Timelines
For some time I've been interested in the idea of intelligent design, especially as it applies to the earliest living cell. Obviously the idea remains incredibly controversial, but from what I've read, the odds of assembling even the "simplest" cell are prohibitively long; by sheer chance -- by the random combination of molecules -- it would take far longer than the estimated age of the universe, much less the age of the Earth. Moreover, the first living cells seem to have arisen very soon after the primordial Earth began to cool, perhaps within as little as ten million years.
But the problem with intelligent design, for me, has always been trying to visualize how it would work. I mean, what exactly are we saying here? Are we saying that the invisible hand of God manipulated the amino acids into proteins and gathered the proteins together and created a membrane and encoded all the relevant information in a DNA (or RNA) molecule? This seems to reduce God to kind of cosmic chemist. Or are we saying that the first living cell, intact and functioning, just popped into existence ex nihilo, like an apport at a séance? (But even apports are supposed to come from somewhere.)
Well, I was thinking about this admittedly speculative topic, and I came up with a scenario that is more intellectually satisfying to me than either of the above. Naturally I have no idea if there's any truth in it, but I'll lay it out for what it may be worth, if anything.
First, let's consider the so-called collapse of the wave function in quantum physics. The idea is that, at any given time, there is a large cloud of possible positions (called potentia) that the electron or other subatomic particle could occupy, and that this spectrum of possibilities collapses down to a single point when an observation is made. We could imagine the path of the electron as a complicated series of branches extending in many different directions, until an observation selects one branch and obviates the others.
Now let's consider God, or Cosmic Consciousness, or Mind, or Universal Intelligence, or whatever we want to call it. This Mind is infinite; it can contain and process an unlimited amount of information. Suppose that this Mind is observing the primeval Earth long before the first life form has developed. From this particular point in time a vast number of possible futures branch out, just as, in the case of the electron, a large number of possible future positions can be extrapolated from its present position. Let's call these possible futures "timelines."
The Mind of God sees every possible timeline -- countless quadrillions of them. One of those timelines leads to the formation of a key protein. The odds of this protein being assembled by chance are infinitesimally low, but since every possible future is represented in this network of timelines and since there is a nonzero chance of the protein being assembled, at least one of the timelines must eventuate in this protein. Mind selects this path, and in selecting it, Mind causes this path to manifest or actualize, while all the other potential paths are eliminated. This is analogous to the collapse of the wave function. So now, at the end of this timeline that has been manifested, we have one protein.
From this point in time there is another branching network of timelines, and at the end of one of those timelines is the formation of a second key protein. Again, this event is incredibly unlikely, but since there is a nonzero chance that it could happen and since every possible future is represented in the network of timelines, this outcome will be represented at least once. As before, Mind chooses this timeline, collapsing the spectrum of possibilities down to this one path. At the end of this timeline we now have the second protein we need to assemble a living cell.
And so on, as all the various ingredients of the cell are selected, one timeline at a time.
The situation is somewhat analogous to the same person winning the lottery every week for 50 years. The odds of winning the lottery even once are very low; the odds of winning twice, even lower; the odds of winning every week for 50 years are infinitesimal. And yet there is a nonzero chance that the person could win the lottery in any given week, and if this path were selected each time, then the person would have a miraculous string of luck.
This same process of selecting the optimal timeline out of all the available possibilities could continue even after the formation of the first living cell. It could account for macroevolution. Genetic mutations seem to be responsible for evolution, but it is doubtful that these mutations are random. They seem to be intelligently directed. (For a good defense of this highly contentious position, see The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe.)
We can imagine that at any given point in the evolutionary process, there is a vast array of timelines, one of which would result in a beneficial mutation (or multiple simultaneous beneficial mutations). The cosmic Mind selects that timeline, thus manifesting the desired mutation in reality. It doesn't matter that the mutation in question is vanishingly unlikely; as long as there is a nonzero chance that it could happen, it will be available as one of the timelines. By consistently choosing the timelines that lead to beneficial mutations, Mind could direct the evolutionary process.
Note that results are not instantaneous. Just as winning the lottery week after week requires time to play itself out, so the development of each new protein or each new mutation takes time, because the timeline has to play out. Selecting the optimal timeline every step of the way will vastly speed up the process, but it will not eliminate the need for millions of years of molecular organization and, later, biological evolution.
Also, the process will not be perfect. Mind can choose the best available timeline, but the best available one may not be identical with some theoretical ideal. There may be some timelines that yield a better, more efficient result in a narrow area but cause havoc in other areas; these would have to be discarded in favor of a less narrowly efficient but also less broadly chaotic timeline. In other words, there would be an element of compromise built into the process.
Anyway, it strikes me as interesting speculation. I find this approach more rewarding than imagining God as a laboratory tinkerer or a miracle worker. But who knows? The truth may be much different. As J.B.S. Haldane famously said, "The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine."
"...but from what I've read, the odds of assembling even the "simplest" cell are prohibitively long; by sheer chance -- by the random combination of molecules -- it would take far longer than the estimated age of the universe, much less the age of the Earth."
Quite right! Absolutely!
So we can discard the theory of "It just happened".
Fortunately, there is an alternative theory -- its generally called "The Theory of Evolution" but is more properly called "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection." Although "randomness" is a component to this theory it is not the primary part -- as you can see, it not even part of the name of the theory. Computations based on the unlikeliness of cells/organisms/etc. arising purely by chance do not address the fact that the theory is of *evolution* not of "happenstance" and ignores the power of selection.
Posted by: Topher Cooper | August 10, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Very cute, Topher, but you're apparently unfamiliar with the arguments and issues involved. I suggest reading Behe's book, cited in the post.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 10, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Just to clarify: Neo-Darwinism emphatically does posit random mutations as the basis for all changes in organisms. Yes, these mutations, once they occur, are then favored by natural selection, which is not random. But the mutations themselves are random, according to neo-Darwinist theory.
Of course, before the first living cell existed, there would be no mutations, only combinations of molecules. These combinations would also be random; there is no known process that would cause proteins to spontaneously self-assemble or cause semiotic information to be spontaneously encoded in DNA. (Some amino acids spontaneously assemble, as in the Miller-Urey experiment; but not proteins.)
Can randomness (whether in the form of random genetic mutations or random molecular combinations) account for the evolution and origin of life? I don't think so. Those who believe otherwise will have to come to terms with the kind of arguments presented by Behe, whose book argues cogently that there are clear limits to what random mutation can accomplish.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 10, 2008 at 01:08 PM
the odds of assembling even the "simplest" cell are prohibitively long; by sheer chance -- by the random combination of molecules -- it would take far longer than the estimated age of the universe, much less the age of the Earth. - Michael Prescott
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I copied the fist paragraph of your blog and emailed it to our minister. He'll love it, especially the quote above. Sounds like something straight out a sermon! I included a link to your blog in case he cares to read the whole thing. Good stuff! Hope you don't mind!
Posted by: Art | August 10, 2008 at 01:14 PM
It may not be that Mind is consciously making these choices, but rather that the universe came with a built-in, entwined psychic component that exerts PK-effects on how mutations happen, etc. (Similar to Sheldrake's morphic fields.)
Apropos of this, Art Kleps once said, some 40 years ago, "You might say that God has no IQ."
Posted by: Roger Knights | August 10, 2008 at 02:01 PM
Computations based on the unlikeliness of cells/organisms/etc. arising purely by chance do not address the fact that the theory is of *evolution* not of "happenstance" and ignores the power of selection.
Even the assumption of the "power of selection" in complex organisms appears to be somewhat presumptuous. Granville Sewell's discussion of the aquatic bladderwort in the article "Sewell on Darwinism and the Second Law" asks some perplexing questions.
Giraffes are a problem as well. The length of the neck creates all sorts of issues in regards to regulation of blood pressure, yet all of the necessary mechanisms are in place. From Mohrhoff's review of The Design of Life:
As these two examples (of many) demonstrate, the entire "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" can appear pretty precarious from certain angles. Of course, none of this addresses MP's speculation on how just a single cell, complete with elaborate molecular 'machinery' came to exist in the first place. Then again, assuming that there was a moment of creation of a single cell that all life can be traced to is just an assumption in the first place, although it does give us a nice, linear story. The assumption that matter came to exist as a consequence of an exploding singularity is just an assumption as well, and gives us an even longer linear story. I have a sneaking suspicion that our insistence on causation plays a large part in keeping us in the dark, and that linear stories are linear stories.
Posted by: Michael H | August 10, 2008 at 03:15 PM
Something like your idea, minus the universal mind, has already been proposed by materialists, as an attempt to explain the origin of life by chance.
I really don't see any reason for thinking life originated or evolved by chance. If the universe is a great creative mind, we would expect life to unfold everywhere. We would expect complex machinery to assemble itself in every part of an intelligent universe.
Chance is a modern materialist concept. When things appear random to us it's just because we don't understand them.
Posted by: pec | August 10, 2008 at 03:30 PM
"Just to clarify: Neo-Darwinism emphatically does posit random mutations as the basis for all changes in organisms."
Just to clarify: Evolution does not posit random mutation as "the basis" for all changes in organisms -- at least not without some very careful and not particularly obvious interpretation of what is meant by basis. Ultimately, evolution posits mutation as the raw ultimate source of change, but recombination is apparently a much more important immediate cause of change. And to emphasize the random without reference to selection -- the thing that provides control -- is totally meaningless.
Mutation is the driving force, but selection is what steers and harnesses that driving force to make it coherent and give it "direction".
Thermodynamics (actually, statistical mechanics) says that heat is the random movement of molecules. In a heat engine therefore -- such as an automobile engine -- one could therefore say, it is random motion which drives it. Would you therefore conclude that no car could possibly move in a coherent manner? Would you confidently stand in front of an automobile as someone steps on the gas, confident that since it is driven by heat -- random movement -- it is impossible for it to move in any particular direction for more than a microscopic distance for a tiny amount of time? Of course not -- the important part is not the randomness but the ratcheting mechanism that makes it work: just like in evolution.
