wrong in concluding that it is useless.
By the way, are you a real professional scientist or not?
Comment by chunkdz — April 13, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Zachriel:
1. And you have yet to back up any of your claims that he uses an improper definition of self-organization than that popularly used in the literature. If there is no concrete definition in the literature then Abel merely provides a definition based on how people have attempted to use the term "self-organization" in the sense of "formal emergence." Of course, the author does have to make sure that the reader understands that there is a difference between organization and order and this distinction is clearly laid out in the literature.
2. Actually the conclusion seems pretty obviously true to myself as well. Why doesn't it seem obviously true to you?
This is all pretty elementary. I'm surprised that you are having such a hard time with it.
Zachriel:
You are incorrect. Have you even read through the paper? I highly doubt it, since earlier it seemed that you were saying that you stopped reading the paper at the first "logical fallacy" (which of course you have yet to back up and fmm has briefly and aptly rebutted).
fmm has already dealt with your insistent accusation of "fallacy" and you have yet to respond to him. It seems you wish to continue to assert that Abel engages in the "no true scotsman fallacy" without providing any evidence that he engaged in any post hoc redefinitions.
Zachriel:
As usual, your side of the discussion is turning out to be high on assertion; low on explanation and evidence.
Zachriel:
Again, more assertions sans evidence.
You are apparently one of those people who don't understand the difference between organization and order. The author explains the difference and I have briefly shown the difference above as cited by a different paper.
Zachriel:
On true decision nodes:
"Decision nodes are much more than mere bifurcation points. Bifurcation points can be traversed by chance contingency. Any attempt to reduce decision nodes to mere bifurcation points results in rapid deterioration of any potential non trivial formal function. The existence of bifurcation points does not account for computational success. Organization and formal utility are achieved through the controlled opening and closing of logic gates. The latter requires bona fide choices made with steering and programming intent."
Thus it seems that formal organization is defined in terms of true decision nodes which are not defined by physicodynamics and which satisfy some conditions – “function-oriented, computationally halting, integrated-circuit producing, algorithmically optimized, and choice-contingent.” Then, true decision nodes are subsequently defined as logic gates; not mere bifurcation points. But of course if you actually read past the alleged “fallacy” you would have been able to answer a lot of your own questions.
Thus, whichever empirical test you would apply to discover if something is indeed a logic gate would be the test that you require.
Zachriel:
Uhuh … and???? Can you deal with the author's argument or not? Have you even read through the author's argument? It appears not.
Comment by CJYman — April 13, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
CJYman,
Zach has already indicated earlier in the thread that he is not interested in reading the paper, just criticizing the paper.
Comment by chunkdz — April 13, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Abel defines a bona fide formal organization as a "function-oriented, computationally halting, integrated-circuit producing, algorithmically optimized, and choice-contingent at true decision nodes (not just combinatorial bifurcation points)." Notice the no True Scotman Fallacy.
Comment by Zachriel — April 13, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Nope. The No True Scotsman fallacy is characterized by an arbitrary change in definition. Abel has not changed the definition of formal organization. He merely is describing some of thedefining functions present in formal systems.
So are you a real professional scientist or not? You can say "I refuse to answer" if you want.
Comment by chunkdz — April 13, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
I have no problem with using a special definition as long as we recognize it as such. Unfortunately, the definition he has provided isn't empirically useful.
Indeed, I have.
I usually stop reading at the first *egregious* fallacy. Nevertheless, I read the paper, and commented on it on another blog.
You didn't answer the question. All you've done is rephrase "true decision nodes" into "bona fide choices". It's circular and empirically useless. But I can see that *you* have read the paper, because that is exactly what the author does throughout.
So "bona fide formal organization" is defined as being comprised of "true decision nodes", which are not defined by physicodynamics. A direct circular argument, and empirically vacuous.
Zachriel is the angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter. Crystal spheres, that sort of thing.
Comment by Zachriel — April 13, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
April 13th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Abel doesn't merely use a special definition, but having made his point about his peculiar definition, he then attempts it to extend to how everyone else uses the term, e.g. saying "Yet thousands of peer-reviewed papers exist in the literature on 'self-organization.' How can denial of self-organization possibly be correct? The answer is that all of these papers are universally misdefining what is being observed." So it is everyone else who is misdefining the term.
Comment by Zachriel — April 13, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Zachriel:
Coming from someone who seems to not understand the difference explained in the literature between organization and order and thus having the inability to understand the author's definition and argument, that statement is a little out on a limb. Care to expound on your assertion? You are the one making a claim about this paper — it's up to you to back up your claim. Please continue …
Oh, and feel free to refer to my cite from a completely different paper published way back in 1979, explaining the difference between organization and order. You will notice that cite to be quite complementary to Abel's paper.
The author of the article has definitely backed up his position, as I have begun to explain, yet you continue to label his position as some type of fallacy, which you have yet to back up.
Zachriel:
CJYman:
Zachriel:
Then I guess the better explanation would be that you refuse to comprehend what the author is stating. Please, do feel free to provide any sort of evidence for your position.
Zachriel:
Yet you can't make a coherent explanation of any of your assertions here on this blog?
Zachriel:
CJYman [citing Abel]:
Zachriel:
Haha! Well done Zachriel. Post the one part of the cite which makes little sense on its own and completely neglects to include my direct comment (building on the full context of the part of the paper which I cited) responding to your question.
I stated (and I quote myself) as an answer to your question: "Thus, whichever empirical test you would apply to discover if something is indeed a logic gate would be the test that you require." You will notice that a logic gate consists of at least two physicodynamically inert switches which then ties in the authors discussion on switches.
