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
I normally appreciate your sense of whimsy but right now I’ve very pressed for time and if this conversation is going anywhere at all it needs to get to going very soon.
peace
Not at all.
Artificial things are just things that are are not ultimately prescribed* by the local environment.
prescribed as in dictate, specify, determine, often mistook for proscribed by poor spellers in a hurry 😉
The contrast here is between the concepts of natural and artificial selection.
Natural selection is selection that flows ultimately from the environment. Artificial selection is the antithesis of natural selection in this context.
peace
PS thank you so much for taking a minute to think and interact with me on this.
With which I disagree for the reasons already stated.
Could you restate them for me. please
Keep in mind I’m not saying that artificial selection is some how the opposite of natural selection. I’m just saying that artificial selection is the frame of reference that Darwin used for explaining natural selection.
I have no problem with Neils understanding that artificial selection is a subset of natural selection all that matters is that it be different in some way.
in other words the terms can’t be synonymous.
surely that is not controversial
peace
Think so, it is easy to get the words mixed up.
No problem, need not reply.
Ok , that is different from what I thought you were saying.I know you are busy, you have an example something natural that is not determined at all by nature. When you have time, it would be helpful
I would point to the supposed nondeterminism of QM as a possible example. If QM is true not everything that occurs in the universe is determined by the laws and and boundary conditions of the universe. That does not make those non-determined things artificial
I just don’t really take a position on the comprehensive physical determinism of nature.
Some folks think that QM makes comprehensive physical determinism of nature impossible others disagree. I’m just not that interested.
As you know I think that everything is ultimately in some sense predetermined by God but that is another conversation.
As long as God is not identified with nature and does not violate the laws of nature It’s irrelevant to this discussion as far as I can tell.
We are looking at thing that are determined by the local environment and things that are determined by something else
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that not everything that is determined is determined by the local environment but I could be wrong.
peace
No one, in the right frame of mind, needs help to detect design…If they do, he/she does doesn’t even need a psychiatrist… If he/she truly can’t detect design, this person has serious developmental issues, which is different from people who choose not to see the obvious design because of their selfishness…People who deliberately deny the obvious, for one reason or another, don’t even deserve to be corrected…
To J-Mac:
If you found a stone that was very regular in shape, close to a perfect sphere, but not quite, could you tell us if it was natural or designed ?
If it was alive…yes… but it doesn’t matter to you what I answer because you only want to support your beliefs…why bother to even engage in a discussion?
This sort of question is exactly why I came up with my method the problem with evaluating a single artifact is it all boils down to questions of probability with no neutral and obvious way to quantify the odds.
Besides that in real life we are much more likely to be evaluating a phenomena that is extended in time and/or space rather that a singular object or event like an unusually roundish stone.
peace
If you cannot reliably tell if a simple stone was designed, how can you hope to evaluate spatio-temporally complex phenomena?
For the same reason we don’t automatically assume a single unlikely bump in the night is something to be concerned about generally would assume that repeated persistent unexplainable noises coming from down stairs on the top of every hour is not a natural occurrence.
peace
I think there is a much simpler way to evaluate the “designedness” of extended objects. Consider the famous question of whether Mendel finagled his results. His experiments were certainly “a phenomena that is extended in time and/or space” [sic], so they would seem to fit FFM’s bill.
In the first of Mendel’s published experiments in hybridisation, he crossed a pea plant type having 100 per cent plump, rounded seeds with a type having 100 per cent shrivelled seeds. He measured the numbers of rounded and shrivelled seeds in the subsequent generation and calculated the ratio of the two types.
Specifically:
“Expt. 1: Form of seed. From 253 hybrids 7324 seeds were obtained in the second trial year. Among them were 5474 round or roundish ones and 1850 angular wrinkled ones. Therefrom the ratio 2.96:1 is deduced.” (From “Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden”)
Based on subsequent genetic theory, we would expect the dominant allele (rounded) to predominate over the recessive allele (shrivelled) in the ratio of 3:1. And therein lay the problem.
R.A. Fisher, building on earlier unpublished work by Ralph Weldon, noticed something odd about Mendel’s results. A “perfect” F1 cross of a phenotype controlled by a single genetic locus would, in theory, yield 5493 round seeds and 1831 wrinkled ones at the 3:1 ratio. That is to say, Mendel found a difference of only 19 seeds out of 7324 from the expected value.
