Re: OT: Intelligent Falling

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:07:16 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 08:09:47 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
><jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>There is no justification for considering DNA a matter of design. We
>>have no theory upon which that can be shown -- no way of recognizing
>>such design should we see it.
>
>Somewhere in the "useless" segments of DNA we will probably find a
>copyright notice, coded with enough redundancy to be readable and
>legally valid across the galaxy.

Hehe. Could be. When you get a rigorous idea on this subject, let me
know. In the meantime...

>>We *do* have an excellent and well supported theory of evolution
>
>Evolution, sure. Origin, 'fraid not. Even evolution will likely turn
>out to be a lot trickier than the simplistic idea of random mutation
>and selection. DNA is much smarter than that!

Well, "origin" is just the receding edge of today's knowledge. before
evolution came upon the scene, that was the receding edge and no
question about abiogenesis could even be asked, let alone worked on.

We have to work in steps. And no matter how many steps, there will
always be "the next question" lit by prior answers.

Each answer we've found so far hasn't required postulating a designer.
It's not exactly rocket science to anticipate that this pattern will
continue.

>>which, while not explicitly excluding god,
>
>I never mentioned The Big Guy.

That's fine. Who knows? Maybe someone else was reading you and
thinking that way. Doesn't hurt to deal with it.

>>does NOT require one as an
>>underlying axiom. For now, the details found in DNA are exactly the
>>kind of thing one would expect given mutation, selection, and
>>inheritance.
>
>Of course. DNA is the finest macro programming language known. But who
>wrote the compiler?

Why is that question even germane?

>>That such a difficulty might arise and then much later be resolved in
>>favor of this theory isn't my point, though. The point I wanted to
>>make is that there actually *has* been enough time, given what we know
>>today, for life to have developed into what we see without the need
>>for a designer to be involved.
>
>If there has been enough time on Earth, then there was plenty of time
>for other forms of life to evolve on trillions of other planets many
>billions of years before Earth was formed. So, logically following
>your argument, the universe is full of incredibly advanced life forms.

No, that is taking what I've said and taking it to extremes and to the
limits of our ignorance. We remain quite ignorant about these larger
questions and suggesting anything from ignorance is fraught with
trouble.

We do *know* a little something about earth and life here and we do
not *yet* have any reason to insist on any grand assumptions of an
intelligent designer playing a role. That doesn't mean that someone
bright enough and creative enough won't come up with the equivalent
creativity to some Gödel proof or a theory of design from which to
make more comprehensive rigorous predictions.

But until that fantastic imagination arrives on the scene and is born
out through novel prediction, we have no business trying to suggest
that an intelligent designer postulate has any equivalence to current
scientific theories, which at this time do not require it. It's
merely a hope or wish, until someone smart enough can couch such an
idea into objective terms and integrate it into the body of science.

>Only one such life form would need to be creative and mischevious to
>create DNA - if it wasn't DNA-based already - and splatter it
>everywhere.

Here you are trying to play down the assumption, to make it seem
reasonable and modest when it is neither of these.

>Of course evolution works. But think big: why should it be confined to
>one dinky little planet? I thought most of us had finally accepted the
>idea that Earth is not the center of the universe.

Of course it isn't the center of the universe. People really
struggled to get past that fact, too.

I don't doubt that similar processes take place elsewhere. Whether
they result in 'life' is another question. Whether that life can
proceed to stages beyond where we are at, yet another. But we just
don't know and it remains mere speculation.

Also, again, you are trying to play down a suggestion to make it seem
modest and reasonable (the idea that evolution may take place
elsewhere), while not keeping it still visible and on the table that
you are also intending to use this modest proposal to justify the idea
that _our_ DNA is a matter of design for creatures which were the
product of some evolutionary process elsewhere. In other words, if we
put our blinders on so that we don't see where you are going with all
this, then our limited sight may let us see all this as reasonable and
modestly proposed. But when we take our blinders off and see how long
of a trip you are planning to take us on, then the difficulties become
much clearer.

We know some things. We have no reason, as yet, to imagine what you
are suggesting as anything more than a very remote, mathematical
possibility. There is no reason for assigning it any finite
probability, though.

>>So the simplest explanation would leave out the exceptional postulate
>>of a god/designer. In other words, your remark is simply unjustified.
>
>Any statement about the origin of the universe, and the origin of
>life, is currently untestable hence unjustified.

If by this you mean that there will always be receding questions, no
matter how far our knowledge may take us... yes, I think that's the
case. Even if we imaginatively solve the question of how our universe
came to be, there will still be questions about the framework that
encloses that solution and why it is so.

I don't find our ignorance a useful tool for making suggestions about
ultimate questions. I don't think we will ever have the comprehensive
context from which we can understand everything. It's just not
possible. But being ignorant doesn't mean we can use our ignorance to
then justify the mental creation of an arbitrary designer merely to
'dot the i or cross the t' and bring the remaining mysteries into
'balance' in our minds. The fact is, we'll always be ignorant. And
we just need to learn to accept that fact and our limitations.

We aren't gods, you know.

>The idea that DNA was
>created by some advanced civilization, and seeded through the galaxy
>(robots doing the manufacturing, with comets being the local
>warehousing and distribution mechanism) is no more outrageous than the
>ideas of continental drift or quantum mechanics or prions, all of
>which were rejected by the majority of mainline scientists in the
>past.

No, that's just bull***, John. We have existing evidence for drift
of the continents and it actually has made useful predictions. Same
with QM. They are not just hand-waving ideas, but it is possible to
develop quantitative predictions from them. (In QM's case, it is
probably the most successful theory, ever found.)

But I'm glad you called it an 'idea.' Because that is all it is.
About the same as a science fiction story, at this point in time. Your
idea is hand-waving, without the capacity to deduce to specific case
in a quantitative way and which does NOT weave into existing science
knowledge, both unifying and united by it.

The two kinds of things, QM for example and your suggestion, are in
every objective, meaningful way completely unrelated.

When you get some evidence that needs explaining with this idea of
yours, when your idea is couched in objective language sufficient that
from it rigorous deductions to specific cases can be made and tested
in a quantitative way, then it may become (if found congruent with
evidence) something similar. That day is not today.

And pointing at ideas which were considered 'crazy' at one time and
which were later found to be important does not lend any credibility
to what you are saying. Imaginative ideas are a dime a dozen -- even
_good_ imaginative ideas are. But out of the trillions of them, only
a few ever see their way to well-supported theory in science. That
all of them may start out with the same inspirations does not at all
argue that all of them are then to be taken equally seriously.

It is a rare person with the ability of a few to turn such creative
thoughts into carefully woven objective language. It is a rare case
where such objective language can be developed into a theory upon
which rigorous quantitative prediction to specifics can be made. It
is a rare theory which is then found congruent with natural
observation and combines novelty and more comprehensive application
than prior theory.

We are a long way away from that with your idea and comparing it to QM
is terribly ill-advised.

>Personally, I think this idea is not only feasible, it's
>downright probable. But then, I get paid for having unorthodox ideas.

I suspect you get paid to realize practical ones, not just have any
random idea which may or may not be of any use at all and where
someone else has to do all the work needed to find out.

But in any case, you may be right. We just have no business saying it
is so, right now. It's merely an attractive thought, like a nice
fiction story. No more, no less. And while you may be able to argue
that it must be included as a logical possibility, I don't find any
credence in the idea that a logical possibility is the equivalent to a
finite probability. The one is not the other.

Jon
.

Quantcast