Is your habit of obfuscation purposeful (ie: intelligently guided) or just a reflection on your inability to read through and/or comprehend comments [or indeed articles/papers] before you respond?
Do I have to spoon feed the whole article to you? I would understand if you admitted that you couldn't understand the article and were asking for clarification. However, it seems that in making absolute judgment calls on the paper that you purport to understand it.
I ask the above questions in all sincerity. I apologize if it comes across as a personal attack; it's just that I'm slightly confused and frustrated. Or is that the effect that you are looking for? It seems that you would rather ignore obviously relevant comments in order to avoid actually having to substantiate your position.
CJYman:
Zachriel:
Nope.
Here let me lay it out for you:
A = formal organization
B= a set of true decision nodes
C = defined by physicodynamics
A is defined in terms of B which is partially defined as lacking a full description based on C (among possessing other positives). Thus A also lacks a full description based on C, because A contains B. Were is the circularity? A = B not= C, thus A not= C.
Well, I'll give you one thing. You finally attempted to back up one of your assertions of "logical fallacy."
chunkdz:
Zachriel:
Incorrect, the part of the paper which you quote, states that "all of these papers are universally misdefining what is being observed." Abel, in that quote, did not state that everyone else is misdefining the *term*. In fact, the article that I quoted above re: the difference and definition of order vs. organization in the 1979 paper is perfectly compatible with what Abel is stating. Abel states that everyone is misdefining the *observation*.
Thus it is a problem of category error. Check it out. Does the author not discuss category error in his paper? Again, check it out.
Oh, and do you still stand by your assertion of "no true scotsman fallacy?" Moreover, how is his definition of "organization" vs. "order" (as a foundation for self-organization vs. self-order) so "peculiar" in your mind?
Comment by CJYman — April 14, 2009 @ 12:19 am
April 14th, 2009 at 7:55 am
{snip excessive hyperventilating}
The reference goes on to describe an ecosystem as spontaneous self-organization, global properties emerging from local interactions.
You clearly stated the circularity. The author has *defined* "true decision node" (B) as something which cannot be due to physicodynamics (C); hence a "formal organization" (A) which depends on "true decision nodes" (B) cannot be due to physicodynamics (C). Purely circular. It tells us nothing except that we can make up definitions. Which is why he considers the term "self-organization" to be nonsense (by his definition), and why asking for empirical falsification is so much gibberish.
Then he attempts to extend to notion to other uses of the term "self-organization".
They're not misstating observations, which are replicable, but purportedly the categorization which depends on the *definition*.
Comment by Zachriel — April 14, 2009 @ 7:55 am
April 14th, 2009 at 8:06 am
So, we return to where we started.
Comment by Zachriel — April 14, 2009 @ 8:06 am
April 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Notice the game Zach is playing. Abel says researchers are mistakenly defining what they see as "self-organization". Zachriel then breaks out the pitchfork and some old coveralls and builds himself a strawman saying that Abel says they are misdefining the term. It's all just a ruse so that Zachriel can accuse Abel of a No True Scotsman.
It continues here:
Another example of the Zach shell game – changing the word "misdefining" to "misstating" – purposefully so that he can make another false accusation.
And all the while, Zachriel refuses to tell us exactly what he thinks the proper definition should be.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Wow that was gay.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Yup.
1) Not a single example of a physicodynamic system traversing the cybernetic cut.
2) Zachriel has still not read the paper he is criticizing, and…
3) Zach still has not offered us a proper definition for any of the terms that he seems to think are being grossly misdefined.
However we did learn that Zach is not a scientist, he thinks that thunderstorms could someday become intelligent creatures, and he wears a frilly robe, papier mache wings and an aluminum-foil halo when he surfs the net. So it's not a total loss.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Abel is redefining "self-organization" from how most others use the term. Then he insists others are miscategorizing phenomena because they don't share his definition. Furthermore, his conclusion is vacuous as it is assumed in his defintion.
Comment by Zachriel — April 14, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Lol! Yesterday you complained that there were a variety of different definitions of the term. Today you say there is wide consensus.
Yet you still haven't even told us what the proper definition should be. Shoot, you haven't even given us Abel's definition. I think you just like to bitch whenever somebody questions your metaphysical beliefs.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
chunkdz:
I think it's characteristic of Zach's charitable reading. It makes no sense to speak of "misdefining what is observed". We define terms, not observations. If you think that Abel didn't mean "misstating", then what do you think he meant?
Comment by R0b — April 14, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I think he meant that metaphysically invested people like Zachriel look at water swirling down the drain and mistakenly imagine that the water is "self-organizing" and that this "self-organizing" may somehow be interpolated as an explanation for the origin of life.
So how 'bout ir ROb? Do you have an example of physicodynamics spontaneously traversing the cybernetic cut?
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Zachriel:
Nope, as I explained above and will briefly explain again, "organization" is a term used to define a certain type of observation. That observation includes a set of logic gates (which produce specific types of systems). Logic gates are composed of physicodynamically inert switches. Thus "organization" is *by definition* physicodynamically inert.
I think I see where your problem lies. You think that this process of observation and definition is where the argument lies. That is simply not correct. Abel is not creating an argument here and thus I also misrepresented him with the above syllogism. He is merely laying out observations and definitions.
The argument comes in to play as he proceeds to utilize the observations and definitions. His conclusion is in the form of a null hypothesis at the end of the paper.
Now, may we proceed with the rest of the argument?