Posted by: Topher Cooper | August 10, 2008 at 04:00 PM
"Of course, before the first living cell existed, there would be no mutations, only combinations of molecules. These combinations would also be random; there is no known process that would cause proteins to spontaneously self-assemble or cause semiotic information to be spontaneously encoded in DNA. (Some amino acids spontaneously assemble, as in the Miller-Urey experiment; but not proteins.)"
If Behe has demonstrated somehow that the mechanisms of evolution somehow requires cells to operate (which would be odd since genetic programming is used routinely without cells) then perhaps he has an argument worth paying attention to. But this would be a pretty radical thing to be able to prove.
We do not understand the mechanisms by which prebiotic evolution would produce something that we would recognize as biotic rather than chemical. Perhaps there is no way, but it is obviously fallacious to say "we don't know how it could happen therefore it could not", so we cannot conclude that it did not, much less could not have occurred. There have been many proposals but none have been *shown* to be adequate.
It is indisputable that coherently encoded DNA could not have arisen spontaneously. No-one is claiming it did. In fact, its generally thought that DNA is likely to be rather a late step in the process, preceded by RNA or possibly small proteins or perhaps something that is no longer found in life.
The Miller-Urey experiments and many other similar ones are red-herrings. Nobody, certainly not Miller or Urey, sees them as providing something that would just randomly happen to be a recognizable, cellular organism. What they indicate is that purely abiotic processes can spontaneously produce complex organic compounds whose properties and interactions are subtle enough to -- given enough time -- produce through non-living selection something that we could call living. Furthermore, they are familiar substances that are actually found in modern life forms.
Posted by: Topher Cooper | August 10, 2008 at 04:22 PM
Just to clarify: Evolution does not posit random mutation as "the basis" for all changes in organisms ... Ultimately, evolution posits mutation as the raw ultimate source of change,
That's what I mean by basis.
I gather you haven't read Behe. If you want to contest his arguments, don't you think you ought to first find out what they are? His book is available on Amazon.
Something like your idea, minus the universal mind, has already been proposed by materialists, as an attempt to explain the origin of life by chance.
Yes, by physicist John Wheeler and others. Trouble is, they say that the right timeline is actualized by a human observer. But how did the human observer come to exist in the first place? It becomes a chicken-and-egg problem. Some thinkers, like Amit Goswami, attempt to get around this by positing a "tangled hierarchy," but I am not sure this clarifies anything.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 10, 2008 at 06:20 PM
"Can randomness (whether in the form of random genetic mutations or random molecular combinations) account for the evolution and origin of life? I don't think so"
About the origin of life, atehist Richard Carrier offered a materialist "explanation" in his book "Sense and Goodness without God":
"Every possible planet that could be (given the universe and its physical laws) probably has been, is, or will be. Thus, that one or more planets should have all the right properties for biogenesis is probably a forgone conclusion, and our planet is known to be one of those rare few. . . . [S]cientific research upholds all the elements of [biogenesis]—the vast size and variation of the cosmos, the law of big numbers, the suitability of Earth for natural biochemistry, the ease with which a biochemistry can arise in such conditions, and the abundance throughout space, and especially our solar system, of all the chemicals needed to get life started. Everything from amino acids to sugar, from water to sulphur, from oxygen to nitrogen and carbon dioxide, has been found in space, sometimes in great quantities. And these are the things of which life is made. . . . Furthermore, experiments have proved that amino acids naturally chain into proteins, the building blocks of life, when subjected not only to many possible kinds of natural forces, but forces we know were common on the early earth, and beyond. Finally, scientists have manufactured proteins that naturally reproduce themselves without the aid of any additional enzymes, proteins so simple that we now know the odds of such things forming by chance are well within the realm of cosmic possibility. . . . Once reproducing chains of amino acids exist, mutation inevitably takes hold. . . . So, in fact, not only is random mutation in reproduction inevitable for the first life, such life would experience a very rapid rate of mutation"
In his detailed critical review of Carrier's book, philosopher David Wood explained:
"He says that “amino acids naturally chain into proteins” when subjected to forces that were common on the early earth. There are so many problems with this claim that it’s hardly worth responding to. First, when molecules join to form amino acids in nature (usually in extraordinary circumstances), they form equal proportions of left-handed and right-handed amino acids.[95] Yet the proteins in living cells are made up of left-handed amino acids only. Hence, Richard must explain how a pool of exclusively left-handed amino acids formed by chance, and he doesn’t do this. Second, amino acids react with a number of other molecules more readily than they react with one another, so Richard must explain how his pool of left-handed amino acids arose free from contamination by other molecules. Again, he doesn’t do this. Third, even if there were such a pool of uncontaminated, left-handed amino acids, the rate of amino acid polymerization (amino acids joining together to form chains) in water is extremely low. Peptides (chains of amino acids) tend to break down in water, and each increase in the desired number of amino acids decreases the probability of formation dramatically. Additionally, life requires specific polymers, not the random byproducts of chance. If Richard wants his more skeptical readers (i.e. readers that aren’t biased in favor of his view) to believe that proteins—the right proteins—were forming in any significant quantities, he needs to provide evidence, which he doesn’t do. Fourth, even if a number of proteins formed, against incredible odds, this isn’t life. The most basic functional living cell imaginable would require far more than just a couple of random proteins. And Richard still has to account for molecules like DNA, which is composed of nucleotides, not amino acids. Further, Richard would have to explain how all the necessary biomolecules, arising by chance, ended up in the same place and then joined together, in just the right order, to form life. Richard dismisses all of this as insignificant, yet this is one of the most crucial topics if his theory is to stand. One can only interpret Richard’s failure to support his view as the silence that comes from a complete lack of evidence.
Richard’s next claim is that “scientists have manufactured proteins that naturally reproduce themselves without the aid of any additional enzymes.” Again, since he doesn’t give references, it is difficult to examine his statements (though he advises his readers to “always ask for the primary sources of a claim you find incredible”[96]). I'm familiar with an experiment by David Lee’s team, in which it was found that a peptide taken from yeast had the ability to catalyze its own synthesis.[97] I also know of a molecule called “amino adenosine triacid ester,” which acts as a template to reproduce itself.[98] But such experiments are usually forced and rarely reflect anything that would happen naturally. However, even if we assume that a number of self-replicating proteins formed in the primal seas, this still doesn’t give Richard anything remotely resembling life. In addition to several hundred functionally correct proteins, he still needs many other macromolecules to perform numerous coordinated functions in the cell.
As for Richard’s claim that once “reproducing chains of amino acids exist, mutation inevitably takes hold,” I challenge him to provide evidence that such mutations will result in an increase in complexity, or that these mutations would ever give rise to life. Richard’s well of evidence has obviously run dry, and it’s frightening to think that someone could have so much faith in a view that is so overwhelmingly improbable.
Nevertheless, let’s grant Richard the existence of a living cell. What’s he going to do with it? Would such a cell, by random mutation and natural selection, ever produce the variety and complexity of life that we see all around us? Further, would we expect such a cell to eventually give rise to consciousness, the epitome of complexity? Though this topic is also critical for Richard’s case, he again fails to offer any evidence as to how consciousness arose. His section on “The Evolution of Mind” is just a page in length, and it merely describes his view of what a mind is, rather than providing a reasonable evolutionary pathway for the development of consciousness"
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=86
I think the above quotes show the problems of current materialist explanation about the origin of life.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | August 10, 2008 at 07:32 PM
Opening English Wikipedia to look for some info relating to the Olympic Games, I found out that today's (080811) featured article is about parapsychology! Having got the impression that featured articles are chosen because of their quality, I expected it to be reasonably balanced. However, looking closer on the article, I was quite disappointed to see that it ws terribly biased. The very first line says it all; it begins with the (hardly neutral) statement that "Parapsychology...is the pseudoscientific study of paranormal events[.]" Perhaps more importantly there are no counter-arguments to the criticisms being put forward at the end of the article. Jessica Utts is even portrayed as a critic!
Posted by: Larry Boy | August 11, 2008 at 02:04 AM
I've sometimes pondered these timelines, and wonder if maybe our own conciousness selects the optimal timeline for us individually.
Before anyone responds with evidence to the contrary, remember, you are posting in MY optimal timeline. This timeline may not be optimal for you! :) In your own optimal timeline, this posting may not even exist, b/c I might not even exist there.
Of course there are obvious problems with this idea, and it trends toward Solipsism, but it's fun to think about.
Posted by: Tony S | August 11, 2008 at 06:41 AM
What no one has ever been able to prove...and I mean no one...is how knowing the origin of life helps one actually live that life.
It's never been proven that those who uphold evolutionary theory live a happier more complete life than non-believers, and the same goes for those that posit some form of intelligent design.
What is true, and you can find evidence for this at any county fair, "ignorance is bliss." There is more joy and life in a pink ball of cotton candy than you will ever find in any bowl of primordial soup.
Life before cells, life on Mars, life after death... I don't know about you, but I already have my hands full with just "this life."
Posted by: Marcel Cairo | August 11, 2008 at 08:45 AM
Well Marcel Cairo, how did you wind up at a blog where people wonder about metaphysical questions if you have no interest in metaphysics? We are not all the same and it's kind of silly to criticize people because their interests are different from yours.
We probably hate some of the things you love, such as cotton candy.
