Saturday, 19 August 2023
Against Nincsnevem XXIII
Nincsnevem:Also, since this is relevant to the topic, I'll mention that Jehovah's Witnesses often point out that why death would be a punishment if their souls would live on in heaven. But the question is inherently flawed, since we don't say that. Even then, it wouldn't be a punishment, a shame that this hypothetical scenario has nothing to do with what we teach. Just at first glance
AservantofJEHOVAH: I Suspect that most JWS would be savvy enough to know that the souls of Adam and Eve would go in the other direction if there was such an intermediate state. What I do remember asking is why the righteous dead Having been freed from their sinful bodies and having received the post mortem evangel that they supposedly receive are not praising JEHOVAH.
Isaiah ch.38:18,19NIV"18For the grave cannot praise you,
death cannot sing your praise;
those who go down to the pit
cannot hope for your faithfulness.
19The living, the living—they praise you,
as I am doing today;
parents tell their children
about your faithfulness"
You claim that Jesus parable at Luke 16:19-31 is a literal understanding of condition of the righteous dead in their intermediate state, the word picture there is one of feasting and Joyful fellowship for the righteous so why aren't they praising JEHOVAH who has made this provision for them?
Also how could it be a kindness for Jesus to take Lazarus away from this bliss and return him to the Sinful body and world he had just escaped?
Against nincsnevem XXII
Mr.Nevem:The Satanic claim "you will not surely die" (Genesis 3:4) has nothing to do with the immortality of the soul. God proposed here that if they break His command, then "in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die." From this, it is apparent that here "you will die" did not refer to the literal, physical death, but the consequence of it, that man will die, or (his body) will return to the dust. Here, the word "death" does not refer to physical death but spiritual death, separation from God, and loss of grace.
AsservantofJEHOVAH:Typical argument by assertion The bible explains what death means
Genesis ch.3:19NIV"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou RETURN unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou RETURN."
Of course the churches of Christendom ignore the obvious meaning of RETURN the soul reverts to its pre-sin state at death and divine justice can make no further demands upon it
Romans ch.6:7NIV"For he that is dead is freed from sin."
The dead CANNOT sin only the living can sin and the punishment is death for those who do sin but sin and the penalty for sin ends at death. So to punish the dead any further would be unrighteous on JEHOVAH'S part
Nincsnevem"In the day that you sin, you will die" - When you sin, I will take away my grace, eternal life, and you will die.
When Satan says, "you will not surely die," he means, "Just go ahead and sin; God will not fulfill His threat (he's just bluffing)."
AservantofJEHOVAH: JEHOVAH calls what is not as though it is so once he has predetermined an outcome he Can speak as if it has already occurred that is why on the very day that the prospect of eternal human perfection had ended for the original human pair they could be regarded as already dead living from JEHOVAH standpoint would mean entitled to eternal human perfection any less than that would be regarded as dead.
Genesis ch.3;22,23NIV"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken"
From here on humanity was dead. We note that there was no tree of death in the garden. So eternal human perfection was JEHOVAH'S purpose for our race and not superhuman perfection.
Nincsnevem:Then the "dispute" with Satan was not about the immortality of the soul but whether humanity will lose God's special privilege that the human body is free from the compulsion of death. God warned Adam not to eat from 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil', or he would die on that day (Gen 2:17). Adam and Eve ate from it anyway, but did not die a biological death >on that day<, as they lived much longer (Gen 5:5). Adam, however, lost fellowship with God (he was driven out of Eden) and eternal life (he could no longer eat from the tree of life, Gen 3:23-24). Adam's (man's) death on "that day" was spiritual-religious death (cf. Eph 2:1), which led to biological death. So the "death" with which God threatens man is twofold: the death of supernatural life (i.e., loss of sanctifying grace) and [as a result] the mortal transformation of the body: before the Fall, man could have not died; since then, man cannot not die.