Zachriel:
Yes, Abel's point is that they are mis-categorizing observations.
So, Zachriel do you care to:
1. Provide evidence that you understand the difference between organization and order as explained by Abel.
2. Provide definitions of organization which are utilized by other scientists to explain the "emergence" of life, so that we can examine such claims in the light of Abel's paper.
3. Back up or drop your insistent cry of "fallacy."
4. Provide an example of physicodynamics traversing the cybernetic cut to formal organization.
So, we are back to where we started and the null hypothesis is still in place and there is no evidence to suggest that formal organization can be produced by merely chaos and varying levels of complexities — any combination of law and chance.
Comment by CJYman — April 14, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Zachriel:
Again, incorrect. The author does not *define* true decision nodes as that which "can't be due to physicodynamics." The author *defines* true decision nodes as logic gates, which are composed of physicodynamically inert switches. This makes all the differnce.
He then makes the *argument* that a set of logic gates which produce computational halting, etc. can't be due to physicodynamics *because* the switches necessary are physicodynamically inert.
Furthermore, the "formal organization" is composed of physicodynamically inert switches *by definition.*
Then he continues to create an *argument* that because of the physicodynamically inert element, the type of system defined by him as "formal organization" needs more than physicodynamics to be realized.
Zachriel, you are butchering and confusing both the authors definitions and arguments in almost every one of your comments, thus my need to ask you those questions re: your habitual use of obfuscation (almost to the point of art), which you {snipped} off as excessive hyperventilation. Seriously, if I applied the same type of rules to my correspondence with you, I would {snip} off almost all of your comments due to excessive obfuscation.
Comment by CJYman — April 14, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
…and in the process justifying Abel's null hypothesis, I might add. Zach is exactly the kind of metaphysical apologist that Abel was calling out.
I rather admire Rock's approach: he doesn't necessarily agree with Abel, but rather than misrepresenting Abel he offered what he considers a solution to the problem of the cybernetic cut.
Zach, in contrast, refuses to read the paper, misrepresents Abel's argument, and obstinately refuses to offer any solution of his own.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
chunkdz:
In other words, they miscategorize, which is to say that they misstate the category. CJYman thinks so too: Yes, Abel's point is that they are mis-categorizing observations. So I guess your shell game accusation applies to all of us.
I'll let you know as soon as I read all of Abel's work on the subject and find closed, usable definitions of his terms.
Comment by R0b — April 14, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Zach said this:
As if anyone had accused anyone else of misstating an observation – which would be tantamount to falsifying research. Strawman. Shell game. Obfuscation. Pretend arguments. Take your pick.
That would be an unqualified "no".
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
chunkdz, your powers of word expansion and compression are impressive.
expands to
and
compresses to
If that's an unqualified no, I'd be interested to see one that's qualified.
Regardless, I will read Abel's work and try to answer your question.
Comment by R0b — April 14, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Physicodynamically inert here means decoupled from physicodynamic necessity, i.e. the logic gate can take any value.
Not "thus". Collections of things may have properties not entailed in the individual components.
Okay.
An enzyme.
But it's irrelevant. Just because we don't know of something that "traverses the cybernetic cut to formal organization" is not evidence.
Every time we observe a beneficial mutation.
That seems quite different from what you wrote just above, that "organization" is *by definition* physicodynamically inert. That is the crux of the confusion.
If, as the author claims, "self-organization" (as he defines the term) is logically a nonsense term, then asking for empirical support is equally nonsense. And saying that other scientists are mischaracterizing their observations because they use a different definition of self-organization is not a valid criticism.
Comment by Zachriel — April 14, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Hi Rob,
No need to read it Rob . Zach has already answered the problem of the origin of life and the origin of functional information. The answer is "self organization." Life and information "self organized" itself out of dead matter — just like the weather. Zach is surely picking up the million dollar prize even as we speak.
Comment by William Brookfield — April 14, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
That's a reasonable restatement for purposes of discussion. Removing his comments about the metaphysics of his supposed naysayers, fallacies and handwaving, that appears to be his position—what he calls the Cybernetic Cut.
It reminds me of "
Here be dragons" found on ancient maps. His argument is that he'll believe in dragons until someone proves him wrong. Meanwhile, scientists continue to investigate other types of self-organization.In science, it requires more than scientific jargon to construct a usable theory. There is no complete theory of abiogenesis.
Comment by Zachriel — April 14, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Nihil est causa sui.
Comment by Rock — April 14, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Ex nihilo, nihil.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I'm still looking for straightforward evidence of any new cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans evident in any evolutionary pathward based on hard evidence. All other questions are quite irrelevant to simple guys like me.
Thank's for listening.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 14, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Zachriel:
Please do explain. I don't follow.
Zachriel:
Not evidence of what?
Abel:
Zachriel:
Since the author seems to separate physicodynamics (attraction/repulsion as a result of law) from selection (the two types being chance and choice with intent), then your example wouldn't work.
However, there is something relevant which the author states that I do disagree with.
Abel states:
"Configurable switches are dynamically inert (dynamically incoherent; dynamically decoupled from physicodynamic causation) [196, 197]. This means that on a horizontal switch board, the force of gravity works equally on all potential switch positions. Physicodynamics plays no role in which way the switch knob is pushed. This is the very meaning of “configurable” switches. Their setting is completely decoupled from physicodynamic causation. They can only be set by formal choice contingency, not by chance or law."
I think it is quite obvious that a configurable switch can be set by chance. But of course, the fact that a switch can be flicked by chance does nothing to his argument.
