Commenter ‘fifthmonarchyman’ from UD has joined us and has some thoughts on active information.
I’ll cross-post his comment from the Ewert thread below.
148 thoughts on “Active information thread for fifthmonarchyman and others”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Physics doesn’t know what a lemon-meringue pie is Joe.
Physics doesn’t know why you baked a lemon-meringue pie.
You would be correct that physics cannot give a detailed step-by-step explanation of what happened. Or why it happened.
But why not?
There’s nothing non-physical going on here, right?
Everyone happened according to physical laws.
And physical law is deterministic.
fmm
Well I’m sorry, cmm, but that bit of knowledge is key to your claims that evolution is insufficient to create such anatomy and physiology.
For example when you claim evolution is insufficient to explain the origin of pulmonary circulation and four-chambered hearts I believe that it is prudent, as it pertains to vertebrates, what data is available on this subject.
bk says,
that bit of knowledge is key to your claims that evolution is insufficient to create such anatomy and physiology.
I say,
what could possibly have lead you to believe that I was claiming that evolution was insufficient to create such anatomy and physiology?
For the record once again My claim is that evolution is not sufficient to explain particular targets not that it is insufficient to “create” anything .
Again it is like pulling teeth.
Why do I get the feeling that you folks feel that the world will collapse if the fundi is allowed to be right even once?
peace
fmm
Then given that data available for the development of pulmonary circulation (target in your mind) and the transition from a three-chambered heart to a four-chambered heart your claim that evolution is insufficient to produce this anatomy (target in your mind) is confusing at best.
demonstrate that you are correct and there won’t be any teeth-pulling. regardless of anyones religious affiliations.
5th:
A naive six year old tosses a die. The outcome is due to the laws of physics or to random chance?
Suppose you move a direction and distance based on each roll. Your position after any given roll is due to the laws of physics or to random chance?
Can physics explain your position?
Are we all agreed that physics is lacking in explanatory power?
Is that what we have proven? It still sounds like you’re saying something different from what I would say — that we don’t know enough details to apply the physics well enough to explain all the details of the pie.
No, I am happy if people can explore your argument. I am just trying to analogize your arguments about whether evolution can explain biological situations to an argument about whether physics can reasonably be expected to explain the pie in detail, in a situation where you and I would hopefully agree that, for the pie, a physical and chemical explanation is probably good enough.
They explain what I want them to explain.
At some point I’m really going to give this a rest.
BK says,
Then given that data available for the development of pulmonary circulation (target in your mind) and the transition from a three-chambered heart to a four-chambered heart your claim that evolution is insufficient to produce this anatomy (target in your mind) is confusing at best
I say.
Obviously that is because you have no idea what this discussion is about. I’m sorry but I don’t have time right now to spell this out to you any more clearly. Perhaps I’ll get to it at some point in the future.
petrushka says,
Suppose you move a direction and distance based on each roll. Your position after any given roll is due to the laws of physics or to random chance?
I say,
I am a determinist so I don’t think there is such a thing a random chance.
you say,
Can physics explain your position?
I say,
If by “physics” you mean all of physical existence then yes I would think so.
In order to explain my position after a roll you need to include more than just the algorithmic process of physical laws you need to to include the original positions and characteristics of all the matter and energy in the universe.
.
peace
fmm
Obviously? I do understand that you’ve made some clams that point to a clear lack of awareness of what data is available that directly addresses your claims of evolutions insufficiency to ‘achieve’ various ‘targets’ that you have fixed in your mind. My point is that such a failure in being aware of this data has left you in a precarious position to justify the veracity of your claims to the insufficiency of evolution to have reached the ‘targets’ you have outlined. Perhaps you might consider that your ignorance on the depth, and breadth, of the data that is available might have an impact on the claims you are making…….and not in a good way. Just a thought that maybe you can address in the future.
I will have to wait for your actual argument. At the moment I simply don’t understand where you are going.
ME, not DEM.
Can you explain why you think there is no such thing as random chance?
So, for you there is no such thing as a random die. Fair enough.
As everything is pre-determined I’m afraid you’ll have to take that up with the big pre-determinator in the sky. Not much we can do about it at this level.
EL asks,
Can you explain why you think there is no such thing as random chance?
I say,
Short answer
quote:
“If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled.”
end quote:
R.C. Sproul
I would love to get into a longer answer but I have no time as I need to put together that short OP.
peace
If everything is determined, then evolution has no problem. The dice roll, the predetermined mutations occur. Some are winners and some not. The history of life is indistinguishable from mainstream biology accounts. It is Michael Denton’s Destiny.