So, asked Fisher – how likely was it that Mendel could have obtained results so close to the theoretical values by chance alone? Fisher calculated variance statistics across all of Mendel’s experiments and concluded that we should expect to obtain larger differences that the 19 observed in 99.993 per cent of trials. In other words, the results are so close to “perfect” that we should be suspicious. In fact, Fisher did not conclude that Mendel had been consciously fraudulent in his published results, which appears on the face of it to be true.
Now to FFM’s modest proposal. We have an opportunity to see if we can reliably distinguish between two possibilities:
1. Mendel’s counts simply happened by chance to be extremely close to the theoretical values; or
2. Mendel or his assistants designed his results via fakery to yield something extraordinarily close to the theoretical values)
Now, can we devise a test on the basis of Mendel’s experimental results alone that can reliably discriminate between the natural and designed alternative explanations? I would argue that no, we cannot. We have a sample of one – Mendel’s published experiment. And guess what: the confidence interval on any statistic calculated from a sample of one is . . . Infinitely large, making the statistic infinitely unreliable. The best we can say is that it is extremely unlikely to have arisen purely by chance, but not impossible. Perhaps all such experiments yield results extremely close to theory.
To settle the matter, we would need to conduct a large number of trials (say, 1000) using exactly the same protocol that Mendel followed. We could then measure the distribution of the observed ratios across all trials and calculate the mean and standard deviation of their distribution. If the mean ratio was 3:1 and the standard deviation was, in fact, extremely small, then we would feel confident in exonerating Mendel entirely. However, if the standard deviation backed up Fisher’s calculations, then we should go for the “design” explanation and Mendel would stand condemned.
Let’s assume that Fisher was correct, and Mendel’s results fail the naturalness criterion. Of what is Mendel to be convicted? Based on the background knowledge we have about Mendel’s life and character, it seems extremely unlikely that he would have designed his results.
He was a monk, though perhaps not a particularly devout one (he entered the monastery largely because it paid for his education and gave him the freedom to pursue his interests). He was evidently a meticulous practitioner in matters of experimental design and protocol. He gained no attention from other scientists that might have motivated him to design his results. There is no evidence of experimental skullduggery to be found in any other of his published work. So it seems we are on firm ground in saying that Mendel was not a conscious faker.
What is the best explanation for the results? Fisher concluded that it was simply a bias by Mendel and his assistants who already had an expectation of what the ratio should be, and unconsciously misclassified almost-round and almost-shrivelled seed examples to conform to their bias. This hardly rises to the status of a designed result, unless one wants to argue that there is such a thing as an unconscious designer of experimental results.
The primary conclusion though is inescapable: you simply cannot distinguish between design and natural explanations for a phenomenon based on a sample of one.
I have plagiarised much of the technical content here from an article by Guillaume Filion at http://blog.thegrandlocus.com/2016/04/did-mendel-fake-his-results
Note to mods: if you think this justifies an OP, please cut and paste it for me. I would do it myself, but can’t see how.
So if you find a car in the desert, you really can’t say if it was designed, or somehow nature just blew it there. Certainly not impossible that a tornado made it.
timothya,
Or a house. Or a pyramid. Or Stonehenge.
There is really no way to know for sure if they were designed.
At the time that Mendel performed his experiment, it was truly a sample of one. That experiment had never been undertaken before, as far as we know. This is not true of cars, houses, pyramids or henges. You do the maths.
A car in a desert is not a sample of one. For two reasons:
1. A “car” is, by definition, a name for a class of objects, and hence cannot be a sample of one (i am pretty sure that most people at this site already know this)
2. There are innumerable cars available for inspection to identify the presence or absence of the marks of design (which marks we all may agree upon if they are explicitly laid out – and I await anyone’s convincing attempt to do so – pace Dembski et al.)
The whole point of FFM’s argument is that we may lack information about 1 and 2 in the case of complex systems, but may yet reliably conclude design. His method seems to me to be incoherent. But it now seems that you agree with him (sadly, at least for most humans, incoherence is not a good thing).