Posted by: pec | August 11, 2008 at 09:05 AM
Another resource that may be of interest to those interested in the questions posed by biology is The Nature Institute. The introduction at the linked page outlines their approach:
"Many of us were introduced to biology—the science of life—by dissecting frogs, and we never learned anything about living frogs in nature. Modern biology has increasingly moved out of nature and into the laboratory, driven by a desire to find an underlying mechanistic basis of life. Despite all its success, this approach is one-sided and urgently calls for a counterbalancing movement toward nature. Only if we find ways of transforming our propensity to reduce the world to parts and mechanisms, will we be able to see, value, and protect the integrity of nature and the interconnectedness of all things. This demands a new way of seeing."
There are several excellent articles and publications available there. Steve Talbott's papers available at the From Mechanism to a Science of Qualities link are especially thought-provoking.
Posted by: Michael H | August 11, 2008 at 09:39 AM
Pec,
Either you've never read anything I've posted here over the last 2 years or you didn't detect the subtle tongue-in-cheek tone of my post.
I am a professional medium and an armchair consciousness survival researcher, so I am mildly interested in metaphysics.
Posted by: Marcel Cairo | August 11, 2008 at 11:17 AM
"Just to clarify: Evolution does not posit random mutation as "the basis" for all changes in organisms ... Ultimately, evolution posits mutation as the raw ultimate source of change,
That's what I mean by basis."
Well, your words mean what you want them to mean. But how those words are likely to be understood is somewhere between misleading and outright wrong. There is not a single "basis" for evolution as that term is generally understood, but at least three -- mutation, recombination and selection. The first two provide the raw material of novelty, but the last is what makes it "evolution". If you were to have said "random mutation is the ultimate source of novelty in evolution" I would have had no argument, if you had said "random mutation is one of the bases of evolution" I would have had no argument, or if you had said "selection is the basis of evolution" I would have paused a moment but let it pass.
But to say that "random mutation is THE basis of evolution" is just plain wrong. It neglects the most critical component (after all evolution would be essentially the same if mutation were merely arbitrary and not random). It implies that evolution is a random process -- which it is not. It therefore further implies that the familiar, irrelevant computations of how improbable modern features could have arisen purely by chance without any consideration of any kind of stepwise process -- or at best considering only a simplistic short, straight-line process.
"I gather you haven't read Behe. If you want to contest his arguments, don't you think you ought to first find out what they are? His book is available on Amazon. "
You gather correctly, which is why I am making no attempt to contest Behe's arguments. I am contesting your statements. That you support them by a classic fallacious "Appeal To Authority" argument, is irrelevant.
Posted by: Topher Cooper | August 11, 2008 at 12:13 PM
“What no one has ever been able to prove...and I mean no one...is how knowing the origin of life helps one actually live that life.”
The human mind, the soul or whatever is a seeker and will not stop seeking until it discovers its origins and the mysteries of life. I often wonder if this pure awareness or whatever that most call God does not express itself in infinite rediscovery of itself. I.e. creation and manifestation.
Would not God be static rather than dynamic if it did not express itself in an infinite variety of ways and we humans are an example of that expression? What most of us see as error, chaos, chance, and randomness may be perfectly imperfect? Or not.
Posted by: william | August 11, 2008 at 12:27 PM
On Sewel:
" I believe you would need to find thousands of intermediate stages before this example of irreducible complexity has been reduced to steps small enough to be bridged by single random mutations — a lot of things have to happen behind the scenes and at the microscopic level before this trap could catch and digest animals. But I don’t know how to prove this. . .
I am furthermore sure that even if you could imagine a long chain of useful intermediate stages, each would present such a negligible selective advantage that nothing as clever as this carnivorous trap could ever be produced, but I can’t prove that either. . ."
In other words he doesn't really have an argument of any substance but he is sure he is right. Given time and parallelism small incremental changes with small incremental advantages are going to add up and are mathematically quite adequate to get the job done, despite Sewel's unproven certainty otherwise. And while thousands of changes may be necessary (wouldn't surprise me) I rather suspect broad steps would probably (my unproven intuition here) form a reasonable outline of the process.
As for the Giraffe problem this is a clear case where there is no "irreducible complexity". We don't even need to think about things originally evolved for other purposes -- a straight line to the finish is quite plausible. An ancestor to modern giraffes grazed on shrubs. Having a slightly longer neck (and legs) allowed them to browse where competitors could not reach and conferred a competative advantage, although at a small cost in terms of blood to the brain. Any individuals whose neck gets too long die off because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Some individuals, however, end up with small changes that reduces the degree of disadvantage. These do better than their brethren with similar length necks -- same advantage, less disadvantage. For these individuals, however, mutations that lengthen the neck a bit more have a still greater advantage and the cycle repeats.
"the entire "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" can appear pretty precarious from certain angles."
When you stand leaning over on flat ground, things may look precarious from that angle, but nothing will roll downhill.
Posted by: Topher Cooper | August 11, 2008 at 01:05 PM
Topher, what do you think of Matt Chait? I'm impressed by him.
Posted by: Teri | August 11, 2008 at 01:23 PM
Earth heavy elements were dated to 4.5 billion years. If we sum contraction, building of solar system, cooling and waiting till water is available, we can assume that earth is hospitable for possible lifeforms after 4.4-4.3 billion years. While earth may evolve lifeforms, these forms would have a nearly nonexistent survival chance during the Late Heavy Bombardment which ceased 3.8 billion years ago.
The oldest lifeforms are cyanobacteria which
have been found 3.5 billion years ago. So whatever this primordial thingy was, it evolved to cyanobacteria if you don't accept panspermia and it took probably less than 300 million years to evolve.
We don't need to know how exactly thingy assembled to define when evolutional development is possible:
a) Thingy is a self-replicator (can
reproduce).
b) Thingy can change characteristics and
still survive (so is able to adapt).
Before this point Darwinian evolution is not an option, only development according to natural laws is possible. As teleology is not an option, the scientists must assume that there were once in a time the exactly right conditions on Earth which finally resulted in thingy by pure luck.
But as humans we are not bounded by luck, we can plan. Heck, we can fly to the moon and modify organisms. So we are able to deliver the exactly right conditions to any piece of matter which should develop in
primordial life. Temperature, pressure etc., everything possible can be adjusted.
So why are we not able to reproduce thingy ?
And if we can't, how can the currently known natural laws combined with luck do this ?
Posted by: Thorsten | August 11, 2008 at 01:25 PM
Being able to fly to the moon does not require any understanding of what life is or how it started.
We can't make life because no one knows what life really is, and mainstream science has a closed mind. If teleology is "not an option," then the nature of life and time can't be explored.
Posted by: pec | August 11, 2008 at 01:46 PM
In other words he doesn't really have an argument of any substance but he is sure he is right.
If you were to read the entire article, Topher, his argument is that the theory of "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way". That said, I must be clear that I don't subscribe to the creationist or ID argument as Sewell or many others present it. I am much more aligned with Steve Talbot's thinking as expressed in Can the New Science of Evo-Devo Explain the Form of Organisms?, in which he concludes:
As far as I can tell, both of these thinkers are presenting "arguments of substance". It is the defenders of Neo-Darwinist orthodoxy who react with expressions of certitude while continually extending promissory notes that reductionism will soon explain all. Yet, the more we learn, the deeper the mystery becomes. Which is exactly what we'd expect if the driving force of nature was an immanent, ineffable, omnipotent Mind.
Posted by: Michael H | August 11, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Replying to Teri:
"Topher, what do you think of Matt Chait? I'm impressed by him."
I've only read a small amount of his stuff. He seems like a bright guy. I don't have a good feeling for his views on evolution (except that he is against reductionism).
My preliminary impression on his views about consciousness (and it is a preliminary impression -- not a fully formed opinion) is that he makes the same "level error" that is so pervasive in discussions of consciousness -- including by trained philosophers who should know better. That is, he starts discussion at a level of discourse where certain terminology applies (terms like "perceive" and "desire") and the switches to another level of discourse where they are not well defined but assumes that they must exist at that level. This is, in fact, the same kind of error that the over-reductionists make but they do it in the other direction.
As I said, this is only an impression that may not be fair to his actual views and arguments.
Posted by: Topher Cooper | August 11, 2008 at 02:49 PM
“Yet, the more we learn, the deeper the mystery becomes. Which is exactly what we'd expect if the driving force of nature was an immanent, ineffable, omnipotent Mind.”
I have always felt that if we could understand not know about but understand any part or bit of nature we could understand the whole of nature. Example if we truly understand the life of a seed we would understand life’s mysteries.
Posted by: william | August 11, 2008 at 03:10 PM
Hi Topher,
What do you think of biologist Maximo Sandin's views on evolution theory:
http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/msandin/synthetic_theory.html
http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/msandin/biology.html
He has many papers on evolution and biology, but only the above two are translated in english.
He's not a supporter of intelligent design. He believes in a alternative scientific theory to the synthethic theory, and he's working in that direction.
Please, take the time to read the above papers, and share your opinion. I'd like to know it.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | August 11, 2008 at 03:17 PM
"We don't need to know how exactly thingy assembled to define when evolutional development is possible:
a) Thingy is a self-replicator (can
reproduce).
b) Thingy can change characteristics and
still survive (so is able to adapt).
Before this point Darwinian evolution is not an option, only development according to natural laws is possible. As teleology is not an option, the scientists must assume that there were once in a time the exactly right conditions on Earth which finally resulted in thingy by pure luck.
But as humans we are not bounded by luck, we can plan. Heck, we can fly to the moon and modify organisms. So we are able to deliver the exactly right conditions to any piece of matter which should develop in
primordial life. Temperature, pressure etc., everything possible can be adjusted.
So why are we not able to reproduce thingy ? ..."
Because we don't know enough. Prebiotic evolution is an open question and is quite unproven. It does not stand on the firm conceptual and evidential foundation that biotic evolution does. You should not read anything I write as asserting that life arose from a process of prebiotic evolution either here or in space.