But I assumed that there would be some challenge to the timeline or to the steps.
The Fundi are allowed to be right, but first must have a position that can be right or wrong.
petrushka says,
At the moment I simply don’t understand where you are going.
I say,
perhaps it’s because you assume some secret motive behind what I’m doing. Trust me there is none. I am not going anywhere. I am just pointing out what is patently obvious.
A process that is not targeting a particular outcome can not be called upon to explain that particular outcome. This is just simple logic.
“Because his truck carried him there” is not a satisfying explanation for Buba’s trip to the Walmart.
I’m not sure what it is about that that is so difficult to grasp. But I’m afraid it does not bode well for any kind of fruitful discussion we might have in the future
peace
Events.
False dichotomy. They are due to a stochastic process.
Looks to me as if this is just a rehash of the old “we don’t know everything therefore we know nothing” canard.
Quoting the apparently unsupported claim of someone else does not support determinism.
I will look forward to it! Thanks!
On TSZ we are supposed to assume no “secret motive” behind what anyone is doing (regardless of whether you actually think there is or not). This also includes asusming that people aren’t assuming that YOU have a secret motive!
Easier to say than do, but I’m putting this as a reminder.
Try your best, guys, whoever you are, to make the working assumption that there are no ulterior motives behind anyone’s words. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can articulate your suspicions in freedom!
I don’t quite get your version of “explanation”. A stochastic process can explain an outcome without predicting it. Even with strict determinism, it is impossible to predict the course of complex processes.
There are mini-controversies in biology over the relative contributions of drift vs selection, but this is orthogonal to the issue of determinism. Regardless, we cannot predict the effects of mutations. At the moment we can’t even predict the immediate phenotype, much less the long term effect in the context of the biosphere.
Please note I do not view this discussion as a contest or a battle. It would be nice if we could dispense with battle rhetoric. If you want to pause to compose a position paper, that’s fine.
Otherwise we need to hash out some common ground on terms and concepts.
I’m not assuming any secret motive. But it is a struggle to understand you. What I see appears to be bits and piece that don’t easily fit together. So I’m waiting for your OP, in the hope that it will paint a more comprehensive picture.
It doesn’t seem simple logic to me.
Perhaps. But “satisfying” doesn’t have much to do with simple logic. And what is satisfying varies from person to person and from circumstance to circumstance.
I would say that not only is this not simple logic, it is simply wrong.
So before we get into any higher math, I think we need to come to some uncommon understanding on this.
It does not appear to be compatible with processes that are both deterministic and unpredictable.
But I don’t believe in “holding back” or asking questions designed to win an argument by an “ah ha” at the end. I’m not trying to win an argument. I’m trying to reach an understanding.
So I will lay out my position on biological inventiveness up front, so perhaps we can move on.
I would say that the evolutionary landscape is the laws and properties described by chemistry. Chemical elements and chemical compounds have objective properties. When a pharmaceutical company is “targeting” an effect, they produce a huge batch of variations on a molecule type, and then test.
It is worth noting that this is design, and it is worth noting that the process mimics what biologists understand as evolution. Make a bunch of variations and select those having desired properties. As far as I know, it is not possible to know the value of any particular molecule in advance.
Let’s say that this process eventually leads to some useful and lucrative new medicine. Was the particular molecule a target? In what sense was it a target? What would we say if the final product has effects that were not conceived of prior to discovery? What if the useful and lucrative effect is serendipitous?
Does the process explain the product, or not?
I think I understand what fifthmonarchyman is saying. There are two options for what he call “targets” they are products of the physycal laws so are really “targets” and that physycal law are established to obtain what we see in the universe,or they are product of “chance”, but then we are not explaining nothing because “chance” is equivalent to we do not know why.
There is a great deal we do not know.
One of the things we do not know is how to design biology without using some process equivalent to evolution. Cut and try.
I am not particularly interested in the philosophical question of determinism. If anyone can give me a definitive way of testing whether stochastic processes at the quantum level are truly random or are determined, please step forward.
I do not think it matters in biology whether mutations are random or merely uncorrelated with usefulness. Lots and lots of mutations happen. Every human carries a hundred or so completely new mutations. Most of them will never be fixed in the human population.
