I’d like to thank everyone who participated in the recent Max’s demon thread, it might be helpful to revisit that OP for context before continuing on to what follows here. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/maxs-demon-a-design-detection-riddle/
As promised and for what it’s worth I’d now like to submit my proposal for a method for detecting design in situations like Max’s demon where instead of looking at a single isolated artifact or event we are evaluating a happening that is extended spatiotemporally in some way.
I believe that looking at these sorts of phenomena allows us to sidestep the usual sorts of contentious probability discussions that have plagued questions of design inference in the recent past. Usually these discussions involve a single highly unlikely object or event that is only categorized as design or coincidence in retrospect. My hope is that we can in some cases move to determinations based on the correspondence of ongoing observations to predictions and expectations.
Before we begin I’d like to once again clarify a few terms. For our purposes design will be defined as the observable effects of “personal choice” and “personal choice” is simply the the inverse of natural selection as is understood in Darwinian evolution. Such that we can say that something is the result of personal choice (ie designed) when it is ultimately prescribed by something other than it’s immediate local environment.
With that caveat in mind I will detail how my method would work with Max’s demon.
My method
The first step is build the best model(M)that we can given the information we have right now. It could be a physical copy of Max’s original container(O) or it could be a computer simulation or perhaps a just simplified mental description that includes all the known relevant details. The goal would be that the model(M)represents what we know about (O) as it pertains to the specific phenomena(P)we are looking at, namely here a persistent temperature difference between the two chambers of (O). It’s very important to specify ahead of time what P is so as to narrow our focus.
Next I would look to remove P in some way. This could be done by subjecting both my model (M) and the container(O) to temperatures cold enough to completely remove the observable differences between the two chambers in each. Absolute zero for an extended time should do the trick.
At this time I would allow(M)and(O)to thaw for a specified period of time and record any temperature difference that arises between the various chambers in (M)and(O). The difference between these two numbers{(P of O)-(P of M)} gives us a rough approximation of any relevant information present in(O)that is missing in(M)at this particular moment in time.
Now we can repeat the process again and again to look for any variation in P. If we record the results of these trials next to each other we get a number sequence showing information difference in P for each consecutive trial. Below are some examples of what such a sequence might look like.
0,0,0,0,0,0,0…
7,7,7,7,7,7,7…
7,8,9,10,11,12…
1,4,1,4,2,1,3…
In the first sequence we see no measurable difference at all between (P of O)and(P of M). Therefore there appears to be no compelling reason to infer design for P in a process that yields this sequence. Since as far as we know (M) has no ongoing personal choice involved there is no compelling reason to infer that(O)does either at least in context of the singular P we are evaluating. Of course that does not imply that there is not an observable design influence in another aspect that we are not at present evaluating or that design is not involved in the system as a whole.
Moving on to the second sequence it’s interesting to realize that we don’t have to know specifically what is causing the 7 degree difference between (P of M) and (P of O)in order to make a determination. All we have to do is add 7 to each instantiation of (M) and we see the same repeating zeros we saw in number one. And just as with number one we can discount the design inference as superfluous in regards to P.
The same goes for the third sequence we simply add one each time we repeat the trial and we are again left with the first sequence. We can make similar simple modifications to (M) to cause most sequences to morph to zero repeating and demonstrating that a design inference is not warranted.
However when we come to sequences like we see in number four this is not as easy and therefore personal choice becomes a live option for explaining the P in the particular spatio temporal dimension reflected in this sequence.
There is no reason to expect that this sequence will terminate on its own and there is no obvious way that we can modify (M) to make the sequence terminate. It is of course possible that the difference we see is nothing but random voice so we need to look for some sort of recognizable pattern in the sequence before we can say are justified in inferring design.
*A recognizable pattern is just one that allows us to predict the next digit in the sequence before running the trial.
In the case of the third sequence it turns out that the elements are precisely the decimal expansion of the square root of two, an irrational number.
There is no clear way to modify (M) to produce this sequence in full, that does not involve input from something outside the local environment or the container. At a minimum we must assume (O) was frontloaded to react in a certain prescribed but unexpected way to a trial that was only conceived after it was constructed. That sort of input must have come from something that transcends the immediate local environment of the container. Therefore as long as the pattern persists whatever is causing P tentatively meets our criteria for being the result of design.