CJYman:
Zachriel:
I'm not sure I follow.
Zachriel:
Not if someone can first show that his logical argument is not necessarily correct and then provide empirical evidence for "self organization."
Zachriel:
What different definition are other scientists using?
Zachriel:
My compression of his definitions and arguments were a direct response to your continued accusation of "fallacy." Now, you state: "That's a reasonable restatement for purposes of discussion." That "restatement" was merely the explanation to why your accusation of supposed "no true scotsman fallacy" and "circular logic" are completely off the wall. Thus, since you agree that my compression was a "reasonable restatement" your fallacy was a smokescreen all along. Are you finally willing to drop your insistent reference to non-existent fallacies?
Zachriel:
Not at all. His argument is that he won't believe in "dragons" until someone shows him one. Hence, the null hypothesis. Furthermore, he also provides an explanation of why he believes that there are some logical problems (even before absence of empirical evidence) with the existence of said "dragons."
Comment by CJYman — April 14, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Enzymes are comprised of a series of amino acids (or nucleotides), that perform a specific function that can be described as a finite algorithm that binds a substrate and then catalyses the reaction.
Life itself may answer the question, but that is still an open question.
Seems to? So natural selection is no longer due to physicodynamics? Gravity? The direction of sunlight? The composition of water?
So, it seems he missed the obvious.
Definitions aren't argued. They're stated. Make up your minds.
It's not an argument. You just said he *defined* "organization" as
"physicodynamically inert". It's a poor definition with lots of word added. If "self-organization" is logically incoherent, then asking for empirical evidence is just plain silly.
Just earlier, you said, "Of course he states that self-organization, as is popularly being used, does not exist," so you must be somewhat aware of how others use the term. Considering that weather systems are considered self-organizing complexes, it is apparent that there is another use of the term that doesn't include cybernetics. In any case, "organization" is a broad term, but typically refers to a complex arrangement comprised of interacting components such that the arrangement has properties beyond those of the individual parts. Self-organization occurs when global organization spontaneously emerges from local interactions. But that's not True Self-Organization™, of course.
That you removed the fallacies to construct an argument doesn't mean those fallacies didn't exist. He said that "self-organization" was logical nonsense. That is not what your compression states. Your compression is just a standard anti-evolution claim.
He gives his dragon a name, the Cybernetic Cut (Gap).
If he confined his argument to abiogenesis, then his argument would be snug in its Gap. Then he might even propose a valid scientific hypothesis and begin the process of investigating alternative explanations. (But we know this won't happen.)
But he doesn't confine his argument to abiogenesis. And it is already well-established and easily demonstrated that replicators can evolve, that is, physicodynamically inert (decoupled) switches can be set by selection. This is observed in nature, in the lab, and in silico.
Comment by Zachriel — April 15, 2009 @ 8:05 am
April 15th, 2009 at 8:06 am
If I understand this physicodynamics bullshit correctly, Abel is saying roughly the following: if reductionism* fails, life must be designed. That's silly. As one very smart guy once said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Abel and his followers need to familiarize themselves with the history of science.
For example, in the 19th century physicists made attempts to derive electromagnetism from mechanics. They pictured electromagnetic waves as mechanical vibrations of a medium, the luminiferous aether. They got nonsensical results. A transverse nature of electromagnetic waves suggested that the aether behaved like a solid. At the same time the Earth moved through the aether without any resistance. Epic fail! Did it disprove Newtonian mechanics? Of course not. I taught classical mechanics last fall and I will teach it again next fall. It's just that electromagnetism is not reducible to classical mechanics. Likewise, biology is not just applied chemistry, or applied applied physics. Silly demands to provide a reductionist proof are just that.
*Reductionism in this context can be summarized as follows: Biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics. So tell us how Newton's laws create biological information. O you can't?
Comment by olegt — April 15, 2009 @ 8:06 am
April 15th, 2009 at 8:46 am
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Does that hold for that pre-cambrian rabbit?
Does it also hold for humans and dinos living together?
If reductionism fails it does add to the design inference because there are two questions- designed or not?
The failure of reductionism adds to the "not" column.
And if you guys can't test your claims then that takes away from your inferences.
That is what you should focus on- substantiating your claims.
But I do understand why you would rather focus on misrepresenting ID.
Comment by ID guy — April 15, 2009 @ 8:46 am
April 15th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Feeling a little lonely, Joe?
Comment by olegt — April 15, 2009 @ 8:58 am
April 15th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Common Descent is tested each time a new species, extant or extinct, is identified. And new species, representing opportunities for falsification, are discovered all the time.
Comment by Zachriel — April 15, 2009 @ 8:59 am
April 15th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
CJYman:
Zachriel:
CJYman:
Zachriel:
Yes, you are describing a formal organization. Can you please provide evidence that this formal organization can arise from mere physicodynamics?
CJYman:
Zachriel:
That is the very question itself. What causes life (an example of formal organization)? There is no reason to suppose that varying levels of complexity from physicodynamics to randomness will produce organization that is based on physycodynamically inert switches which produce non-random function such as computational halting, etc., especially when choice with [future] intent already defines the selection of formal organization for future function and empirical evidence is provided for "choice with intent" every day generating formal organization and programming for future formal function.
CJYman:
Zachriel:
In the switch example to which you and I are responding, the switch (mutation point) is set not by physicodynamics (the switch is physicodynamically inert — thus capable of information transfer) as the physical/chemical properties of the switch. The only two options left for the state of the switch are selection by chance or by choice with intent (or some combination of the two). Natural selection as you are describing only comes in to play after the switch is set — thus has nothing to do with the setting of the switch; only describing the propagation of that setting.