One might ask — if the correct path to a biological target is predetermined or front loaded — why the process looks stochastic and why there is so much blood and waste. (But this argument hasn’t been brought up on this thread, so perhaps it is out of place).
fifthmonarchyman,
I’m glad to see an ID proponent willing to make a positive argument for ID participating here. I’ve been swamped with work this week, so I’ve been unable to keep up with the discussion until now. Reading this thread in its entirety in one sitting has a few advantages, though. First, I feel like I’m at the beginning of a novel where the author is heavy handed with the foreshadowing. A recurring theme in your comments is:
From my reading, no one here is refusing to recognize when you are right. The problem, certainly for me, is that it’s not clear what you are claiming. I look forward to your upcoming post with your full argument. I hope you will keep Elizabeth’s comment in mind while you’re writing:
Your definitions are essential to your argument. If your argument is to be understandable, your definitions must be clear and unambiguous. Given that, I urge you to provide operational definitions for all of your terms, including these I noted while reading the thread:
– algorithmic process
– integrated information
– non-computibility (and explain why you consider this a “hallmark of design”)
– unitary consciousness
– target (remembering that evolution does not have targets)
– explanation (being careful not to slip in teleology where no agent is demonstrated to exist)
If “integrated information” is the same as that used in the “Is Consciousness Computable” paper, please add your own clarification as to why the math is applicable to whatever claim you are making.
Importantly, based on previous discussion, if you use the word “information” alone or in any term, please provide worked out examples of how to calculate it according to your definition. The calculations must be reproducible by objective observers.
Finally, you asked these questions early in the thread:
The answer to all of them is “Yes!” (assuming they are important to your argument.
I am very interested to read your upcoming post. I’ve observed the ID movement for years and have never seen a positive argument for ID (or even a testable hypothesis). Please be the first.
Patrick, I find your challenge comprehensive and rather intimidating. I would not like to be faced with explaining and justifying all of evolution.
Which is why I have been trying to get clarification on just one element, that of “target” and of explanation for reaching same.
I think evilutionsts are pretty much agreed that evolution doesn’t have targets, so it seems critical that we address this up front.If it can’t be resolved, I don’t see how the discussion can progress. If “S” is not “S”, then CSI seems somewhat empty.
Blas said,
I think I understand what fifthmonarchyman is saying. There are two options for what he call “targets” they are products of the physycal laws so are really “targets” and that physycal law are established to obtain what we see in the universe,or they are product of “chance”, but then we are not explaining nothing because “chance” is equivalent to we do not know why.
I say,
If you were here with me I’d give you a kiss.
😉
peace
Neil Rickert says,
Perhaps. But “satisfying” doesn’t have much to do with simple logic. And what is satisfying varies from person to person and from circumstance to circumstance.
I say,
It was late so perhaps “simple logic” was too strong a term I suppose I should of said “flipping common sense”.
What I meant was that me and the folks at the trailer park would not find “Because his truck carried him there” to be a satisfying explanation for Buba’s trip to the Walmart.
peace
I’ve noticed a bit of a shift in the definition of “target” at UD. In some of the Winston Ewert discussion, a “fitness function” was being described as a “target”.
It is obviously true that in a GA, the designer of the GA designs the fitness function so that the virtual organisms tend to evolve to solve her problem.
So there is a sense in which “a solution to her problem” is the target. And she knows in advance that her goal is “a solution to that problem”. What she doesn’t know is what the solution is.
Nobody disputes that GAs have a “target” in the sense of having (at least sometimes) a problem they want their evolving population to solve.
But that is not the “target” in the sense used by Dembski. The “target” is found by the evolutionary process, not by the designer – that’s why we use the things.
And the equivalent, in nature, is therefore not a bacterial flagellum, for instance, but “some means of bacteria moving around in a viscous fluid”. Nobody has to design that “problem”. It’s right there “written in” to the resources and threats of the environment – the bacteria are in a viscous fluid, and if they stay put they will soon run out of food.
One big problem with WEASEL (and I don’t blame Dawkins for this, though I blame him for other things) is that exceptionally, the problem and solution are identical. The problem is: find a string that matches “methinks it is like a weasel” and the solution is the string “methinks it is like a weasel”.
It works, and it works by evolutionary means, but it’s a toy, and it conflates two items which don’t in practice coincide. You could know in advance what Weasel was after by inspecting the fitness function. But if you are after a circuit with a particular property, you have no clue what the solution is in advance, and the winning circuit might be totally unexpected. In fact, you may have to spend a lot of time figuring out why on earth it works!
petrushka,
I was trying not to be intimidating because I’m genuinely interested in fifthmonarchyman’s argument. Whether it came across that way or not, I was attempting to share with him (gender presumed based on nym) the flaws I’ve seen in other such efforts. In my experience, ID proponents and other creationists seem to resist providing clear, operational definitions. I’d like to see a real discussion, not simply another creationist storming off in a huff because his arguments lack rigor.
