A Scientific Hypothesis Of Design – finally.

Upright Biped has announced the launch of his site via this UD post: Writing Biosemiosis-org

All of the unique physical conditions of dimensional semiosis have already been observed and documented in the scientific literature. It is an intractable fact that a dimensional semiotic system is used to encode organic polymers inside the cell. The conclusion of intelligent action is therefore fully supported by the physical evidence, and is subject to falsification only by showing an unguided source capable of creating such a system.

http://biosemiosis.org/index.php/a-scientific-hypothesis-of-design

Discuss!

828 thoughts on “A Scientific Hypothesis Of Design – finally.

  1. petrushka seems to think that people speak in code.

    Neil seems to think that I speak in code.

    language is not code

    code is not language

  2. walto: It’s not though. Not even close. It’s currently the default position of you and a handful of confused and apparently desperate Christians. Maybe it was also the default position a long time ago of some primitive animists. That’s about it. No more universal than the view that Americans are just better than everybody else.

    check it out

    Atheists might not exist – no joke!

    please explain why the conclusions of this article are flawed.

    remember Simple dismissal is not an explanation

    peace

  3. fifthmonarchyman

    please explain why the conclusions of this article are flawed.

    “People are evolved to believe in Gods” and ‘My God really exists and created the world’ are two very different things.

    Could you not figure that out for yourself?

  4. Adapa: “People are evolved to believe in Gods” and ‘My God really exists and created the world’ are two very different things.

    I agree
    Of course that is not at issue at all. In fact it is entirely irrelevant to what is being discussed. Could you not figure that out for yourself ?

    peace

  5. Neil Rickert: A rhetorical question is seen as a fallacy?

    And now you can’t count. Some mathematician you are Neil.

    Which of the following TWO questions was the rhetorical question?

    1. Are you deliberately missing the point?
    2. Or are you that confused?

    Given that either one or both of the previous questions were rhetorical, why is it that either one, or both, do not belong in Guano?

    Grow a pair of balls Neil. Or at least one.

  6. fifthmonarchyman,

    Besides boats would not be necessary to infer a nonflat earth. A fallen tree in the ocean would do the trick.

    ‘Default human understanding’, pending the observation of a ship/fallen tree from the shore, would be flat earth. Many people who had observed ships remained flat-earthers, so strong is that ‘default understanding’. People don’t always instantly put 2+2 together, hence scientific progress.

    Some people let their ‘default understanding’ rule their intellect. Others rely rather too heavily on single authority.

    I’m wary of sparking a Flat Earth derail, but check it out for examples of both approaches.

    Pay particular attention to the posts of one ‘Testify’, who is actually driven not by ‘default understanding’ but by a conviction that the Bible teaches flat earth. Isaiah 40.22 is his sig.

  7. fifthmonarchyman,

    Physical circles are approximations of the ideal circle. Physical wombats are approximations of the ideal wombat.

    Physical circles are themselves precise implementations of that particular not-quite-circle in the Mind of God. That they bear some resemblance to ‘perfect’ circles is incidental. You saying God can’t deal with subtle variations?

  8. William J. Murray,

    I think Dembski and Marks have shown that such evolutionary algorithms and simulations only work due to oracle information embedded in some way in such systems, which falsifies the notion that such system are teleologically blind.

    You think wrongly. As predicted, you play the tattered ‘goal’ card. As I said, and you ignored, of course someone is using the GA for something! Something must cause the differential reproduction. It is completely beside the point. They are not using it to prove that evolution works in the wild, but as a practical application. One wonders why they bother if they could just … like … [waves arms] … design.

  9. Mung,

    I’ve come up with a donation scheme for Upright BiPed’s site. I am going to donate to it for each argument presented here against the claims made on the site. So far the donation amount stands at zero dollars. And frankly I don’t see Upright BiPed getting rich any time soon.

    I am going to donate 3.1 million dollars to the first person who demonstrates X to my satisfaction. Oldest trick in the book.

  10. petrushka,

    I’m aching to hear more about the first wombat and about essential wombatness.

    The first wombat was of course born of non-wombat kind, who were virtually indistinguishable from the Ideal Wombat but were actually distant variants on the Pre-Wombat Ideal Form.

    The next requirement was a mate for the First Wombat. It only had Pre-Wombats to pick from, unless the world was suddenly awash with Wombats produced wholesale from pre-Wombats and indistinguishable therefrom. Given this close relationship, there must have been some hybridisation though, diluting the Wombat genome. What were these hybrids variants of, the Ideal Pre-Wombat or the Ideal Wombat? I don’t think I’ll sleep tonight.