If someone wants to put forward a coherent scientific theory based on retroactive PK from quantum timelines containing intelligent life reaching back and increasing the probability of those timelines and thereby biasing things towards the development of life, I'll seriously listen (I am, after all a parapsychologist and published a theory thirty years ago that psi was the effect of just such adjustment of the probabilities of quantum timelines -- hardly your unyielding supporter of scientific orthodoxy)
As it now stands, however, despite the many open issues, prebiotic evolution -- either on Earth or in space -- is the only coherent theory (as opposed to speculation) that I know of. I will object to fallactous arguments like "we don't know for sure exactly how it could happen therefore we can conclude that it could not have happened."
There have been a number of proposals made as to the nature of the "thingys" that got things started. They don't really need to be self-replicating only replicating within the environment in which they exist (like crystals, prions and viruses). There has been quite a lot of progress made. For example, there is pretty good evidence that our current "DNA" world was preceded by an "RNA" one -- which lowers the bar considerably (though not enough to say that the problem has been solved).
Posted by: Topher Cooper | August 11, 2008 at 03:21 PM
"If you were to read the entire article, Topher, his argument is that the theory of "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way". "
Without reading the whole article I certainly cannot respond to his arguments.
However arguments against evolution on the basis of a supposed violation of the second law which are based on a misunderstanding of the second law are rather commonplace. The second law applies only to a system very near thermodynamic equilibrium which neither the biosphere (past or present) nor the hypothesized prebiosphere are. The same arguments were once used to argue for vitalism.
As long as you have energy entering the system, entropy can -- in fact almost certainly will -- decrease.
Can you give me a reason to overcome my suspicion that this is the same old argument and spend some of my precious time reading this?
Posted by: | August 11, 2008 at 03:32 PM
But to say that "random mutation is THE basis of evolution" is just plain wrong. It neglects the most critical component (after all evolution would be essentially the same if mutation were merely arbitrary and not random). It implies that evolution is a random process -- which it is not.
What's random, according to neo-Darwinism, are the mutations. Not natural selection. Mutations. That's the random part. Call it the raw material, the basis - call it Santa Claus if you want. The point is, neo-Darwinists think mutations are random, just as Darwin himself thought "variation" was random.
Now, I don't think most beneficial mutations are random. So that's why I don't agree with neo-Darwinism. If you want to know why I don't think most beneficial mutations are random, I refer you to Behe's book. This isn't an appeal to authority; it's a recognition of the fact that I can't summarize 200 pages of technical argument.
I think you've misunderstood the point of my post. I wasn't trying to prove that neo-Darwinism is false. I was assuming, as a given, that neo-Darwinism is false. That was my starting point, not my conclusion. The point of the post was my speculation about how intelligent design could be imagined actually working.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 11, 2008 at 03:53 PM
As long as you have energy entering the system, entropy can -- in fact almost certainly will -- decrease.
Can you give me a reason to overcome my suspicion that this is the same old argument and spend some of my precious time reading this?
This excerpt from Sewell’s "A Second Look at the Second Law" addresses this (original emphasis):
Sewell does add a footnote clarifying the linked Mathematical Intelligencer article:
Posted by: Michael H | August 11, 2008 at 04:15 PM
" any Divinity worthy of the title must be not only transcendent, but also immanent"
“Yet, the more we learn, the deeper the mystery becomes. Which is exactly what we'd expect if the driving force of nature was an immanent, ineffable, omnipotent Mind.”
Definitely.
Posted by: pec | August 11, 2008 at 04:25 PM
As for the Giraffe problem this is a clear case where there is no "irreducible complexity". We don't even need to think about things originally evolved for other purposes -- a straight line to the finish is quite plausible.
Not to belabor the point, Topher, but there are many who have seriously questioned how plausible a “straight line to the finish” actually is in this case. W.E.Loennig's "The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe" (Part 1 - PDF) does precisely that over its two parts and nearly 120 pages. The implication that these questions can just be dismissed is not supported by the facts, despite Dawkins' protestations to the contrary, as Loennig exhaustively explores:
I could go on, but there’s no reason to. The full article can be read by anyone interested.
Posted by: Michael H | August 11, 2008 at 05:23 PM
Topher said (on Matt Chait)..."That is, he starts discussion at a level of discourse where certain terminology applies (terms like "perceive" and "desire") and the switches to another level of discourse where they are not well defined but assumes that they must exist at that level."
Matt Chait places desire at the level of the controlling organism, not at the level of the subordinate biological processes, so I don't think he makes that error.
Michael H said (quoting Sewell)..."Both are just attempts to state in more "scientific" terms what is already obvious to the layman, that unintelligent forces cannot do intelligent things."
Whilst I can see that this is not your quote and that it is meant to be applied at a certain level of discourse, our earlier thread suggested that in fact nature is full of intelligence (but obviously not of the human kind). Hence in MP's post here, there is no "random" evolution, but evolution directed by an Intelligent idea out of the huge cloud of possibilities. I think MP's idea is a good idea.
Topher has come in at a time when many good ideas have already been explored on the 3 or 4 earlier threads, and it is psychologically difficult to restate ones case -hence MP's statement that he is assuming neo-Darwinism is false - this assumption is based on explorations already made in earlier threads.
Posted by: Teri | August 12, 2008 at 02:08 AM
Everyone here how would the transmission of mind/brain explain this
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13415-mindreading-machine-knows-what-the-eye-sees.html
Posted by: Matt | August 12, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Visual signals received by the eyes are transmitted to the visual cortex for processing. This is not necessarily a mental process.
The brain enables the mind to interact with the physical world, and no one here claims that the brain has no purpose.
Posted by: pec | August 12, 2008 at 04:04 PM
MP wrote: "... neo-Darwinists think mutations are random..."
That's been my understanding as well.
Bacteria reproduce rapidly and they are constantly turning out mutations. Now, add a bacteriophage to a culture and the few mutations that are not affected by the bacteriophage survive and reproduce. That's natural selection produced by random mutations. The bacteriophage is a selective pressure that moves the bacteria in a different direction, but intelligence is not involved in the mutation as if the bacteria were responding intelligently to the introduction of bacteriophage in order to survive.
That's the theory, anyway.
I have read Behe, and the criticisms of Behe, and I find the criticisms very powerful. I think Behe is trying hard to find scientific evidence to support his belief in design, and so far I don't think he has succeeded.
Behe has been accused of lacking imagination, and that because he cannnot imagine how we could get x from y, he concludes x did not come from y. I think that criticism has some weight.
There is a point in Darwin's Black Box where Behe uses the example of a motorcycle evolving from a bicycle, and claims that there is nothing on a bicycle that could evolve to become a gas tank on a motorcycle, and that this reinforces his view that one could not evolve from the other, hence, intelligent design.
Lack of imagination.
The hollow bicyle frame itself could be used as a tank, and in fact is what one motorcycle manufacturer actually does (or did) with their bikes.
Posted by: DMDuncan | August 12, 2008 at 04:08 PM
Pec,
But the computer in the article read the brain activity which predicts thoughts with a 80-90 percent success rate.
Posted by: Matt | August 12, 2008 at 05:59 PM
Matt, the article is very interesting. From a dualist point of view, being the brain a decoder and transmiter of consciousness, it's logical that an examination of the decoder aparatus (brain) can give information about the correlative mental contents in some (or many) cases.
Specially, in the article was written: "The team first used fMRI to measure visual cortex activity in people looking at more than a thousand photographs. This allowed them to develop a computational model and "train" their decoder to understand how each person's visual cortex processes information.
Next, participants were shown a random set of just over 100 previously unseen photographs. Based on patterns identified in the first set of fMRIs, the team was able to accurately predict which image was being observed"
Basically, they're identifying the specific neurological pattern of the brain (visual cortex) when the person see an specific picture; and from there, they infer what picture is in the mind when a specific correlation is actived in the brain.
So, the article shows:
1)Specific neurological patterns correspond with specific visual experiences.
2)It's possible for neuroscience to infer (with good precision) the specific visual thoughts (mental images) from a study of the specific neurological pattern shown by specific subjects.
The "mind reading" isn't operating directly (from mind to mind, as in telepathy), but indirectly, through a previously known and identified neurological pattern shown by specific individuals.
It's very interesting, but not a challenge to the best current non-materialist conceptions of consciousness.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | August 12, 2008 at 07:18 PM
But the computer in the article read the brain activity which predicts thoughts with a 80-90 percent success rate.
I read the article three times, and saw nothing more that the statements that they were "able to accurately predict which image was being observed".
Regardless, as I read this, it sounds like they have been able to identify certain neural correlates related to the visual cortex with more accuracy. Which means absolutely nothing in regards to the nature of the consciousness that's doing the perceiving.
More on what neural correlates tell us can be found here.
DMDuncan's comment that "Behe is trying hard to find scientific evidence to support his belief in design" strikes me as going directly to the heart of the entire evolution debate. Science in general is conducted today with little awareness of the conscious state or influence of the belief system of the observer. The neo-Darwinists and the creationists have each hijacked the evolution discussion to the point where neither can do objective science: both are so attached to being "right" that neither appears to have much of a chance to arrive at what's "true".
The same thing shows up in other fields. Big Bang cosmology is one area, the AGW uproar is another. Critical thinking is in short supply, and sometimes I wonder if our educational system is even interested in the concept any longer.
I also wonder if science education's emphasis on what we 'know' to be true has led to the more creative thinkers just abandoning the field entirely. The New York Times had an article a couple of months ago about the need for a 600 million dollar project dedicated to dark energy. A comment caught my eye:
I know that I wouldn't want to spend my life measuring stuff that won't tell me what I want to know. Yet, if we're conducting science from the perspective that we already know everything and are lacking only details, what kind of minds will be attracted to the field?