AservantofJEHOVAH: Just as JEHOVAH can count those he has determined to grant eternal life as already living though dead. he can count those he is determined to punish with eternal death as already dead though alive.
Luke ch.9:60NIV"Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”"
That is why Christ death can furnish a substitutionary atonement. If the wages of sin were eternal conscious torment. Then Christ would need to undergo eternal conscious torment to be a substitute for us
Nincsnevem:This of course is avoided by the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation, and they want to explain away the "day" here as exactly a thousand years. But why would it be a thousand years "on that day"? I know there's a biblical statement, "With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8), but that doesn't make it applicable here (this is a leap in logic), so this is entirely a leap of logic. Also, we know that this is metaphorical language, illustrating that God is outside time, and before Him, a day is not literally exactly a thousand years but eternity.
The fact of the matter is the man lost his human imperfection on that day and thus as from the divine perspective was dead on that day. Psalm ninety was written by the prophet Moses it points out that a yom from JEHOVAH'S Perspective would necessarily be very different from man's perspective does the Catholic church teach that the seven yom in which JEHOVAH Made the world are seven 24 hour yom. As I pointed out the man lost his human perfection on that 24 hour day but even from the standpoint of experiencing the consequences of losing human perfection from the divine perspective less than a day could have said to have passed .
JEHOVAH'S perspective is the only one that matters
Psalms ch.90:3,4NIV"You turn people back to dust,
saying, “Return to dust, you mortals.”
4A thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night."
Nincsnevem:The Peter's part (which I say again, they arbitrarily tie together with the Moses' part using biblical leap logic) is obviously only symbolic: especially since the context does not explain how Adam "died" >that day<, but why the Last Judgment day is delaying in human terms, the answer: because in God's view our "time" is just a moment. "A thousand years" is an ancient analogy: a very long time.
AservantofJEHOVAH:When the man was driven away from the tree of life his doom was confirmed and he lost his human perfection that is how he died that day
Genesis ch.3:22-23NIV"22And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken."
nincsnevem: and then, as I mentioned, the subject of the debate was not whether man has an immortal soul but whether he will die physically (i.e., whether God will carry out the threat, or be afraid that man has become like God, autonomous, or self-legislating).
So if we insist on taking the bodily death on that day literally, as Jehovah's Witnesses do, but rule out the false excuse, then Satan would be right: man did not die that day but lived much longer.
AservantofJEHOVAH: By stripping the man of his human perfection on that day and driving him from the tree of life JEHOVAH Fulfilled his Just punishment on the man the sentence was staggered to allow the birth of some who will show a different and thus vindicate JEHOVAH as creator. You see the real debate is whether or not man's fall was really the fault of his maker or not? If man was well made why could he not fulfill the purpose for which he was made? Those who argue that man's sin was predestined are the ones who are taking Satan's side of the debate.
Separating eggs from zeros?
Fossil Friday: Imagining Eggs in the Famous Archaeopteryx Fossils
This Fossil Friday I could not resist discussing a paper (Guimarães 2023) that I recently stumbled upon. It is still in preprint stage at bioRxiv and has not undergone peer review. I definitely hope that it will not survive peer review as it easily qualifies as the most ridiculous piece of garbage science I ever came across. The author is Portuguese computer scientist Jorge Guimarães, who apparently lacks any expertise in paleontology or geology. His paper has been heavily promoted on social media by his medical software company, ALERT Life Sciences, claiming that the “Mona Lisa of fossils was rediscovered” and promising a “paradigm shift in evolution,” “following what is arguably the biggest fossil rediscovery of all time.” The same institution also published nothing short of a three volume book by Guimarães (2018) on the “ground breaking findings.” This sounds like something really interesting and unusual.
So What Did He Find?
The author maintains that:
Since 1877, researchers have missed the fact that Archaeopteryx, the icon of evolution and the Mona Lisa of fossils, was nesting over more than one hundred jellybean-like soft eggs and hatchlings.