  11. Allan Miller:
    petrushka,

    The first wombat was of course born of non-wombat kind, who were virtually indistinguishable from the Ideal Wombat but were actually distant variants on the Pre-Wombat Ideal Form.

    The next requirement was a mate for the First Wombat. It only had Pre-Wombats to pick from, unless the world was suddenly awash with Wombats produced wholesale from pre-Wombats and indistinguishable therefrom. Given this close relationship, there must have been some hybridisation though, diluting the Wombat genome. What were these hybrids variants of, the Ideal Pre-Wombat or the Ideal Wombat? I don’t think I’ll sleep tonight.

    You forgot to mention the effects on wombathood of the vapor canopy.

  12. fifthmonarchyman: check it out

    atheists might not exist and that’s not a joke

    please explain why the conclusions of this article are flawed.

    remember Simple dismissal is not an explanation

    peace

    I enjoyed that article, although I didn’t like the misuse of “metaphysical” right from the first graph. Anyhow, I remember having various invisible companions when I was little.

    Scientists have discovered that “invisible friends” are not something reserved for children. We all have them, and encounter them often in the form of interior monologues. As we experience events, we mentally tell a non-present listener about it.

    The imagined listener may be a spouse, it may be Jesus or Buddha or it may be no one in particular. It’s just how the way the human mind processes facts. The identity, tangibility or existence of the listener is irrelevant.

    “From childhood, people form enduring, stable and important relationships with fictional characters, imaginary friends, deceased relatives, unseen heroes and fantasized mates,”

    But now, do you really think that the creation of imaginary friends, whether the reasons are Freudian or Darwinian, whether we’re making companions or father-substitutes, is closely analogous to the inference of other minds? It’s not alike at all. We may want fairies and invisible sports heroes to be our personal friends, but, to be a reasonable inference, my taking my colleagues at work not to be zombies can’t be based on what I’d like to be the case. That difference is crucial.

    Perhaps you have noted that this analogy is weak yourself, and now have morphed your argument (because, let’s face it that’s what it is) into something a little different. Now it’s this:

    A lot of people believe in Gods, especially when they’re little (*you don’t add “and know any better”)

    Common sense advocates (like Reid) say that what people naturally believe is either true or has to be taken as true anyhow.

    Therefore either there are Gods or we have to take it as true that there are Gods anyhow.

    Then it’s ok to say, I suppose. that belief in God is “like” belief in other minds in being “natural” in that sense–although it’s just like saying they’re analogous in both being beliefs.

    Is that what you’re getting at? If so, say so plainly please, and I (and perhaps others) will be happy to start whacking that mole now.

  13. Allan Miller: Physical circles are themselves precise implementations of that particular not-quite-circle in the Mind of God. That they bear some resemblance to ‘perfect’ circles is incidental. You saying God can’t deal with subtle variations?

    We all know what an ideal circle is. It’s a shape in which the ratio of the circumference to diameter is precisely PI. This knowledge is how we are able to distinguish physical objects that approximate the ideal circle from those that do not. Something that humans can do rather easily

    Where does the Ideal circle exist at?

    The ideal circle does not exist in the phyiscal universe
    The ideal circle does not exist in a human brain because physical systems are incapable of computing irrational numbers like Pi precisely in a finite length of time.

    That leaves us with the Mind of God

    Of course an omniscient God has an idea of the infinite number of not-quite circles in his mind but he also has a idea of the perfect circle that typifies the set.

    Allan Miller: The first wombat was of course born of non-wombat kind, who were virtually indistinguishable from the Ideal Wombat but were actually distant variants on the Pre-Wombat Ideal Form.

    Your attempt at humor is entirely based on your limited temporal perspective. None of this is any problem at all for a timeless God.

    What I find humorous is your apparent inability to even grasp that for the sake of argument.

    Your mockery reminds me of the folks in Flatland laughing at the ridiculous notion of a sphere.

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman: Your attempt at humor is entirely based on your limited temporal perspective. None of this is any problem at all for a timeless God.

    And as such is it even worth mentioning? Can’t we just take it as read that whatever the problem, it’s not a problem for your god? Then everyone is happy.

  15. walto: Common sense advocates (like Reid) say that what people naturally believe is either true or has to be taken as true anyhow.