My example shows why you and he are wrong. It is not possible to settle the question of the designedness of anything, simple or complex, if all you have to work on is a sample of one.
Actually no,
If we were evaluating Mendel’s experiments while they were taking place they would fit my bill.
Once they are completed the published results become a single unlikely event “a sample of one” as you say and therefore subject to the same questions of probability as any singular event.
peace
Exactly.
All we can really do with a singular event or object is determine that it is extraordinarily unlikely to have been the result of natural causes.
In real life we are much more likely to be dealing with happenings that are extended in time and space that we can interact with when we make these sorts of inferences. In these cases I think we can be more certain by using the power of prediction.
peace
peace
Again great insight!!!!!
Finding a single pyramid in the desert is simply a highly unlikely event.
Finding a new pyramid in the same valley every time a Pharaoh dies over and over for thousands of years is another matter entirely.
peace
You really don’t know what scientific means do you? Everything else, all your other misconceptions, start right there. Strip it all away and what you have left is just that, an ego-driven pseudo-science based on perceived utility and you are left wondering why you are being laughed at.
No that is not my argument at all.
My argument is that if we can demonstrate that it is impossible for a model to produce a predictable pattern we see then we can reliably conclude design as I’ve defined it.
Otherwise the strength of our inference will depend on the confidence we have that a particular predictable pattern we see can’t be modeled.
I agree that you can’t settle the question if you only have a sample size of one but that hardly proves me wrong
It’s exactly the point I raised in the OP after all and the very reason for my method!!!!!!
peace
Actually for the purpose of this method I really don’t care what scientific means.
What I find is that many folks here have an odd religious devotion to the term science and that is why they bristle at questions of ID in a scientific context.
I just think it’s better if I don’t claim to intrude on their precious faith.
peace
Spoken like a true believer for whom the original and unforgivable sin is not understanding what precious holy science is.
😉
peace
It is difficult to imagine a sample of one. All the ID examples of manufactured goods are examples of manufactured goods. Archeology is full of examples of debatable objects. And their origin is debated.
We know how living things come into being, and we have good reasons for asserting that all living things are cousins. If GMO becomes a major contributer to change in wild populations, future biologists will be able to detect and trace the origins of unconformities.
Here in the ‘aphrodites-head’ thread, Rumraket asks us to try to pick out a designed object from a sample of one image. He writes:
But from what he writes it is obvious that somebody somewhere has determined that one of the objects was designed. And I’m sure they did so with much more to go on than just this one image.
I am reasonably confident that I know which rock was designed. One rock seems to be in a precarious and unlikely position. As in all of theses cases I can’t say anything for sure because it all boils down to probabilities.
On the other hand my method proposes we randomly mix up the pile on a flat surface and do the same thing to a model rock pile.
If we found that the same rock ends up in similar unlikely and precarious spots over and over in the original and never in the model no matter how I modify it. Then we might be able to say something more conclusively.
That is my method in a nutshell
peace
Any thoughts on how one might figure the probability for something like that ?
How would you model the rock pile?
It seems to me what you are detecting is the skill of the modeler.
peace
I have thoughts but since I’m not interested in probability arguments I won’t bore you with them. It would only waste valuable time
With another rock pile or a computer simulation of a rock pile or a simplified mathematical description that includes all the known relevant details like individual weights compositions and dimensions of the rocks as well as atmospheric conditions etc.
Not at all, If my model is bad I can simply modify it so that it’s output matches the measured results of the completed trial. It’s not hard often just simple arithmetic is required.
Then we run the trial again with the modification to see if the new and improved model duplicates the phenomena I’m evaluating the next time. If not I tweak it again. The model should get better each time regardless of my skill.
We can repeat this process indefinitely gaining more confidence each time the ever improving model falls short of duplicating.
The design inference only becomes certain when it’s demonstrated that no model can ever reproduce the predictable pattern we see.
It seems to me that all you can demonstrate is that YOU cannot produce a good model.
No, there are some patterns that no model can ever duplicate. No matter who the modeler is
For instance a sequence that is the decimal expansion of an irrational number can never be completely duplicated by any model regardless of who creates it.
A real world example would be human consciousness which has been mathematically shown to be not computable if Phil Maguire’s thinking is correct.