In short— if a sequence produced by our comparison of (O) with (M) yields a persistent recognizable pattern that can’t be duplicated convincingly by making an adjustment to(M) then it’s my contention that we can infer design for P in more than a purely subjective way. That is it in a nutshell
Few sequences are as cut and dried as the square root of two. In our everyday experience the more sure we are that there can be no satisfactory modification to our model to eliminate the recognizable pattern we see the more confident we are that the phenomena we are evaluating is the result of design.
For example a sequence like the one below
001002003….. seems to imply design in that every third trial yields an increasing difference . But it is still open to debate since we don’t know for sure if the sequence is irrational or will eventually repeat or terminate. The longer a recognizable pattern continues with out repeating the more confident we can be in our design inference but only when we know a particular sequence is irrational can we be certain .
Well there you have it
I don’t think that my method is anything new or revolutionary it’s simply an attempt to make more explicit and structured the informal common sense approach that we use all the time when inferring design in these types of situations. Also l want to point out that I don’t need to call my method scientific it’s just important to me that it be reasonable useful and repeatable.
Most of all I want to emphasize my method is not meant to be some sort of argument for the existence of God. His existence is self evident and unavoidably obvious and not to be proved by some puny little human argument. By their very nature such arguments inevitably lead only to foolish human hubris and arrogance instead of any kind of genuine knowledge or wisdom.
We can discuss places other than Max’s demon where this method might prove to be useful and can get into some possible implications in places like evolution, cosmology and artificial intelligence if you like in the comments section.
As usual I apologize ahead of time for spelling and grammar mistakes and welcome any constructive criticism as to clarity or content.
Peace
My access to a computer at home is still very limited so I also apologize in advance for any delay in my interaction here.
I’d like to blame the sloppiness of the OP on the same spotty access but it’s ultimately my fault of course.
peace
Just a moment there. This is a basic mistake. You are saying that personal choice is the inverse of natural selection. But natural selection is just the statistical summary of all of the individual choices of individual organisms (including bacteria). Remove all of the ability to make choices of organisms (or of non-human organisms if you so prefer), then you don’t actually have natural selection. For that matter, remove the choice-making ability of the bacteria in your body and you will probably die.
The key word here is natural.
In Darwinian evolution it’s the environment that is making the “selection”. Ultimately it’s the environment that proscribes. There is a reason pantheists don’t believe in a personal deity.
The environment is by assumption unthinking and impersonal it has to be.
Of course the environment of earth contains choice making organisms but those choices are “statistically” subsumed into the unthinking whole of nature.
In order for “natural selection” to have any meaning at all it must stand in opposition to artificial selection. If you remove the line between natural and artificial selection then a core tenet of Darwinian evolution becomes gibberish
peace
This isn’t true. There is no substantial difference. The processes are identical, other than plant or animal breeder as part of the environment in artificial selection.
And that has a human-determined meaning.
That’s your assumption. I try to look at the environment, and not go by assumption alone. The environment is, to a large extent, driven by the decisions of biological organisms. A completely impersonal environment would look more like the Sahara desert.
From my perspective, the core difference between natural selection and artificial selection, is that artificial selection is based on vanity while natural selection is based on pragmatism.
I’m not removing the ability to make choices at all
I’m saying that in natural selection those choices don’t ultimately proscribe an effect rather it’s nature that proscribes.
when it comes to natural selection individual choices are immaterial. If they weren’t it would not be natural selection.
As far as NS goes it does not matter if a peacock actively chooses a mate with colorful plumage or if it was programed to do so by it’s environment. The net effect is exactly the same.
peace
Don’t need Max or 2LoT or any of that stuff. You are arguing that if my model differs from reality in a non-random manner, then design.
Naah, I just have a shitty model. What you have built, sir, is an argument from ignorance.
No, we have covered this previously. There’s no line between them, artificial selection (by non-supernatural entities, as described by Darwin) is a subset of Natural Selection.
I think you know that I believe that if it’s a true meaning then it’s not human determined.
I think you are making a design inference 😉
I’m fine with you believing that choices are part of nature. For our purposes it’s really not important.
What is important is to know that as far as NS goes those choices are ultimately determined by nature itself. If they are not then NS is nothing but meaningless gibberish.
If words have any meaning then artificial must be different than natural
peace
I think we are in agreement here.
Anything that is above nature including humans is supernatural. It’s what the words mean.