    I would phrase the syllogism like this

    Premise 1) Actual evidence must be given before people are justified in abandoning what they naturally believe.

    Premise 2) People naturally believe that there is a mind(s) behind the universe

    conclusion) Actual evidence must be given before a person is justified in holding to atheism.

    How am I mistaken?

    peace

  16. OMagain: Can’t we just take it as read that whatever the problem, it’s not a problem for your god? Then everyone is happy.

    It would be a start 😉

    peace

  17. fifthmonarchyman,

    Your attempt at humor is entirely based on your limited temporal perspective. None of this is any problem at all for a timeless God.

    You are not a timeless God, and therefore it is a problem. The idea that God cannot handle a continuum, and instead relies on a set of ‘essences’, does not fit with the observation that offspring are the same species as their parents, nor that individuals in obligately sexual species need to find mates. So you invent some ridiculous boundary where parents are of one ‘ideal form’ and their identical offspring another. You limit God to conceptual islands in order to cope with your own mental difficulty.

    What I find humorous is your apparent inability to even grasp that for the sake of argument.

    What I find humorous is your inability to grasp the point being made. You declare species to be essential because that is how you perceive them in the world around you. Because of this constraint on your thinking, you think that God thinks in Forms. The ridiculousness that arises at the supposed ‘boundary’ is waved away by some prognostication that I don’t think even you can actually conceptualise – ‘God as Atemporal Being’. Whatever God’s relationship to time, parents and offspring definitely have one – they appear in temporal sequence, and if they are flipping between Forms In The Mind Of God, they are doing so by barely changing one iota. Which leads to the paradox I illustrated.

    Your mockery reminds me of the folks in Flatland laughing at the ridiculous notion of a sphere.

    Been to Flatland have we? In ‘Flatland’ there would actually no such thing as a sphere, just as there are no organisms with metal bones in this world. There are wombats, however.

  18. fifthmonarchyman,

    The ideal circle does not exist in the phyiscal universe
    The ideal circle does not exist in a human brain because physical systems are incapable of computing irrational numbers like Pi precisely in a finite length of time.

    That leaves us with the Mind of God

    The ideal circle sits in the Mind of God alongside every shape, ever. It has properties that can be expressed with greater mathematical simplicity, but there is no privileged position for a circle vs a circle with a slight wibble in it. Other than declaring it to be so, and something about God Being Flesh so everything you think comes from Him. Where everything I think comes from, I don’t know, since I too am Flesh. But you are in a privileged position at his Right Hand, it seems. If he starts telling you what to do about prostitutes, don’t listen! 😉

    He has no problem with the limitations of your puny human mind. Essences are for finite entities.

  19. Allan Miller: Been to Flatland have we? In ‘Flatland’ there would actually no such thing as a sphere

    If by actual you mean physical then you are correct. But something does not have to be phyiscal to exist. Materialism is not the only (or best) option.

    A sphere would exist in Flatland the same way a hypersphere exists in our universe. In the mind of God and in the minds of the folks who could share his conceptualization.

    peace

  20. Allan Miller: It has properties that can be expressed with greater mathematical simplicity, but there is no privileged position for a circle vs a circle with a slight wibble in it.

    The ideal circle is the form that typifies the set.

    We know this because we use it to tell which objects belong to the circle set and which do not. This is the universal practice among humans. God is as least as adept as we are.

    peace

  21. fifthmonarchyman,

    If by actual you mean physical then you are correct. But something does not have to be phyiscal to exist.

    Nonetheless, existent or not, you have given no reason to believe in the ‘Ideal Wombat’ hypothesis.

  22. fifthmonarchyman,

    The ideal circle is the form that typifies the set.

    We know this because we use it to tell which objects belong to the circle set and which do not. This is the universal practice among humans. God is as least as adept as we are.

    It does not typify the set of circles with a tiny nibble taken out.

  23. Allan Miller: Whatever God’s relationship to time, parents and offspring definitely have one – they appear in temporal sequence, and if they are flipping between Forms In The Mind Of God, they are doing so by barely changing one iota. Which leads to the paradox I illustrated.

    imagine a horizontal line in which every conceivable shape is placed side by side. Each object varying infinitesimally from the shapes on either side

    Now imagine you draw two vertical lines around those shapes that you deem to be circles. Your choice would be arbitrary but if you were God it would be definitive.