Posted by: Michael H | August 12, 2008 at 07:36 PM
DMDuncan... “[Behe] claims that there is nothing on a bicycle that could evolve to become a gas tank on a motorcycle, and that this reinforces his view that one could not evolve from the other, hence, intelligent design. Lack of imagination. The hollow bicycle frame itself could be used as a tank, and in fact is what one motorcycle manufacturer actually does (or did) with their bikes.”
I thought we’d already covered this point with Michael H’s giraffes.
1. *Every * random mutation from the hollow frame to the full-blown gas tank needs to be beneficial (more so that what was there before), and to support the overall efficiency of the structure (ie the right rivets, nuts and bolts, weight distribution, positioning etc).
2. The fossil record needs to show the thousands of gradations from bicycle to motorcycle.
Otherwise the idea of evolution of one to the other is just *imagination *.
Posted by: Teri | August 13, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Nice point, Teri. Naturally, there is imagination – the imagination of the Intelligence that conceived it from the many possible designs, and evolved it in appropriate saltations.
I wonder if this Intelligence might be prevailed upon to conceive of a motorbike that doesn’t run on the derivatives of fossilised oil?
Posted by: Ben | August 13, 2008 at 01:42 AM
Ben…“I wonder if this Intelligence might be prevailed upon to conceive of a motorbike that doesn’t run on the derivatives of fossilised oil?”
From what I understand, the twin selective pressures known as “advertising” and “consumer choice” will not in themselves be sufficient to answer your prayer. However, the situation is not completely without hope. There are two new selective pressures known as “AGW” and “Oil prices”. If all four selective pressures (by random chance) happen to combine, they may, in some possible future scenarios, cause a saltation called “Bloody Big Manufacturer’s Tool-Up”.
But, looking into my crystal ball - which shows the cloud of future probabilities- I would suggest you *don’t* hold your breath.
Posted by: Teri | August 13, 2008 at 02:42 AM
The scientific view is not that things started with a cell that arose by chance. There are two other distinct process that may be involved. Self organization and natural selection. Self organizatin is not chance. Also, don't assume things started with a cell. If something, (maybe much simpler than a cell) that can self replicate arises by self organization then natural selection can begin.
Intelligent design may work more like materializations that apports. Spirits move atoms and molicules around and create what they want. Then they let it mulitply and evolve and then tweak it as necessary.
However there is evidence that on earth the intelligent designers are the grey ET's, possibly in coordination with the spirits hierarchies. Grey's are often suspected of being biological robots. Who is controlling the robots?
Posted by: | August 13, 2008 at 06:31 AM
The child asks " Who created God?"
Creation seems to be a part of our realm of existence.
And we do exist which presupposes something existed before us.
Turtles all the way down
Why did what we consider God have to exist at the beginning. What if God came about somewhere in the process...and was able to design things.
Some Grand Designer seems to know how to create something from the beginning knowing the end.
Think Giraffe. No use building a foundation for a 100 story building unless you know it will be 100 stories.
Its good enough for me!
Some people like to continue to stay on the Ferris Wheel and say it is going somewhere.
Posted by: Mark J. Ryan | August 13, 2008 at 09:11 AM
From the Judeo-Christian tradition, we also have this notion that the God "says first, and then it is so" which is consistent with "imagine the possibility, then observe it" that appears to accompany the quantum/consciousness observations. It may be myth, although highly effective myth, but we see the same in personal-training methods where the participant is urged to imagine their future in order to make it so.
Posted by: mrG | August 13, 2008 at 09:45 AM
Because we don't know enough.
That is the right answer. We simply don't know. But if you read the explanations concerning abiogenesis (Zetetic chick quoted Richard Carrier) it seems quite probable that life formed. And that is a big fat lie.
In fact, there is no known natural law which actually supports life, quite the contrary. Entropy always increases:
Irreversible cracks and molecular dislocations occur in materials over time. Concentration or material differences are leveling out. Chemical and physical processes come to a standstill.
So we are obliged to acknowledge that it is an open problem. But I think the reason that
this question is neglected or wrongly answered is the current fight between creationists and evolutionists: a fight by proxy for the more general left-leaned or right-leaned positions.
I don't support ID; in fact I think it is a scientific worthless stance developed by creationists. It moves back to a prescientific stage where everything unknown was explained by the interaction of Gods.
But that does not mean that the problems used by ID are invalid examples and it does not mean that everything that neodarwinists use as arguments is right.
For example there is a problem with the Miller-Urey experiments. If you change the contents of the atmosphere and the environment, amino acides cannot build or critical amino acides are lacking. Uranium deposits indicate either oxygen supplies or prebiotic life at 3.7 billion years which is immediately after the great bombardment.
Posted by: Thorsten | August 13, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Sorry, that is format bleeding. The "Because we don't know enough." is a citation of Topher and should be quoted in
italics, but I forgot the italics end in HTML.
Posted by: Thorsten | August 13, 2008 at 02:52 PM
Italics begone.
Posted by: | August 13, 2008 at 04:29 PM
.
Posted by: | August 13, 2008 at 04:29 PM
Teri wrote:
"2. The fossil record needs to show the thousands of gradations from bicycle to motorcycle.
Otherwise the idea of evolution of one to the other is just *imagination *."
That does not follow Teri. It may just mean the evidence no longer exists. No one claims the fossil record is a perfect one, preserving every change that happened, so that if a change was not recorded in the record, that doesn't mean there was no change.
To conclude that it's only imagination because there is no evidence of one shifting to the other in the record is an argumentum ad ignorantium, i.e., I don't know X is true, therefore X is false, or in this case, I don't have evidence X is real, therefore X is unreal (only imagination).
X may indeed be imagination, and yet not be ONLY imagination.
Little word, huge meaning.
In addition, creationists do like to point to archaeopteryx and argue that it is not a true intermediate, that it is merely an instance of special creation of a creature that has features of both reptiles and birds. After they do this, they typically portray themselves as open to the possibility of evidence, but that the evidence has not yet been produced.
Did you notice the trick there?
If you argue that archaeopteryx is not an intermediate but just a creature that was specially made with the features of both reptiles and birds, then you can use that same argument for ALL future claimed intermediates, effectively rendering it impossible to prove to you that intermediates exist at all.
Posted by: DMDuncan | August 13, 2008 at 05:18 PM
If you argue that archaeopteryx is not an intermediate but just a creature that was specially made with the features of both reptiles and birds, then you can use that same argument for ALL future claimed intermediates, effectively rendering it impossible to prove to you that intermediates exist at all.
True. Then consider this, taken from part two of the giraffe dissertation linked on the first page of this thread:
Given these circumstances, what are we left with, except that the 'truth' is determined by whatever one's belief system dictates?
Posted by: Michael H | August 13, 2008 at 08:15 PM
Personally, I think the paucity of intermediate forms in the fossil record suggests that transitions between species happen faster than Darwinism allows. Instead of very gradual, incrementalist transitions, there seem to be quicker transitions, more consistent with directed evolution.
Stephen Jay Gould may have been on to something with his theory of punctuated equilibria, which was developed to explain the gaps in the fossil record. But where Gould posited a "hopeful monster" arising by sheer serendipity, I think it's more likely that the hopeful monster came about because some form of guiding intelligence masterminded the transition.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 13, 2008 at 09:18 PM
Here's a quote - "The outstanding question ... 2000 or more enzymes are crucial across a wide spectrum of [Earth] life ... the chance of obtaining the necessary total of 2000 enzymes by randomly assembling amino acid chains is ... p to 1 against, with p minimally an enormous superastrononomical number equal to 10^40,000 (1 followed by 40,000 zeros).
The odds ... are only for enzymes ... if all other relevant molecules for life are also taken account of in our calculation the situation for conventional biology becomes ... intrinsically insuperable.
The alternative to assembly of life by random, mindless processes is assembly through the intervention of some type of cosmic intelligence. The ultimate cosmic intelligence built from ... more robust structures [than our own] could well be thought to persist for exceedingly long timescales, even for an eternity
A cosmic intelligence could be envisioned on a much more ambitious scale than the capacity of our own brains" -
Prof. Sir Fred Hoyle & Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe `Cosmic Life-Force'
- please note they _don't_ invoke a supernatural force.
Posted by: Ray Dickenson | August 13, 2008 at 09:27 PM
"A cosmic intelligence could be envisioned on a much more ambitious scale than the capacity of our own brains"
Sounds like a definition of some kind of god to me. We all appear to be co creators with god and continuous improvement in intelligence (i.e. ability) means some souls are more creative and ambitious than other souls.
Posted by: william | August 14, 2008 at 01:38 AM
But where Gould posited a "hopeful monster" arising by sheer serendipity, I think it's more likely that the hopeful monster came about because some form of guiding intelligence masterminded the transition.
The only quibble I would have with this is in my conviction that the guiding intelligence remains fully present. I think the fossil record can be interpreted as a genuine record (as opposed to the “young earth” interpretations), but that what we are seeing is the history of the manifested divine, while what we see today is the divine manifesting. All around us.
Ray Dickenson’s mention of Hoyle is intriguing. Hoyle famously coined the expression “Big Bang” as a term of derision and dismissal, only to have it adopted by BBT advocates. The recent observations indicating that the galactic distribution appears to be fractal to huge time scales can be interpreted to lend credence to Hoyle’s concept that the universe is eternal and continually in the process of creating new matter as it expands. The plasma cosmologists and electric universe advocates posit similar ideas, and recent observations of the behavior of the sun can be seen to support the concept of stars as engines that are fueled by an external energy source, rather than by internal nuclear fusion.