If the entity that is choosing is not above nature then by definition the choice is subsumed into nature.
If nature is all there is then everything whatsoever will ultimately be proscribed by the environment.
And natural selection is rendered meaningless.
peace
Explain the difference, perhaps. In the context of biological selection, “natural” means differential reproduction within a population due to environmentally-biased selection. “Artificial” means differential reproduction due to environmentally-biased selection including that of human plant or animal breeders.
Not at all. A s***ty model can be modified.
I’m arguing that if it’s impossible to make a model that is indistinguishable from reality and the differences are not random then design.
There are some sequences that can’t be duplicated by a model no matter how good it is.
We call them irrational numbers.
Peace
I think the difference is personal choice. If you disagree then you need to explain the difference.
I completely agree that is what I said.
Exactly what difference does the addition of human plant or animal breeders make that can’t be subsumed by the word “natural”???
peace
“If not… then design.” is the classic god-of-the gaps default. Especially as “…then design” is never explained.
Come now, what is unnatural about plant and animal breeders?
NO NO NO.
A thousand times NO.
It’s impossible to duplicate the sequence!!! It’s not really hard it’s impossible!!!! It can’t be done.
There is no gap. It’s impossible.
An irrational number is not just a rational one that we have not extended enough effort on.
It’s a different animal entirely. You can’t solve it no matter how big the calculator you use or how long you push the buttons.
peace
Again………..Personal choice.
If you disagree that this is what the difference is then it’s up to you to explain what is unnatural about them.
If there is no difference then NS is meaningless
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Explain to me what you mean by “…then design.” What thing, process, event does it refer to? What is “design” in this context?
I don’t claim plant or animal breeders are not natural. I don’t think much of the distinction except when discussing things like archaeological artefacts.
I have no idea what you are getting at here.
Corollary: There are no such things as true meanings.
Did you read the OP?
quote:
For our purposes design will be defined as the observable effects of “personal choice” and “personal choice” is simply the the inverse of natural selection as is understood in Darwinian evolution. Such that we can say that something is the result of personal choice (ie designed) when it is ultimately prescribed by something other than it’s immediate local environment.
end quote:
peace
If that statement can be either true or false then God necessarily exists. 😉
In other words: is it true or false that there are no such things as true meanings? 😉
peace
I’m not at all surprised.
If you don’t even understand what I’m getting at how can you possibly declare it to be “classic god of the gaps”??
peace
True and false are human inventions — as is your god.
Well, that’s just nonsense, as others have already pointed out.
Is it true or false that “true and false are human inventions.”?
If yes then my God necessarily exists, if no then it’s true that my God necessarily exists at the same time in the same respect. 😉
peace
link please.
Do you think that everything whatsoever is ultimately proscribed by the environment?
peace
I don’t understand what you mean when you write:
My math is rusty but I recall irrational numbers as not able to be expressed as a fraction of two integers.
By God if you like. It’s entirely possible that God engineered everything. This is also entirely non-disprovable. But the environment as God’s agent as a non-disprovable idea seems OK, if you like that sort of thing.
Neil and Jock. You can’t miss them.
And that current “impossibility” may well be the result of current ignorance, like I said. You have a shitty model, and you claim it is optimal. Color me unimpressed.
Ack! That’s a mind-blowingly bad example. How do you think we know various irrational numbers to hundreds of decimal places? Revelation?
Oh. I’ll get me coat.
Fifth ,you are getting distracted.
Have a question, statistically speaking we can demonstrate the average global temperatures are rising. Conservatives claim it is natural cycle , others say it is the byproduct of human choice.
Would a byproduct of human choice , be considered natural or artificial? Without choice the byproduct would not exist, but no one is choosing to heat up the planet specifically.
Second the case where there may be multiple causation , could your methodology be used give the percentage of artificial versus natural?
Thanks.
Exactly!!
It’s certainly not “classic god of the gaps” to point out that it’s impossible to ever express an irrational number as a fraction of two integers.
Sequence two is precisely the decimal expansion of the square root of two an irrational number.
It is impossible
Not really hard but impossible to modify M so that (P of O) -(P of M)=0 When (P of O) is the decimal expansion of the square root of two.
peace
You are playing word games.
If the environment proscribes everything (Call it God or God’s agent if you like) then NS is utterly meaningless.
peace
Word games are human inventions 😉
peace
Again it’s not current impossibility it’s utter impossibility or we can’t be certain that a particular P is the result of design.