CJYman:
Zachriel:
Either he missed the obvious in one statement which does not affect his overall argument or he meant that chance can not completely account for a switch setting since it can't account for the generation of the switch in the first place and he may also have meant that to "set" a switch means to "set" the switch "correctly" so as to produce formal function without the aid of previously "correct" switch settings — in which case chance alone wouldn't have set the switch, since the correct switch setting would have relied upon previous formal organization and thus we are back to square one. But, I can only be so charitable in my reading and interpretation.
I'd definitely like to ask him about this specific statement even though it doesn't detract from his argument.
CJYman:
CJYman:
Zachriel:
You're right. I'm actually surprised that you are so confused by this — unless this is again another example of obfuscation art by Zachriel. The definition includes "physicodynamically inert." The argument in extremely simplistic form states *if* "physcodynamcially inert" *and* "formal function producing" *then* generated by neither only physicodynamics nor chance.
CJYman:
Zachriel:
1. Yes, physical organization is defined as being physicodynamically inert among other things.
2. There is a logical argument to show that "self organization" is logically incoherent and goes something as follows:
The main reason why "self-organization" is logically suspect is because before the organization occurs there is no "self" as distinct from "non-self." There are merely components. So how does formal organization "organize itself" from within [its components] if its ultimate organization is not defined by the properties (physicodynamics) of its components? The formal organization doesn't come from within the "self" or the pattern as is the case with order — where the pattern is at least partially derived from the properties of the units within the order mixed with other physicodynamic laws imposed from without. Thus, formal organization comes from without — the two options being either from interactions driven by chance derived from outside the eventually organized system, or from an external high information wiring diagram (an instruction set which may also be another example of formal organization — thus eventually possibly requiring choice with intent). Thus, if discussing the cause of organization as opposed to order it makes no logical sense to refer to "self organization" in the same sense that one can refer to "self-ordering" and the reason that the author has to point this out is because it seems that some scientists are referring to "self ordering" phenomenon as a potential cause of the organization seen in life and sloppily labeling it "self organization."
Zachriel:
Not if someone wishes to contend that self organization is logically coherent.
The empirical evidence he requires is to merely show that starting with physicodynamics one can arrive at formal organization since that is what other scientists seem to be claiming. Abel state as his null hypothesis: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut [9]: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.”
Zachriel, do you think that physicodynamics can organize itself into formal organization? If so, then obviously you think that Abel's argument is incorrect and that there is no logical barrier and thus you can at least explain how your position may be correct. This will then mean that you should at least potentially be able falsify his null hypothesis. Apparently there are scientists who believe that merely law (physicodynamics) and chance can produce formal organization — whatever the process and definitions, they have labeled it "self organization" and seem to confuse it with "self ordering." Are you willing to provide the definition of their terms and defend their claims?
Zachriel:
You're right, because your examples have no characteristics distinguishing them from ordered systems.
CJYman:
Zachriel:
…because you were confusing his arguments and definitions. However, now that is cleared up, we may proceed. Please show where the logical fallacy lies.
I didn't remove any fallacies and I didn't construct the argument. It's up to you to show that there are fallacies to begin with. I merely compressed the authors argument in response to you stating that his argument was based on a logical fallacy. When the smoke cleared you couldn't back up your claim of "fallacy."
1. Your "no true scotsman fallacy" was shown to be an obfuscation as pointed out by fmm.
2. Your claim of "begging the question" was due to your confusion as to the difference between a definition and an argument. After I showed the authors definition, his arguments, and how they relate you have yet to back up any claim of "fallacy" except to assert that I "removed the fallacies" in order to reconstruct the authors argument. Go ahead, feel free to point out the fallacy.
Zachriel:
Not at all. It is perfectly compatible with my views and I honestly think that both abiogenesis and evolution must have occured and there is much empirical evidence to support evolution and logical and some empirical evidence to support some type of abiogenesis.
CJYman:
Zachriel:
You are making no sense, Zachriel. The cybernetic cut is a term for the "divide in nature between those phenomena that can be explained through the chance and necessity of natural process vs. those phenomena that can only be explained through formal steering and controls." The author obviously believes and has shown that The Cut exists. How could it be synonymous with something that he doesn't believe in?
His dragon's name is "physicodynamics traversing the cybernetic cut."
Zachriel:
He has provided the only observed and presently viable alternative explanation — choice with intent — which does deserve to be fully developed (and we both know that this is and will continue to happen).
Zachriel:
I have already discussed selection and switch setting above within this comment. The consequence of his argument would be that the formally organized system you describe is not the result of merely varying levels of complexity — physicodynamics and chance.
Comment by CJYman — April 15, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Really? I thought he was saying that scientists need to keep their metaphysics seperate from their science, and that this goes for ID'ers too.
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Abel has not publicly taken a position on design. His partner, Jack Trevors, a biologist, is a professed atheist, and has not commented on whether he is pro-ID or not. Hubert Yockey (Oppenheimer's physics student) is an agnostic, hates ID, but his writings are more sympathetic to those of David Abel. Yockey is considered the father of bioinformatics. Here is Yockey's take: http://www.HubertPYockey.com
My understanding is that much of physcisal law is described by differential equations. Differential equations don't describe the essential architecture of computer systems.
Experimental results seem to agree with Abel. Life has not been observed to spontaneously emerge.
I think experimentalists can keep trying to make life in the lab, but short of programming and assembling each piece like an engineer would, I just don't see them succeeding.