The observed behavior of organic matter as well as the inexplicable behavior of matter on the quantum level can each be seen as indicative of an omnipotent force underlying existence. To attempt to tie this all together, I see no reason not to consider creation as an ongoing process of energy being converted to mass, rather than a single event occurring in the distant past (the singularity). If this is in fact the case, then the same intelligent energy that drives the expansion and growth of the cosmos also continues to provide the foundation of all existing matter, while remaining fully present within organic matter on the sub-molecular level: the genetic processes we have identified can be seen to be continually driven by the underlying intelligent energy – something’s flipping the switches. On the deepest level, this would mean that each of us is a direct manifestation of the underlying cosmic intelligence, as is anything we can ever observe. It’s an interesting perspective to hold when I consider that some choose to use their personal intelligence as a means to deny the existence of a deeper intelligence than their own, or to conclude that the intelligence left the scene after setting things in motion.
That’s a highly condensed version of my interpretation of ‘truth’. Of course, I’m as vulnerable as anyone else to being influenced by my belief system.
Posted by: Michael H | August 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Michael H..."the concept of stars as engines that are fueled by an external energy source, rather than by internal nuclear fusion."
Whaa??? I'm not sure whether to mourn that there will be no cold fusion or rejoice that the H bomb doesn't really exist.
Posted by: Teri | August 14, 2008 at 01:20 PM
I do not believe reasonable that God's Mind (whatever might this be), could do this choices explicitly. Rather this process seems to come built-in in the Cosmos. Whatever space-time may be (the last speculations are really astonishing), it seems to be able to produce the quantum wavefunction with his states and probabilities. Michael, maybe you could read Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality". Based on the Everett interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, he suggests every state may come to be real, a process that avoids the odds of the wave function collapse and the epistemological and philosophical problems that arises. Of course, this plunge us deep in a many universes scenery, each one branching continuously. In relation to God's role in this process, there's no need to an explicit Mind making decisions permanently. More suitable (at least for me) would be the Gnostic idea of a far and alien God, one that forgets himself, that "devolves" (the opposite to evolution), split into parts and lost consciousness of himself, only to play the opposite game and try to reach unity and knowledge again through His parts in constant self-contemplation. Literally, the fabric of the cosmos, space-time itself is His body, or Thought, the infinite Divine Idea.
Posted by: Rofo | August 14, 2008 at 02:00 PM
Whaa??? I'm not sure whether to mourn that there will be no cold fusion or rejoice that the H bomb doesn't really exist.
Clever, Teri . . . the solid surface model doesn't suggest that nuclear reactions aren't happening, only that the gas model of stars may be terrible wrong. It's pretty technical stuff, but it has some fascinating implications. I thought this tidbit on the "Surface Model" link was interesting:
Challenging the gas model of stars is received by astronomers with the same enthusiasm as alternatives to evolution are by the evolutionists. Yet, some of Mozina's observations are compelling.
Posted by: Michael H | August 14, 2008 at 04:48 PM
While I tend to agree with the existence of a superior intelligence or consciousness (God?), I think it's very hard to incorporate a trascendent "intelligent" factor in a scientific model of reality. But not because that factor can't exist, but because science (in its current materialist conception) can't handle that type of factors in its explanations of orgins (of universe, life.etc.)
In the example of the origin of universe (and life), maybe science can't alone give a totally satisfactory explanation. Maybe, it's the point where science meet spirituality and philosophy.
For me, it's valid to speculate about the spiritual factors in the origin of universe and life, and in that sense, I think the idea of a intelligent designer could be taken seriously; but not as a scientific hypothesis, but as a metaphysical one.
I agree that criteria for a "design detection" could be an empirical one; but the ultimate implication of this is metaphysical (and anti-materialistic), and a mechanicist science can't handle it. It's excluded in /a priori/ grounds. Problem with this is that, if a spiritual cause was determinant, science won't have ever a true explanation of the origins of universe and life.
I wonder if afterlife were officially accepted as a scientific fact, what consequences that acceptation would have to science and the debate about "origins"... The scientific recognition of a spiritual realm would put in a close contact science with spirituality, and maybe the demarcation of both of them wouldn't be so clear and absolute.
Only a guess...
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | August 14, 2008 at 04:54 PM
“I do not believe reasonable that God's Mind (whatever might this be), could do this choices explicitly. Rather this process seems to come built-in in the Cosmos”
This is a good point. One has to wonder if there is perfectly intended system of laws and principles that guarantees a perfect outcome but the course of action (evolutionary progression) is unknown. This perfect system with unknown manifestations would be able to create unique personalities and life forms through this evolutionary process.
From the big bang of consciousness returning to Oneness is repeated into infinite and that evolutionary expression that lies in between is always unique even when considering infinite expression of this intelligent vitality. An infinite expression of involution and evolution. This may explain mosquitoes.
Posted by: william | August 14, 2008 at 09:08 PM
After reading Behe about 4 years ago I gave some thought to what evidence of design would look like. I posted a draft of these ideas in the ISCID forums at the time. It is important to note that I was NOT saying such evidence exists or even that what I laid out was provable; I was merely trying to imagine what that evidence would have to look like if such evidence did exist. Here was my thinking:
"We can conclude, therefore:
1. A step by step process of assembly is an unavoidable historical fact of every thing that is recognizably designed.
2. It is not necessary to postulate the sudden appearance of irreducibly complex biochemical structures, completely intact and operable, in order to prove design.
What we are looking for is evidence that the universe is an automated assembly line programmed for the production of life.
If it can be shown that neutral parts which do not benefit the organism in which they occur are retained, if it can be shown that such neutral parts are transmitted to succeeding generations, if it can be shown that the succeeding generations add other neutral parts, which fit together precisely with the previous neutral parts and that these nonfunctional assemblies are transmitted together to new generations, until a generation arrives where an entirely new system has been produced and activated by some final neutral piece falling into place, and that this new assembly is both an irreducibly complex system and an improvement in the function of the organism—if all this can be shown, then the theory that such mechanisms were forming by design on a biological assembly line, would be demonstrated.
It is not the stepwise construction that distinguishes a Darwinian pathway from a non-Darwinian pathway, but the actual temporal order of assembly, unique to each pathway, that separates one from the other. What was the historical sequence by which parts were assembled to create a mechanism? The answers will be radically different for each method."
Posted by: DMDuncan | August 14, 2008 at 11:02 PM
@Michael H:
I have spent a look on the linked sun model description and googled to "Electric Universe".
It seems that the proponents are in fact Velikovskians who know that gravity doesn't allow the planet billard nonsense spouted by their master.
The very first question to the iron model: Why is the measured average density of the sun only 1,9 kg/m^3 while iron has a density of nearly 8 kg/m^3 ? Higher pressure
increases density. A short search reveals that the proponents simply assert contrary to known evidence that charged particles gain mass if accerelated. (The "effective" mass is only influenced by velocity, quite interdependent from charge and the necessary speed for sevenfold increase is MUCH too high for a stable sun. There are more exotic descriptions for the electron model, but that should suffice).
Don't try to patch insufficient theories with even more insufficient theories.
Posted by: Thorsten | August 15, 2008 at 01:27 AM
Correction: 1900 kg/m^3 for the sun and 7800 kg/m^3 for iron.
Posted by: Thorsten | August 15, 2008 at 01:36 AM
“I do not believe reasonable that God's Mind (whatever might this be), could do this choices explicitly. Rather this process seems to come built-in in the Cosmos”
Another way of looking at this would be assume the default position of Universal Superintelligence. All subjects, objects or events in the finite realm would be stepped down in phases, ie have "forgotten" much of what they really are. Evolution is regaining the intelligence previously forgotten, as Rofo says.
Posted by: Teri | August 15, 2008 at 01:44 AM
The idea of “intelligence” being behind our universe is certainly not ruled out by physicists. John Gribbin in “The Universe – A Biography” (Penguin Science, P.54), says that quantum fluctuations in the vacuum could have given rise to inflation, and that this could occur anywhere in our universe. The bubble universe created would “expand into its own set of dimensions, all of them at right angles to all of the dimensions of our universe.”
“It is even possible that before too long –perhaps in a hundred years or so- we might have the technological ability to create universes in this way, and that our universe may have been deliberately created by intelligent beings in another universe, as an experiment of some kind.”
He refers us to his book “In the Beginning” (1993) and Lee Smolin’s “The Life of the Cosmos” (1997) for more detailed speculation. So there we have it; physicists create universes. Clever, aren’t they?
Posted by: Ben | August 15, 2008 at 05:19 AM
The very first question to the iron model: Why is the measured average density of the sun only 1,9 kg/m^3 while iron has a density of nearly 8 kg/m^3 ? . . . Correction: 1900 kg/m^3 for the sun and 7800 kg/m^3 for iron.
The Electric model suggests stratified layers including calcium, silicon, neon, hydrogen and helium, as well as a ferrite surface layer. The implication of your question is that they are positing a solid iron sun, which they are not doing. This is explained on the Surface Model tab, that you must have missed when you had a look at it.
As far as EU proponents being Velikovskians, this is true for some, but not all. Dave Talbott, one of the major proponents of EU theory, has argued that similarities in primitive artwork discovered worldwide is very reminiscent of plasma discharge patterns that are observed in laboratory experiments. He theorizes that these were massive discharges observed in the earth's sky that were recorded by humans in the distant past, and that much of the world's mythology recalls catastrophic events of relatively recent history.
That does not mean that all EU or plasma cosmology advocates agree. The ongoing discussions at the Thunderbolts Forum provides some idea as to the range of ideas that are being discussed. Getting a feel for these ideas requires more than a cursory glance or a quick Google search. They welcome dissenting views presented in a respectful manner. Perhaps you should head over there and spend some time discussing these ideas with them.
I do find your immediate dismissal of these concepts as highly appropriate for a thread about ID concepts, Thorsten. The comment that we shouldn't "patch insufficient theories with even more insufficient theories" well encapsulates the arguments of the evolutionists.