    Choosing arbitrarily is what intelligent agents do. The Paradox is solved

    peace

  24. OMagain: The first wombat had no parents then? So god created it entire?
    Support your claim.

    There are times when I simply can’t tell when these guys are kidding.

  25. OMagain: The first wombat had no parents then?

    The first wombat was not the archetypal wombat.

    The archetypal wombat does not exist in the physical universe it exists in the mind of God like the archetypal circle.

    peace

  26. fifthmonarchyman,

    imagine a horizontal line in which every conceivable shape is placed side by side. Each object varying infinitesimally from the shapes on either side

    Now imagine you draw two vertical lines around those shapes that you deem to be circles. Your choice would be arbitrary but if you were God it would be definitive.

    Choosing arbitrarily is what intelligent agents do. The Paradox is solved

    No it isn’t. There is no reason for God to dichotomise a continuum. And it would be ridiculous, as in the case of the Pre-Wombat/Wombat continuum, to assert that they flip between two distinct Forms at the boundary, when they are virtually identical. Just because you have a bit of a mental block on this thing, because you perceive distinct branch-tips and want to shoehorn history into this viewpoint, does not mean there is a problem worth concocting such a ridiculous answer to.

    Who did the first Wombat reproduce with? Wombat or Pre-Wombat?

    Peas

  27. fifthmonarchyman: The first wombat was not the archetypal wombat.
    The archetypal wombat does not exist in the physical universe it exists in the mind of God like the archetypal circle.
    peace

    This is what happens when kids are kept out of sex education classes.

  28. Allan Miller,

    What were these hybrids variants of, the Ideal Pre-Wombat or the Ideal Wombat? I don’t think I’ll sleep tonight.

    Try counting wombats.

  29. This really is a revelation.

    You go along thinking you are conversing with a rational adult, and suddenly you are confronted with someone who thinks there is a first member of a species.

  30. Allan Miller: There is no reason for God to dichotomise a continuum

    oh contraire

    Drawing boundaries is simply what we intelligent agents do when a entity defines the boundaries in a way that we don’t recognize we doubt that it is an intelligent agent

    check it out

    http://www.evolvingai.org/fooling

    anyway

    The Darwinist solution to the species problem is simply to deny that species exist. This goes against the universal experience of humanity.

    We know species exist we know that a Wombat is not a Koala. Just as we know that a Circle is not an oval.

    It’s never ceases to amaze me how much “common sense” your position demands that we abandon.

    peace

  31. Allan Miller: Who did the first Wombat reproduce with? Wombat or Pre-Wombat?

    Sexual isolation is a terrible way to define species. I’m not sure why the subject even comes up

    Wolves can breed with coyotes and tigers can breed with lions.

    But we all know that wolves and tigers and lions and coyotes are each separate species

    peace

  32. fifthmonarchyman,

    Sexual isolation is a terrible way to define species. I’m not sure why the subject even comes up

    It is not definitional, it is a practical entailment of your ‘First Wombat’ scenario. In order to reproduce, an obligately sexual organism needs a mate. What ‘type’ is that mate, or the offspring of that union? You know that reproduction has some relevance to lineage continuation, right?

  33. fifthmonarchyman,

    oh contraire

    Drawing boundaries is simply what we intelligent agents do when a entity defines the boundaries in a way that we don’t recognize we doubt that it is an intelligent agent

    When you are a hyper-intelligent atemporal entity that can hold all of possible existence in your mind at once, you have absolutely no need of boundaries. You can call a continuum a continuum, and deal with it.

    check it out

    Check this out (I am waggling my bare backside at the screen!).

    The Darwinist solution to the species problem is simply to deny that species exist. This goes against the universal experience of humanity.

    Screw the universal experience of humanity. The ‘universal experience of humanity’ consists of starting at buds and being blind to the supporting structure of branches. But then, it’s not universal, because people moved on from that Ancient Greek viewpoint. Apart from a few literalist holdouts.

    We know species exist we know that a Wombat is not a Koala. Just as we know that a Circle is not an oval.

    Yes, it’s a piece of cake in the middle!

    Set Theory by fmm. Draw a huge circle, and stand in the middle. Can you see the edge? Yes? Get someone to move it. Can you see it now? Through a telescope, just. Get someone to move it again. How about now? Nope. Now, who cares what goes on at the boundary. Look at this lovely comfy Middle! It’s Obvious. Boundary? What’s one of them?

    It’s never ceases to amaze me how much “common sense” your position demands that we abandon.