Formally, we don't have to presume intelligent design as the origin of life. However, it seems correct to argue that extraordinary conditions are required for the emergence of life.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 15, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Do you think they'd have better luck if they had a billion years to try?
Do you consider having a billion years to be an extraordinary condition? 10 billion? If not, what specifically do you consider extraordinary?
Comment by don provan — April 15, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
No because time is the enemy. Quantum noise tends to erode functional nano systems or their pre-cursors. We see evidence of this with dead decaying organisms.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 15, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
…
Comment by Zachriel — April 15, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Check out Szostak's lab. They've shown that if you take a quadrillion or so random sequences, some will have biological function.
Once you have replicators, then evolution of more complex structures can occur. Some random nucleotide sequences can be shown to have *autocatalytic* function.
Switches are set randomly (with respect to fitness). And there is a method of communicating information about the environment to a population of assemblages. It's call evolution.
But we know that organizations are not physicodynamically decoupled. An organism is a physical organization. And populations of organisms evolve and adapt.
If organizations are defined as physicodynamically decoupled, then we're back to my original comment. Removing the obvious fallacies, we have this.
* Switches are physicodynamically inert.
* Self-organizations are comprised of switches.
* Therefore we *argue* that self-organizations cannot arise spontaneously.
This is an argument about abiogenesis, but he insists on extending it to evolution, a phenomena that is well-established.
There are two definitions at play. Scientists are very interested in self-organizing behavior (emergent properties due to global pressures and local interactions), and it is explanatory to many phenomena. Abel proposes a somewhat different definition. That's fine, but instead of calling it Cybernetic Self-Organization or some such, he confusingly coopts the established term self-organization. Then he inappropriately recasts what other scientists have done, by substituting his own definition into what they have reported, exclaiming but it's Not True Self-Organization™.
The proper line of argument is to accept what other scientists have done, insofar as it goes, and then move on to consider his more restricted definition. That he flails throughout the paper about other scientists adds nothing to his argument or credibility.
Must have missed it. The latest issue of JAMA or Genetics, perhaps?
Comment by Zachriel — April 15, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Szostak is an intelligent designer intelligently designing RNA's under stringently controlled laboratory conditions. This hardly qualifies as spontaneous.
It is, however, a stunning proof of concept demonstrating the power of intelligent design.
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Random sequences (i.e. random "switch" settings) have biological function. Some are even autocatalytic.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2009 @ 7:30 am
April 16th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Salvador T. Cordova wrote:
The choice of the mathematical language depends on the physical system. Yes, many physical theories contain differential equations: classical mechanics of a few particles is described in terms of ordinary DEs. But try to extend it to a system of many particles and you'll quickly find that it is not guaranteed to work. In some cases it will: theory of elasticity and fluid mechanics are based on partial DEs. In others it won't: you can say that "Differential equations don't describe" the properties of a gas in thermal equilibrium. We have to use an entirely different mathematical language: statistics.
One can say that the dynamics of individual molecules in a gas is still governed by Newton's laws, which are expressed by ordinary DEs. That is the reductionist approach and in this case it fails spectacularly. The DEs of Newtonian mechanics are invariant under time reversal: if you film the motion of a particle or a collision of two particles and then run the tape backwards, the time-reversed motion still obeys all of Newton's laws. However, we know that gas, a collection of a large number of molecules does not behave in a reversible manner. The entropy of an isolated system tends to increase with time. A broken glass does not spontaneously reassemble and jump back to the table. So the naive expectation of the reductionist (thermodynamics reduces to Newtonian mechanics) is shattered in the relatively simple case of a gas. It doesn't mean that science fails to describe thermal phenomena. It's the reductionist approach that fails. That's why I find Abel's null hypothesis silly.
There are of course physical systems where even the basic rules are not stated in the form of DEs. Take the Ising model of a ferromagnet, which played a very important role in the development of the modern theory of critical phenomena. Its variables are binary numbers (a spin points either up or down) and its dynamics is discrete. Kinetics of crystal growth is also modeled by discrete variables. And these models in statistical physics are a short step from cellular automata, a class of mathematical models with discrete states and simple sets of rules governing their dynamics in discrete time. Guess what, one of these cellular automata, known as Rule 110, is capable of universal computation. In this case, trivial rules give rise to highly nontrivial behavior. Does that undermine Abel's case? I think so.
Comment by olegt — April 16, 2009 @ 9:06 am
April 16th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
olegt,
Thank you for the insights. Your above paragraph is already the best critique that I have seen regarding Abel's paper. I will reference your comments at UD because I think the objections you raise are substantial.
Agreed, I retract my earlier statement. I stand corrected.
And my understanding is that even solutions to differential equations may entail discrete states. For example there may be infinite solutions to Schrodinger's equations in various circumstances, but these solutions occur only in discrete states, i.e. the allowed energy levels of the electron correspond to the solutions of Schrodinger's differential equation, and these levels occur at discrete level.
It is because the universes is subject to quantum law that some argue that the universe as a whole is a giant quantum computer. I found passing mention of this here: Church Turing Thesis.
But the question of OOL is not merely whether a system is capable of computation, but whether the system will compute and construct physical replicas of itself.
When a stone is thrown in a still pond, a wave is formed, and in a sense a wave "replicates" itself through the water as it travels.
It is certainly conceivable that Ising's work would suggest that a configuration of spins could replicate and propagate in a material, but this does not seem at all analogous to the propagation of replicas that we see in bioogical systems.