It’s that deeper connection between consciousness and design that I hope my method is poking at.
peace
I’m not familiar with Maguire’s thinking, but I’ll guess that it is not correct.
“Consciousness” and “computable” aren’t even related.
I won’t be holding my breath in anticipation.
Your speculations about consciousness lack a shred of evidence unlike Penrose and Hameroff who have experimentally verified studies…
here is the paper
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0126.pdf
I do hope you would read it before you pass judgement.
No need to wait.
The method works, I use it often, semi clandestinely at my own place of employment when dealing with situations that might deal with the human element.
I think my next OP here will be to share the results of a multi year use of the method looking to detect design (as I have defined it here) in the recording of temperatures at a couple of local weather stations as proof of concept.
I realize that It’s a long way from showing that the method works to showing it’s relationship to consciousness. But that sort of connection is mostly philosophy and I don’t really care if you agree with me on that one.
peace
They are not my speculations they are the stated conclusions of a peer-reviewed paper from respected experts based on a theory that is revolutionizing the field
I suggest you read it before you comment
peace
If anyone want’s to explore the non-computable nature of consciousness in a fun way I recommend the sci-fi series Travelers on netflix.
Providencely my family is bingeing on it this week end. An interesting subplot involves the question of whether a person is the same person if a few of her key experiences are removed.
Maguire would argue that if you changed key experiences in a person’s life the resulting person is not quite the same and her actions would change correspondingly.
I think this is conclusion is self evidently obvious and it’s the reason consciousness is not computable. The paper addresses this from a mathematical perspective.
Anyway check it out it’s great fun
peace
Take a look at PARI/GP. It appears to do what you claim cannot be done.
I’ll grant that it is somewhat interesting. But I don’t see it as having much to do with consciousness.
Oops! This was to Neil. Sorry
Which episode are you talking about?
If you removed experiences that wouldn’t or should change the consciousness or the level of self-awerness…
It happens all the time with people going through procedures, like general anesthesia or even a colonoscopy… The experiences during the procedures are wiped out…or they should be…but at times they are not…
the end of season one,it’s spread out over several episodes . They “reboot” the consciousness of Marcie minus the experiences of the first half of the season and she becomes a less fragile person.
Right, If consciousness is not computable then a model would have to have exactly the same experiences or lack thereof as the original in order for it to be the same person as the original.
If a person didn’t experience something during a procedure (for example) and the model did then the two entities can’t be the same person.
Peace
I’m not sure what you are referring to exactly.. perhaps to cloning?
In any case in quantum mechanics “the no-cloning theorem states that it is impossible to create an identical copy of an arbitrary unknown quantum state”…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem
It actually goes beyond that but I have no time to elaborate…
fifthmonarchyman,
The trick of course is not getting something that was designed to look undesigned. That is the fallacy Rum is trying to pull here. Of course we can make house look like accidents, or camoflague a car to look like seaweed. We are talking the opposite of that. Can undesigned things look designed, not can designed things look undesigned.
Rumraket is trying to play a shell game with deception.
Show us accidents that look designed. The more designed they look, the more likely it is they were designed. That is the conclusion man has been drawing for centuries. When we see an object, void of any context or evidence, if it looks designed, like say the Pyramids, our immediate conclusion is not accident, but rather design.
This:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant%27s_Causeway#/media/File%3ACauseway-code_poet-4.jpg
timothya,
Versus this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=giants+causaway+sculpture&oq=giants+causaway+sculpture&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.12561j0j8&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=sIeFiVcTuSzaMM:
Right, the problem is not that certain objects in nature look designed. We all agree that they do.
The problem is in verifying that objects that look designed are in fact designed. And when we are dealing with singular objects or events it always comes down to probability. And probability is a bugger
I believe that we can perhaps get beyond probability with looking at phenomena that are extended in space or time.
peace
timothya,
Yes, I think it is worth an OP. I must admit the new “block” system of composing OPs is not as immediately user-friendly as the old interface though you can switch to “classic” mode.
I’ll prepare a draft.
What difference does it make if something “looks” designed.
The question science asks is how things happen, and whether the process of their origin can be explained by regular phenomena.