Following what is arguably the biggest fossil rediscovery of all time, can you imagine the day when museums around the world will make the decision to change the display position of this fossil to reflect its nesting posture?
A paradigm shift in evolution starts with the change in the display position of Archaeopteryx and extends into the evolution of reproduction in animals, the evolution of wings and flight, attention to fossil sediment instead of just bones, and new perspectives on mass extinctions, among others.
When you look carefully at the images in the preprint paper it is quite clear why scientists have “overlooked” these hundreds of eggs and hatchlings in five different fossil specimens of Archaeopteryx, including the name-giving isolated feather: there is simply nothing there at all, but just a random pattern of stone matrix. At work apparently is some kind of pareidolia effect, where people erroneously believe they see things like a human face in random places where there isn’t anything. The author also seems to be ignorant of the multiple lines of taphonomic evidence (see Arratia et al. 2015: 78–100) that strongly contradict his hypothesis that the fossil preservation of bird nests with adults still sitting in breeding position on eggs and hatchlings can be explained by the occasional flooding of colonial ground nesting sites on the shore of the Upper Jurassic Solnhofen lagoon.
Did the author find any hard evidence of egg shells apart from his Rorschach-test-like identification of alleged shapes of eggs? Something like microstructure or chemical composition of the eggshells? Nothing at all. His excuse is that the specimens were not available for such studies, because access to the original specimens was denied to him or the potentially invasive studies were not authorized by the museum curators.
This is still more problematic because there is considerable evidence that, even though the first dinosaurs had soft eggs, hard-shelled eggs belong to the ground plan of theropod dinosaurs and birds (Norell et al. 2020). The author’s claim of non-rigid eggs in Archaeopteryx would therefore strongly conflict with the consensus phylogeny. And we have not even mentioned yet that the supposed eggs are much too small and too numerous for an ancient bird of the size of Archaeopteryx, or that a preservation in nesting position is inconceivable unless you assume that the animals miraculously did not bother to make a move while being flooded.
Not a Good Combination for Science
However, neither lack of evidence nor conflicting evidence stopped the author from drawing far-reaching conclusions, based on the hypothetically assumed colonial ground nesting behavior, such as an evolution of bird flight from ground-up rather than tree-down, and an origin of wings and feathers for breeding purposes rather than locomotion. Both views may or may not be correct, but they are certainly not supported by the highly controversial evidence presented by the author. But I can hardly blame him for his act of creative imagination, because that is what much of mainstream evolutionary biology is all about anyway.
The author first presented his “sensational” results on September 18, 2019, at the annual conference of the Paläontologische Gesellschaft in Munich, Germany. I don’t know what the reaction of the experts was at this event (I would bet on embarrassed silence and some good laughs), but apparently they could not convince him to reconsider his maverick interpretation. One could easily brush aside this case as an extreme exception produced by an incompetent non-expert in a non-peer-reviewed medium. But unfortunately this case is rather symptomatic of a general trend in modern paleontology towards overinterpreting, overhyping, and overselling poor fossil evidence. The reason seems to be a combination of publish-or-perish pressure, pressure by PR departments to oversell results in pursuit of renewed public grants, and the career incentive to push evolutionary scenarios and just-so stories with fossil data as supposedly hard evidence. Not exactly a good combination for the advance of science.
References
Arratia G, Schultze HP, Tischlinger H & Viohl G (eds) 2015: Solnhofen – Ein Fenster in die Jurazeit. 2 vols. Pfeil Verlag, Munich (DE), 620 pp. https://pfeil-verlag.de/publikationen/solnhofen-ein-fenster-in-die-jurazeit/
Guimarães MJ 2023. Colonial ground nesting by Archaeopteryx suggests wing evolution in primal association with nesting and the ground up evolution of flight. bioRxiv. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.30.542892
Norell MA, Wiemann J, Fabbri M, Yu C, Marsicano CA, Moore-Nall A, Varricchio DJ, Pol D & Zelenitsky DK 2020. The first dinosaur egg was soft. Nature 583, 406–410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2412-8
Friday, 18 August 2023
Thursday, 17 August 2023
Robert Bowman's attempt to slant the playing field .