From what I've uncovered by looking into current astronomical assumptions, the gravity-centered cosmology that's favored today is grossly insufficient to explain observations and has been for decades. I explored this in some depth in a couple of blog entries earlier this year, which are available at the Grail. I do not know whether plasma cosmology or EU is on the right track, but I'm pretty sure that current theory is not. We're now spending billions searching for dark energy and dark matter, each of which were posited to exist because without them the BBT would collapse. At the same time, those who think that alternative cosmologies (which is not limited to EU or plasma concepts) may provide more accurate predictions are faced with derision from the mainstream and beg for funding.
The BBT and the gravity-centric universe are cornerstones of the religion of scientism. It is one of many examples, including the evolution debate, psi evidence and afterlife research that are crippled at the moment by the metaphysical assumptions of materialism, and the lack of objectivity that has created.
Posted by: Michael H | August 15, 2008 at 08:15 AM
The implication of your question is that they are positing a solid iron sun, which they are not doing. This is explained on the Surface Model tab, that you must have missed when you had a look at it.
No, I haven't missed it, I simply thought they didn't painted it right because any material under a layer of iron must be equal or more dense than iron. Oil swims on water, Iron sinks to the ground in water. Even solid iron (and other materials, too) is even under the given pressure malleable due to its temperature which means any lighter material will finally force its way upwards and any denser material will force its way to the ground. (Heavy elements can exist on higher levels, but only as traces by diffusion or as compounds). If the material under the iron layer is not iron, what exactly is it ? And how can then the density of the sun be 1900 kg/m^3 ?
As far as EU proponents being Velikovskians, this is true for some, but not all.
I had already the pleasure to discuss some proponents of Velikovsky and I immediately recognized the style. You may positively surprise me, but my experience is that you can't get any formulas out of Velikovskians to describe their idea quantitively. Can you find for me the equations for planet motions according to EU to compare that with the movements in the sky ?
From what I've uncovered by looking into current astronomical assumptions, the gravity-centered cosmology that's favored today is grossly insufficient to explain observations and has been for decades.
Wrong. It is grossly insufficient to explain
some observations if you didn't include such exotic concepts as Dark Matter, but it is excellent to explain other observations. If EU can't jump the simple hurdle of explaining already established observations, it is inacceptable as substitute, only as add-on for phenomena not handled by gravitation. You may not like it, but the practability of a theory is a very important factor.
Sorry if I sound overbearing and blunt, but I wanted to keep my answers short and straight.
Posted by: Thorsten | August 17, 2008 at 10:28 AM
"the gravity-centered cosmology that's favored today is grossly insufficient to explain observations and has been for decades.
Wrong. It is grossly insufficient to explain
some observations if you didn't include such exotic concepts as Dark Matter, but it is excellent to explain other observations."
V2 R=GM can be substituted by V2R=K, a constant derived from Kepler’s observations. G is not necessary to describe orbits. K is 1.325 x 1020 [m3/s2]
V is the velocity of the planet, R its orbital radius. (The "2s" should be superscript)
Posted by: Pete | August 17, 2008 at 12:10 PM
V2 R=GM can be substituted by V2R=K
No, it can't be substituted by a constant
(which is contracting G and the sun mass M
together) because planets and moons attract each other, too. This causes the extreme complicated lunar orbit and and causes devitations in planet orbits which led to the discovery of Neptune. In that case M must be substituted by the planet's/moon mass and predicts the gravitational field. These can be tested directly in the case of the moon with a gravimeter and by space probes for other planets (and they were confirmed).
Michael, before it develops into a full scale discussion, are you ok with hijacking the thread ?
Posted by: Thorsten | August 17, 2008 at 02:16 PM
Michael, before it develops into a full scale discussion, are you ok with hijacking the thread ?
Sure, go for it! Not that I'll be able to follow the formulas ...
From what little I know of Velikovsky (mainly his theories on ancient history), I would not give his ideas any credence. But YMMV.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 17, 2008 at 06:07 PM
No, I haven't missed it, I simply thought they didn't painted it right because any material under a layer of iron must be equal or more dense than iron.
I mentioned your earlier comment in an email to Michael Mozina (he maintains the Surface of the Sun site) and this was his response:
As I stated earlier, from what I've been able to determine from my own limited research efforts, our current cosmology is a joke. We're spending tens of billions to 'prove' dark matter and dark energy, both of which are mathematical constructs posited to fortify the BBT.
The attempt to discount alternative cosmology concepts by relating them to Veliskovsky's ideas is missing the point. Whether earth has experienced recent close encounters with other planetary bodies has nothing to do with whether the current accepted ideas of the cosmos, with its emphasis on gravity is valid or not, and has no bearing on anything. The BBT has been continually falsified by observation and survives today by nothing more than the esoteric mathematical efforts of its proponents. It is nothing more than today's accepted mythology. End of story.
My entire point here is that we aren't conducting science any longer. We would not enjoy the lifestyles we do, or even be able to discuss these issues without the advances of science. Those successes though, have led to an incredible blindness and arrogance, which almost no one appears to recognize. Science is the new faith, and any ideas that challenge the accepted faith are regarded as heresy.
Posted by: Michael H | August 17, 2008 at 08:55 PM
"In that case M must be substituted by the planet's/moon mass and predicts the gravitational field."
Sounds convincing but begs the question: Take a comet in a highly elliptical orbit as it reaches aphelion. The theoretical gravitational pull on it might be only 1/9 of what it was at perihelion (if the distance is 3 times as far). What moves it in so sharply from the outermost point of the ellipse? And where is the energy coming from?
Posted by: Pete | August 18, 2008 at 12:58 AM
It has an outer shell of course, but what’s in the core remains open to speculation.
Alas ! But it does not remove the problem of higher density unless exotic matter is introduced which EU tries to avoid at any cost.
EM fields have a very unusual effect on spheres in space. The interior can be lighter than the exterior.
Says who ?
That is a bold assertion which effectively claims that (if you accept the problem that the density of the interior cannot be more dense than iron) an iron sphere layer can be levitated by EM fields. The problem here is that a magnetic field is always unsymmetric in 3D because it is a piecewise assembly of elementary magnetic fields with a southpole and a northpole.
(It is a *very* coarse simplification,
sorry, but it should be understandable while maintaining the main argument).
But a sphere is symmetric which means you can't support such a layer with magnetic fields.
The given link is actually broken.
The attempt to discount alternative cosmology concepts by relating them to Veliskovsky's ideas is missing the point.
Not at all if you know the background. After Velikovsky realized that gravity effectively ruled out his ideas, he tried to
introduce "electricity" (having no knowledge of it, too) as agens to maintain his world view. It means that Velikovsky and his supporters have a preconceived idea how the world functions and they cherrypicked observations which supported their belief and ignored counterevidence.
The BBT has been continually falsified by observation and survives today by nothing more than the esoteric mathematical efforts of its proponents. It is nothing more than today's accepted mythology. End of story.
I could swap "BBT" with "psi" and get a pamphlet of pseudoskeptics. The "esoteric
mathematical efforts" in this case would be, ahem, simply "statistical artifacts" by incompetent parapsychologists. Psi is simply mythology, end of story.
In fact, the whole electromagnetism vs gravitation is a deliberate strawmen. It is
current mainstream consensus that solar wind exists, that the sun produces giant magnetic fields, that the filaments of the crab nebula are in fact influenced by the gigantic magnetic field of a pulsar.
Speaking of alternative cosmology, we still have "steady state" by Halton Arp which was replaced by BBT.
Take a comet in a highly elliptical orbit as it reaches aphelion. The theoretical gravitational pull on it might be only 1/9 of what it was at perihelion (if the distance is 3 times as far). What moves it in so sharply from the outermost point of the ellipse? And where is the energy coming from?
You wonder why the orbit shape (ellipsoid)
of the comet is identical in aphelion and
perihelion while the comet is much, much farther away and gravity is therefore much, much weaker ?
Because the comet moves much, much slower in the aphelion. It loses enery due to the gravitational pull and therefore slows down. The speed decreases linearly with the distance from the sun, it moves only with one-third of its perihelion speed. This exactly cancels out the reduced gravity, e.g. any trajectory on the moon will exactly look like the earth equivalent if the velocities are scaled down by a factor of sqrt(6) = 2.45.
Posted by: Thorsten | August 18, 2008 at 04:16 PM
It means that Velikovsky and his supporters have a preconceived idea how the world functions and they cherrypicked observations which supported their belief and ignored counterevidence.
It's actually hilarious hearing this claim, given the history of the BBT. The concepts invented to maintain current cosmology in the face of inconvenient observations includes 'inflation', 'dark matter', and 'dark energy'. It was astronomer Michael Disney's column in American Scientist last year that piqued my interest in this entire question. It is the preconceived ideas of how the world works that has led to this mess, and now has us spending tens of billions trying to discover things that don't exist, while advocates of alternative ideas are forced to resort to Open Letters in their pleas for funding.
I could swap "BBT" with "psi" and get a pamphlet of pseudoskeptics. The "esoteric mathematical efforts" in this case would be, ahem, simply "statistical artifacts" by incompetent parapsychologists.
The conflation of BBT and paranormal research is ununusual, given that the BBT is accepted as the 'truth' in the face of overwhelming falsifying evidence, while paranormal research is dismissed as 'pseudoscience' in the face of overwhelming supporting evidence. They're related, but only as a lesson in the power of paradigms.
In regards to the obsession with Velikovsky, I'll repeat what I stated earlier. The folks participating in the EU discussions at Thunderbolts are not Veliskovskians, though some do think that there were catastrophic close encounters between earth and other planetary bodies in the relatively recent past. If someone wishes to spend some time at the Thunderbolts forums, they'll find some discussions on these issues, but much more interest appears to be given to anomalous observations, such as the recent discovery of apparent fractal distribution of galaxies to huge time scales. These observations are dismissed out of hand in the New Scientist article that announced the findings: "Many cosmologists find fault with their analysis, largely because a fractal matter distribution out to such huge scales undermines the standard model of cosmology".