Sticking with one small component makes sense. My understanding, though, is that fifthmonarchyman intends to post something broader.
I think I got that part, but “explaining” in a physically complete sense is an infinite regress.
How did Bubba get to be conceived and born? How did his parents meet? How about his grandparents?
Evolution does not provide a physically complete explanation back to the beginning of time.
What it does do is describe a dynamic process of change in populations.
I am not happy with this line of thinking.
The presence of a target is an after the fact observation. Most bacteria get along without rotary flagella, so it isn’t a “problem” to be solved.
Nor is the Weasel string a target to be found. That’s simply the wrong way of looking at what happens.
Humans can look at the Weasel program and assert it is searching for a target, but that’s a personification. The uninterpreted process is that the population of strings shifts as a result of differential reproductive success.
Similar programs can be written that have no specific target at all, but in which, the population drifts as a result of non-specific changes in reproductive success.
I’m looking forward to a broader argument, but the reference to targets just kind of jumped out as a sticking point. I’m eager to see the whole argument, but if it depends on a non-existent feature of evolution, we will get bogged down in a zillion unfocused side arguments.
Indeed, but if, in Ewert’s formulation, a “search” is a “probability distribution” then a “target” is one of the configurations in that probability distribution. The target is NOT the search method.
If UD regulars want to move the case (as Ewert Dembski and Marks effectively do) from arguing that the target must have been designed (as in Dembski’s rejection-region argument) to the argument that the SEARCH must have been designed (“search for a search”) then UD regulars need to acknowledge that they are no longer claiming that the old TARGET had to be designed, but that the probability distribution on which it and its fellow configurations lies has been.
And that is a quite different argument.
Perhaps when you are done with the OP you are planning you could demonstrate that in another OP? I’m sure it’d be interesting. Does the observer have to have any particular attributes or skills would be my first question on such a thread?
I would define ID as a search for a map that doesn’t show evolution as a feature.
My standard way of describing an ID argument is that one starts with an abstraction (“search”, “information”, “target”), then reifies the abstraction and claims victory when evolution doesn’t work in the abstraction.
ETA:
Not aimed at anyone in particular. I think we all look for ways to support our view of how the world works.
But, I think Behe is the only one in the ID movement who has had the courage to depict a specific before and after snapshot of a gene and say, “You shall not pass.”
So far he has only sustained flesh wounds.
EL says,
And the equivalent, in nature, is therefore not a bacterial flagellum, for instance, but “some means of bacteria moving around in a viscous fluid”. Nobody has to design that “problem”. It’s right there “written in” to the resources and threats of the environment – the bacteria are in a viscous fluid, and if they stay put they will soon run out of food.
I say,
I think this is an important thought to camp on for a while. Defining “target” is a big part of the communication gap between the two camps. Lets put a pin in it and return to it later,
Just remind me about the “Y-axis in specifications.”
Thanks
peace
Elizabeth Liddle:
Surely you know better Elizabeth.
DEM do not define a search as a probability distribution. This was covered extensively at UD before you left. It’s also been covered here at TSZ.
As I have posted (here) in your own thread on Evolutionary Search, DEM do precisely define a “search” as a probability distribution of points in their search space Ω.
Why are you saying to Elizabeth that this is not so?
Elizabeth Liddle:
Mung is now denying what he accepted, interacting with me at UD. He quoted passages of DEM there, highlighting search. It’s hard to believe that he missed the opening of their second paragraph:
I know the comment isn’t going to Guano. But you shouldn’t respond.
Edit: Joe commented while I was composing. Here is Mung at UD, quoting Ewert’s ENV post:
Emphasis added by Mung, not me. His next move is to harp insubstantially on one word.
Joe and Tom have responded, Mung, but I also point out to you: That is how Ewert has defined a search, in this context.
Which has always been implicit in Dembski’s work, and was stated explicitly by Ewert.
A probability distribution is always generated by a process. Dembski has argued that if p(T|H) i.e. the probability of the target given the hypothesised process, is small enough, we can reject that process as an explanation for the target. He also argues that even if for some evolutionary processes, p(T|H) is quite high, that process itself has low probability, given the probability distribution of all possible processes – hence “search for a search”.
I’ve not recently interacted with anyone named Tom English at UD, Sad, really, that people hide behind a pseudonym.
LOL! Says the guy who posts under the pseudonym “Mung”.
IDiots are well known for their hypocrisy.
Inconceivable! People using different pseudonyms on different web-sites!