It seems the question of what kind of replication constitutes life. I think more work in understanding what is meant by replication is in question.
The question of what constitutes was indirectly raised by John Baez's commentary on Eugene Wigner's paper: Is Life Improbable.
Baez left open the question of what constitutes replication. I think the question is not whether replication is possible, but the kind of replication taking place, namely the sort involving the materials we see in life. As Baez pointed out, as best as I can tell, one can define what observables one wishes to observe, and one can see a replication if one chooses to. [That's at least how I interpet Baez' paper].
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 16, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Correction: Random sequences of intelligently designed and maintained nucleic acids have biological function.
Random sequences of say, dirt, do not.
Comment by chunkdz — April 16, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Noted, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I didn't say it for the benefit of the discussion. I said it for you.
Carry on.
Comment by chunkdz — April 16, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I thought so too.
Olegt also mentioned some stuff about physics.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Olegt:
It would if that was Abel's case. But, that is not Abel's case. Re: "trivial" Abel states, "A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." By natural process, he is referring to merely physicodynamics (laws resulting form the physical/chemical properties and dynamics of matter and energy) and their chance interactions and initial conditions, *absent* any previous "choice with intent" as the author puts it. Re: "formal function" Abel states: "By “formal” we mean function-oriented, computationally halting, integrated-circuit producing, algorithmically optimized, and choice- contingent at true decision nodes (not just combinatorial bifurcation points)."
Rule 110 is definitely interesting in relation to the topic. However,
Rule 110 (Wikipedia):
"The Rule 110 automaton differs from a Turing machine in two notable ways:
1. It has no halting state. When the length of the string in the emulated cyclic tag system goes to zero, a Turing machine ceases to function properly, but Rule 110 continues indefinitely;
2. A cellular automaton requires an infinite repeating pattern as an initial condition. While Turing machines are permitted to use an unlimited amount of tape to perform their computations, all but a finite portion of that tape must be blank at the beginning of the computation."
Formal function is defined by Abel as computational halting as well as freedom from rules/laws for the "choice" of states at decision nodes, among other things. It appears that rule 110 does not contain either (yet life does) and Abel's argument "against merely physicodynamics" hinges upon those two definitions — of computational halting and true decision nodes.
Rule 110 seems a lot more similar to Conway's bullshit (to borrow a well used phrase from olegt) "game of life" than with real life. Both rule 110 and the "game of life" seem to emulate fractal behavior (the order being defined by the "physicodynamics" of the rules of the "universe" utilized) rather than living behavior (in which the foundational organization is not defined by the physicodynamics of our universe).
Its a good thing Abel is attempting to explain the difference between physicodynamically determined order and formal organization and their potential causes, yet someone needs to write an article explaining the difference between fractal behavior and life.
As an aside, will rule 110 even arise from an arbitrarily chosen set of laws (to weed out the possibility of "choice with intent") interacting with background noise (to provide initial conditions also void of "choice with intent")?
Olegt:
What are you trying to say here? Physicodynamics is bullshit or life not being defined by physicodynamics is bullshit?!?!?!?
As to your compression of Abel's argument, you most definitely do not understand him correctly. As well all know, the state of a nucleotide within a DNA sequence (the foundation of life) is not reducible to physicodynamics, so there is no "if" in this regard. Furthermore, his argument is in no way similar to "if no reductionism, then intelligent design" since it also contains a positive argument for why and how intelligent design may be required (and at least has been observed) to program "true decision nodes" in the present in order to achieve formal function in the future.
Comment by CJYman — April 16, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
scordova:
Sure, the "best" so far, but apart from being "interesting" its not substantial.
Zachriel [in reply to scordova]:
Why did you think so, Zachriel? I really would like to see your take on that issue.
Comment by CJYman — April 16, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
In my above response to olegt, where I stated "fractal behavior", I apologize for the "brain fart." That should be "ordered behavior."
Comment by CJYman — April 16, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I thought it was substantive, enough that ID proponents should not dismiss it. The other ideas like Fox's protocells, RNA world, etc. didn't even deal with the question of computation. This was one of the few responses that dealt with computation!
We know from the construction of man-made DNA computers, that the sort of spontaneous computation that OOL researchers seek to achieve doesn't happen in the beaker.
Olegt mentioned crystals. Many modern computers are rooted in a crystals (like Silicon Wafer and crystal wafers). Such crystals can definitlely compute!
For the sake of argument, we might grant that OOL can create at least the hardware for a computer, but without the software (the initial states) to make it begin functioning and replicating, it is questionable whether it is really computing. it is hardware without an operating system or software.
Furthermore, even a crystalline computer is quite another entity than one that can mechanically transduce its ideas into physical artifacts (like offspring), not just bits in memory. But what is really unusual about life is that it is not made of crystals. It is made of materials that would resist suggestions that it behaves like a crystalline computer, or that the dynamics of its replication are like those we find in crystal growth.
Von Neuman understood the problem when he tried to envision the difficulty in constructing a physically replicating automaton (not just one that floats around in the memory of an existing computer like Conway's Game of Life).
As an ID proponent, I think Olegt's critique deserves a reasoned and careful exploration.
He certainly has a better grasp of the OOL problem than most OOL researchers who think it boils down to chemistry. Appropriate chemistry is a necessary but not sufficient condition for computation.