As far as your eager dismissal of the electric sun model as posited by Mozina, Thorsten, I'd suggest you take it up with him. He responded to my emails; I'm sure he'd respond to yours. He's also a regular contributor at the Thunderbolts forum.
Finally, the mention of Halton Arp is interesting. Arp's been laboring for decades now, compiling an impressive catalog of observations that appear to call the entire expanding universe into question. He's convinced that certain objects, such as quasars, have intrinsic redshift. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Arp has speculated that quasars are ejected from the galactic core and act as seeds for new galaxies.
All in all, this idea that gravity is the driving force of the cosmos will someday be conclusively falsified. I'd love to be a fly on the wall, listening to the cosmologists of the future chuckle about how the best and brightest of our age were so entirely wrong.
Posted by: Michael H | August 19, 2008 at 12:01 AM
I reckon Thorsten knows his stuff. I concede defeat.
Posted by: Pete | August 19, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Thanks, Pete.
It's actually hilarious hearing this claim, given the history of the BBT. The concepts invented to maintain current cosmology in the face of inconvenient observations includes 'inflation', 'dark matter', and 'dark energy'. It was astronomer Michael Disney's column in American Scientist last year that piqued my interest in this entire question.
First of all, I would like to recommend Disney's article because it is short and very well written and gives a good overview of the problems. And no, the BBT model doesn't ignore the counterevidence, it tries to patch it (with admittedly questionable constructs) which is the key difference to Velikovskians. The latter simply ignore problems like that the earth will lose its moon if Venus or Mars come too close and they will not tell other people of problems with their pet theory. Mind you, the article is written by an astronomer.
That does not mean that dissenting voices are invariably welcomed by the astronomic community; in fact I expect hard fighting because the golden era of funding is over.
The conflation of BBT and paranormal research is ununusual,.
You did understand my intention wrong and I see that I formulated it a bit unclear. I was trying to say that your argumentation "BBT...continually falsified...survives today by nothing more than the esoteric mathematical efforts...nothing more than today's accepted mythology. End of story." is unsound because you can substitute the keyword "BBT" with "evolution", "creationism", "UFOs", whatever and it still retains its conclusion.
As far as your eager dismissal of the electric sun model as posited by Mozina, Thorsten, I'd suggest you take it up with him.
I think not because I am not interested in proselytization. I point out things which I find unconvincing and I will explain why, but I don't go out to convince people of my weltanschauung. There are more important and pleasureable things.
All in all, this idea that gravity is the driving force of the cosmos will someday be conclusively falsified. I'd love to be a fly on the wall, listening to the cosmologists of the future chuckle about how the best and brightest of our age were so entirely wrong.
Gravity is one driving force, not *the* driving force of the cosmos. And for the future, I doubt that the quest for knowledge and truth will ever end. For every found explanation two new questions pop up. Any better explanation unveils new problems. And I wonder what gives you the security instead of high improbability that you know that this "dark matter" can't exist at all. We have superfluids, superconductors, metamaterials, nanotubes, metallic hydrogen...all kind of crazy stuff.
Posted by: Thorsten | August 20, 2008 at 02:18 PM
In the former paragraph I wanted to imply that the idea "dark matter" is highly improbable, not that your idea that it does not exist is highly improbable ! I mixed up the sentence, sorry. I wanted to say that while it is highly improbable, dark matter shouldn't be refused as impossible.
Posted by: Thorsten | August 20, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Back from vacation. I'm not going to have a great deal of time (lots of catching up to do) but I'll take a stab at some of this.
Let's start with Sewell's contention is that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamic. A more accurate description is that his contention is that evolution violates Sewell's Second Law.
His first point is uncontentious -- in fact (despite his claims that people "forget about it) is trivial. In order for an open system (or at least, one that is part of a larger closed system -- this is not necessarily always the case) to have its order increase there must be a corresponding decrease in order to another system that it is connected to. Of course, one must be careful if you get away from purely mechanical systems (like inert gasses) and into more complex systems to define "order" appropriately. You need, for example, to make a whole lot of assumptions to be sure that somehow four randomly moving protons at high temperature is somehow a more ordered state than a single helium nucleus, a couple of neutrinos moving in straight lines and some more heat. Even chemical reactions leads to similar problems. But anyhow...
This elementary corollary is trivially consistent with evolution. A segregated system consisting of a gigantic ball of hot gas and a small lump of cold stone and liquid is a very ordered system. As heat (in the form of light) flows from the ball of gas to the lump of stone there is a decrease in overall order -- much more than we find in the small but intricate orderings in a thin membrane on the stone.
It is Sewell's rather casual extension to this that is in question. Sewell states that the order imported must be of the same "kind" thermal order is distinct from "carbon" order which is distinct from "computer" order. Although he acts like his proof of the trivial corollary is also a proof of this radical statement, his only proof is a "proof by vigorous assertion" and statements of its obviousness.
He uses an example a tube through which carbon can diffuse. He states that the "entropy" in this system is purely a matter of carbon distribution not of heat distribution. And that "heat order" can never become "carbon order". But this is simply not true. Under simple enough conditions, we can *neglect* the thermal component in calculating the entropy of his system, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor that under other conditions that it might not be critically important.
Given the right circumstances, thermal energy can be input into a system in which carbon has diffused and we can separate the carbon. We take advantage of this when we build machines for purifying carbon.
Here is a simple example. Take a tube and put large particles and small ones (say, sugar and raisins). Mix it up well -- it is now in a very mixed (low order, high entropy) state. Shake it moderately for a while. The large particles will come to the top -- a highly ordered state.
What is required is some form of natural ratchet mechanism that gives direction to the whole thing. That is what selection provides.
Ignoring the above, let's test Sewell's version of the second law. It would seem that for Sewell, before a spider can build a web it must somehow absorb "web-like order" from somewhere. Spiders must therefore eat spider webs (or something similar) before creating new ones. No such requirement is observable.
Or lets use Sewell's own example. For a computer to be created something like a computer must provide the necessary order. Simply acting as a template is insufficient (templates are just one form of ratchet). The "computer order" must not increase overall -- so the first computer must be destroyed to the extent that the new one comes to exist. A clear prediction of his theory -- the amount of "computerness" out there must never increase. That means that there must be fewer computers then there were 100 years ago. But maybe the "computerness" comes from our own mind? (I would say that this only applies to the first prototype of a particular model, and only to the extent that it is novel, but lets pass on this). In that case it is saying that every computer created decreases -- physically, not through some encouragment of mental laziness -- human computational ability. Furthermore, for humans to have this "computer order" in the first place, they must get it from somewhere. Therefore, it is impossible (if Sewell's ideas are correct) for the overall human population to increase without it getting, in at least some limited extent, stupider.
Sewel's version of the Second Law is easily falsified as a picture of the physical world. Of course, you can hypothesize a Platonic realm from which "computer order", "human order", "carbon order", "spider-web order", "life order" etc can be drawn in unlimited quantities -- but then we don't have a physical theory. For that matter, we don't have any reason to reject the notion that evolution isn't precisely the way that life was able to tap into this great "Well of Life Order".
Posted by: Topher Cooper | August 20, 2008 at 04:26 PM
I wanted to say that while it is highly improbable, dark matter shouldn't be refused as impossible.
I don't think I ever said it was, did I? I'm convinced that the whole of Big Bang Cosmology is extremely improbable. Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation are all just constructs created to prop up the BBT.
As I said above, Thorsten, I don't know whether plasma cosmology or EU ideas are on the right track or not. I'm a layman, not a scientist. That said, many of the concepts that are discussed at the Thunderbolts forum make sense to me in consideration of many current observations, though I admit that the ideas about a catastrophic history of the solar system seem to be a bit of a stretch.
My entire interest in this matter is that the wide acceptance of current theory is anti-objectivity. I see genuine parallels between the mainstream's response to alternative cosmology ideas, the mainstream response to paranormal research and the evolutionists response to ideas that challenge their own. Consequently, I think it's important to encourage critical thinking and new concepts. It seems to me that there's way too much certainty in the way science is practiced today. We need to encourage new ideas and free thinking, not just dismiss them out of hand.
My concern with the cosmology question is the same I have with the evolution issue: our educational system is presenting these ideas as factual, when they are not. We are teaching people what to think, rather than how to think. That's dangerous, whether the authority is the church, the state, or the scientific consensus. Several centuries on and we're still dealing with the dogmatism science once endeavored to replace. It reminds me of the classic Who tune: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Posted by: Michael H | August 20, 2008 at 04:44 PM
By the way, Topher, the day after I posted the earlier link to Sewell's arguments, PhysOrg.com ran an article, Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics in which they argue the opposite position of Sewell's.
So what does this tell us? As I see it, it tells us that people tend to see what they want to see, and explain things to fit what they already believe to be the case. Many of the intellectual elite (Dawkins, Dennett, etc.) are very comfortable with the concept that some sort of physical or chemical evolutionary process led to a single cell, which developed over eons to become all life as we know it. Other highly intelligent people find comfort in their certainty that their god did it. Both of these groups look at the external world and arrive at conclusions that support what they already believe. It's comforting for each.
Since I just can't help being a heretic, my guess is that the truth is entirely different from either of these positions. What I'm certain of is that these questions won't be resolved until there's a significant worldwide shift in metaphysical assumptions and in our understanding of human psychology.
Unfortunately, that's a position that's probably not particularly comforting to anyone.
Posted by: Michael H | August 20, 2008 at 06:03 PM