    It never ceases to amaze me how ceaselessly amazed people get. The earth is flat. It’s common sense.

  34. Mung:

    And walto already asked me that question and I already answered it. Which is why when people accuse me of avoiding it I wonder what the hell they are talking about. If you want I’ll try to find it. But see an answer below.

    No need to find the original answer to Walto. But it might be helpful to reproduce it in the main text of an OP for reference. I see RB has asked a variant of the question in your latest thread.

    It’s conceivable. That doesn’t make it possible. I’m interested to see where the enterprise leads. It’s one reason why I don’t argue that a code requires [ETA: entails] a designer.

    How do you separate conceivably and possibility in this case?

    I am used to hearing that dichotomy for p-zombie arguments for non-physicalism. To counter this argument, some physicalists argue that if science proves consciousness supervenes on the physical (which could include brain, body, even world) then that will provide an a posteriori Kripke-type identity which would imply p-zombies are not metaphysically possible.

    In this case, the designer is analogous to the p-zombie. But the argument is not about whether the designer is not metaphysically possible, it is about whether there was a designer in our actual world.

    ETA: In fact, when you say a code does not entail a designer, then that seems to admit a designerless code is possible in our actual world.

    Is a biosemiosis plus designer theory even scientific? UB argues from SETI that it is. But that is a dubious analogy.

  35. It’s never ceases to amaze me how much “common sense” your position demands that we abandon.

    Ever considered the possibility you are just, plain wrong fmm? And that those people who have spent their lives studying (unlike you) might just perhaps know what they are talking about?

  36. Allan Miller: In order to reproduce, an obligately sexual organism needs a mate. What ‘type’ is that mate, or the offspring of that union?

    I have no idea. Hybridization is common phenomena. There in nothing prohibiting a wombat from breeding with a non-wombat. Just as there in nothing prohibiting multiple wombats being born to different non-wombat parents at the same time.

    Your difficulties here flow from your inability to in-vision anything but the materialist assumption that “like always yields like”.

    peace

  37. fifthmonarchyman: Your difficulties here flow from your inability to in-vision anything but the materialist assumption that “like always yields like”.

    Your difficulty is that you’ve yet to identify a single reason to use your scheme, adding as it does nothing to our understanding at any level.

    Unless you can tell me what practical difference it would make other then biologists would know that “species are real and defined by god, but we can’t know what those definitions are, but they are there and real”?

  38. fifthmonarchyman: Just as there in nothing prohibiting multiple wombats being born to different non-wombat parents at the same time.

    So one species can give birth and a different species pops out? Really?

  39. OMagain: Ever considered the possibility you are just, plain wrong fmm? And that those people who have spent their lives studying (unlike you) might just perhaps know what they are talking about?

    Of course. But being a skeptic I don’t just abandon “common sense” impressions unless evidence is provided. I especially don’t do so based only on the testimony of those in authority.

    Do have any empirical or mathematical evidence that species (or other minds) don’t exist?

    Allan Miller: It never ceases to amaze me how ceaselessly amazed people get. The earth is flat. It’s common sense.

    We have evidence that the earth is a sphere. Do you have any evidence that species (or other minds) don’t exist? I’d love to hear it

    peace

  40. OMagain: So one species can give birth and a different species pops out? Really?

    I see nothing prohibiting this,
    Of course It’s highly unlikely but unlikely things happen everyday. Especially when intelligent agents are involved

    peace

  41. fifthmonarchyman: But being a skeptic I don’t just abandon “common sense” impressions unless evidence is provided.

    So it’s “common sense” that an archetypal wombat exists that nobody can access or know about unless told by god?

    That’s your brain on religion that is.

  42. fifthmonarchyman: I see nothing prohibiting this,

    Of course not, because as noted you’ve not spent a considerable fraction of your life studying what you’d have to study to know why this is not possible.

    Like a couple of days. That’s what you’d need I expect. Perhaps a week. Remedial biology lessons are probably available at your local highschool.

  43. OMagain: Unless you can tell me what practical difference it would make other then biologists would know that “species are real and defined by god, but we can’t know what those definitions are, but they are there and real”?

    It’s called “saving the phenomena” you might want to check it out. We know that species exist my approach does not contradict that knowledge.

    There is very little practical difference between in everyday life between Newtonian physics and general relativity. We accept relativity mostly because it saves the phenomena

    peace

Leave a Reply