Our level of certainty increases as our confidence that the sequence will not terminate increases.
We can calculate irrational numbers to hundreds of decimal places we ——-can never calculate irrational numbers completely. That is the point.
Actually there are lots of numbers that we presume (with verifying levels of confidence) are irrational just be looking at them.
There are other numbers that we know for certain are irrational even though we can never calculate them completely.
none of this is “classic god of the gaps”
peace
I would say this is a perfect use of the method I’m proposing.
We have climate models that we can compare with reality over time.
If we can’t create a model that does not include choice that is indistinguishable from reality then choice remains a live option for the phenomena we are evaluating.
The more certain we are that no such model is forthcoming the more certain we are that the P is the observable result of personal choice (ie designed).
peace
Something can be the effect of ones choice even if they did not choose it specifically.
Just ask Adam and Eve.
Interesting question. I have played around with the coefficient of determination to place a number on the proportion of the variation that can be explained by the model if that is what you mean
Yes, they are. But they are not to be taken seriously.
yes and neither are truth claims made by individuals that deny the existence of real truth
peace
Right.
How would one model choice in climate models?
In the case of CO2 emissions ,the amount of CO2 may be the result of human choice and necessity, but is that the same as saying the amount of CO2 is designed? Are unintentional results of a design, designed?
peace
You don’t need to model choice. You need to make a model that does not have choice as a component.
How that is done in this case is a challenge for the one who wants to claim that a particular P is the result of choice rather than a natural phenomena.
Again keep in mind if a model with out choice looks exactly the same as one with choice then natural selection is simply a meaningless concept.
Again for our purposes we are defining design as the observable effects of “personal choice”.
Observable is not remotely the same thing as intentional.
The contrast here is not between intentional and unintentional it’s between natural and artificial
peace
I would probably begin by looking to see how often humans with different amounts of disposable income voluntarily limit or expand their carbon foot print and how big of a change in C02 we see from such endeavors.
You might look at developing countries with similar environmental regulations and see if there is a variation in the amount of carbon that individuals release into the atmosphere .
Then you might look at the speed at which individuals in developed countries voluntarily switch to greener power based on things like their political beliefs and net worth.
That sort of thing.
peace
Still an argument from ignorance. Obviously
What the bleep are you talking about??
Just to be perfectly clear…….
Are you honestly claiming here that when I assert that the sequence that represents the square root of two will never terminate I am making an argument from ignorance?
https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Proof_by_contradiction
Are you actually claiming that it’s possible that this sequence will terminate if we come up with a better model to produce it???
really, is that what you are saying???
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
A proof by contradiction requires a dichotomy as in rational vs irrational, which are well defined mathematical terms
You have not shown that there’s any kind of dichotomy of “design” (which you didn’t even attempt to define) vs natural.
Your method doesn’t work to rule out natural causes of anything.
Fail, after fail after fail.
Seriously, this shit took you this long?
Knowing you, I’m not surprised in the least
What you’re essentially doing here is declaring that any results that deviate sufficiently from current scientific understanding of a certain phenomena, couldn’t possibly have a naturalistic explanation, therefore design. This is not how science works. If observations partially contradict currently established theories (think Newton’s gravity and Mercury’s orbit) then you need a better theory. The more observation contradicts the theory, the more you need one that better predicts what’s being observed.
Your whole piece of worthless bullshit here relies on some proper scientific theory being absolutely flawless at describing natural phenomena, so that any contradicting observations can be ascribed to sweet little baby jeebus.
Derp, derp, derp, derp, deeeeeeeerp
Are you kidding me????
No, in fact I just explained why that is precisely not at all what I’m saying.
Why is it that you hear me saying something completely the opposite of what I am actually saying?
Once again as far as this method is concerned the only way to say for certain that a phenomena is designed is if it is impossible for a model to produce a sequence that is indistinguishable.
I’m not saying it’s impossible according to current scientific understanding but that it’s utterly and completely impossible.
peace
I have no idea what a “dichotomy of design” is and what ever it is it’s irrelevant to this discussion as far as I can tell
How about the dichotomy of computable verses not computable??
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0126
How is that for mathematical terms?
I’m not saying that Magurie and company have conclusively proven their case but they are certainly not making a classic god of the gaps argument or argument from ignorance.
geeze
peace