Finally Olegt's objection raises issues about what constitutes replication. The question is deep. Even Nobel Laureates in Physics like Wigner (whom I referenced through Baez paper) fumbled a bit with the notion of what constitutes replication. Von Neumann who explored replicating automatons explored the problem of replicating quantum states which led to an independent proof of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Wigner used von Neumann's proof to apply to the problem of the replication in life. Baez pointed out one can trivially say something replicated depending on how one defines replication. At issue is what sort of replications really deserve notice. Why is it the replication of life is special, but not others. I think we intuitively know that the replication involved in life is special, but it is hard to say exactly why. I think that is an open question, WHY is the replication of life special?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 16, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
By the way, Wigner's proof was referenced favorably in the founding book of ID, Mystery of Life's Origin.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 16, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 7:48 am
I was referring to olegt's comment that Abel's argument is silly.
As for olegt's extended comments, his discussion of mathematical language and physical systems is a response to Salvador T. Cordova's misunderstanding of their relationship. I thought it tangential to Abel's argument.
Though the state of a nucleotide is uncorrelated with the *direct* influence of the environment, it is subject to normal changes due to physicodynamic happenstance (random mutation). And it is subject to influence from the environment through the process of evolution. Evolution is observed in nature, in the lab, and can be modeled in silico.
The broad extent of someone's ignorance is not positive evidence. Abel doesn't recognize how it might have happened, so it must be a Design™. Positive evidence would be an entailed prediction that leads to observable consequences. Leaving aside the semantics, this appears to be the argument.
* Switches are physicodynamically inert.
* Self-organizations are comprised of switches.
* Therefore we *argue* that self-organizations cannot arise (or evolve) spontaneously.
Where physicodynamically inert means nothing more than random with respect to fitness. Yet, we know such systems can evolve in response to the environment. That leaves the question of origins, but doesn't represent a conclusive argument either way.
Comment by Zachriel — April 17, 2009 @ 7:48 am
April 17th, 2009 at 8:31 am
CJYman wrote:
I am not sure you understand my critique of Abel, CJYman. His null hypothesis, physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration, is not deep. It is trivial. It can be summarized in three words: Reductionism fails, duh.
Seriously, Abel's paper is one long complaint that the laws of physics do not explain the behavior of live organisms and the functioning of a computer. (The implication is that there must be a designer an agent behind the curtain.) This is about as original as saying that Newtonian mechanics does not explain irreversible thermal phenomena. Well of course they don't! Chemistry is not applied physics and biology is not applied chemistry. Scientists have been aware of that for a long time. Here is Phil Anderson's essay More is Different written in 1972.
As I mentioned in this thread, reductionism fails even within a single discipline: physics. Though a gas consists of molecules that strictly follow Newtonian dynamics, classical mechanics alone is unable to explain thermal phenomena. It fails in a spectacular manner: according to the laws of mechanics, the motion of molecules is reversible, while thermal phenomena are often associated with irreversibility. To paraphrase Abel, Newtonian physics cannot spontaneously traverse the irreversibility cut. Oh the horror!
That is precisely why thermal phenomena are described by a separate subfield of physics, statistical mechanics, distinguished from classical mechanics by an entirely new approach to phenomena it studies and entirely different concepts.
More later.
Comment by olegt — April 17, 2009 @ 8:31 am
April 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Abel's paper is really a gem. It left me wondering* how the heck you can publish philosophical nonsense in a peer-review scientific journal like International Journal of Molecular Sciences. There is no science in the paper, just philosophical musings. In the abstract Abel promises that “System” will be rigorously defined. For the life of me, I can't find any such definition in the body of the paper. Can someone help me?
Or take this rant on the subject "organization does not equal order":
As far as I can tell, Abel does not tell us what organization is and in what ways it differs from order. Instead, he lists what organization requires and concludes that only an agent can create organization. Surprise, surprise!
He then goes on to discuss the opposite of organization—chaos.
That's mildly amusing. Chaos is not a state of matter. It's a characteristic of non-integrable dynamical systems, which are governed by fully deterministic rules, yet are unpredictable in the long term. Unless, of course, one uses the word in a colloquial sense. And then, two pages later, we find this gem:
One can only laugh at this kind of "science".
*On second thought, this is not surprising. With an impact factor of 0.75, IJMS is at the bottom of the food chain. You can publish anything in it.
Comment by olegt — April 17, 2009 @ 10:11 am
April 17th, 2009 at 10:27 am
To conclude, Abel's main point—physics does not explain life—is trivial and does not deserve 45 pages of text in a scientific publication. He understands poorly the numerous scientific and mathematical terms, sprinkled throughout the paper, and makes up definitions to suit his conclusions, a tactic known as No true Scotsman (a hat tip to Zachriel).
If IDers want to rely on such nonsense, it's their own choice.
Comment by olegt — April 17, 2009 @ 10:27 am
April 17th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Abel’s rejection of “reductionism” makes him an IDer, but olegt’s rejection of reductionism doesn’t make him an IDer? You’re not an IDer are you, olegt? On your own reasoning I would have to conclude that you are! Another “critic” outed as a “closet IDer”!
(And if absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, what is evidence of absence, olegt? And, btw, you and Zachriel can haggle about the reduction of the genetic code to “applied chemistry.”)
An illogical and scientifically vacuous concept, applied to quite literally everything… Now what am I describing? ID? Or “self-organization”? (Trick question?)
If physics explains “self-organization” then I would have to dispute your conclusion, olegt, that physics does not explain life. Near as I can tell, the modern revival of “self-organization” is principally due to physicists.
(Fortunately, physicists have also demolished physics-based "self-organization." Unfortunately, the effort has been largely ignored.)
Comment by Rock — April 17, 2009 @ 11:34 am