Robert Bowman:If you want to disprove the doctrine of the Trinity, you must disprove one of the following propositions:
1. There is one God (i.e., one proper object of religious devotion).
AservantofJEHOVAH: the Nicene creed teaches that this one/ most high God is essentially tri-personal so I merely need to demonstrate from scripture that the one/ most high God is not tri-personal to falsify the Nicene creed,and most other mainstream versions of the trinity. Most Trinitarian arguments also have the unintended consequence of falsifying the creeds for they center on demonstrating that the unipersonal Christ is the supposedly tri-persinal most high God
2. The one God is a single divine being, the LORD (Jehovah, Yahweh).
3. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God.
AservanofJEHOVAH:The God and Father of Jesus is, according to scripture, the most high God/the only true God and thus has no co-equals as a matter of fact the unqualified ho Theos i.e is used exclusively of him throughout the scriptures a real problem for Christendom's creeds
Luke ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the MOST HIGH. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David,"
John ch.17:3NIV"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
AservantofJEHOVAH:Thus the God and Father of Jesus is both the distinct person and the distinct utterly falsifying bowman's conception of the trinity.
4. The Son, Jesus Christ, is God.
AservantofJEHOVAH:Very vague thus allowing Trinitarians room to be slippery. I am sorry but you will need to be tighter than this if you want to be taken seriously. Is Jesus the most high God . This would necessarily exclude his having any co-equals and of course if the most high God is necessarily tri-personal it would necessarily rule out any unipersonal Christ or logos being numerically identical to the tri-personal Most High God.
5. The Holy Spirit is God.
aservantofJEHOVAH,:No it/he is not.
6. The Father is not the Son.
AservantofJEHOVAH:Since we have established that the God and Father of Jesus is the MOST HIGH God This seems like a moot point.
7. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
AservantofJEHOVAH;Well okay does this prove that he/it is coequal with the God and Father of Jesus though?
8. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
Anyone who affirms all eight of these propositions without equivocation is affirming the doctrine of the Trinity, since this is just what the doctrine of the Trinity says.
AservantofJEHOVAH:The propositions are too vague and need some tightening up the central concern of biblical theology is the identity of the MOST HIGH GOD i.e JEHOVAH Christendom's creeds render a positive identity most high impossible. Only in scripture do we see the most high clearly identified as the God and Father of Jesus.
In order to dispute the doctrine of the Trinity, then, you *must* take issue with one or more of the propositions stated above. Anything else is tangential to the issue.:
AservantofJEHOVAH:In order for us to take the trinity seriously a forthright statement as to who /what Trinitarians identify as the MOST HIGH GOD must be issued one that leaves no room for the usual trinitarian slipperiness.
Then a comparison with the bible as to who the bible identifies as the most high God so as to demonstrate that Christendom's most high God is numerically identical to the Bible's most high God.
The thumb print of JEHOVAH cosmic edition vs. biological edition..
Comparing Design Evidence in Physics Versus Biology — Is One Stronger than the Other?
I really enjoyed physicist Brian Miller’s two-part ID the Future interview with Rabbi Aaron Zimmer and Rabbi Elie Feder about support for intelligent design from physics (see here and here). Both are gifted explainers, as you know already that Dr. Miller is. I was not familiar with their podcast series, Physics to God, but of course I checked it out, in particular the episode “Physics vs. Biology,” where they weigh differences between the case for design in biology and the case in physics. They don’t come down one way or the other about the former, which is fair enough. (Their backgrounds are respectively in physics and mathematics, not that you have to be a biologist to have a view on ID in biology.) In the episode, though, they argue that the evidence for design in physics is necessarily the stronger of the two.
Why? Because the fine-tuning of the physical constants underlying the existence of the universe has no evolutionary history. We have no reason for thinking they were other than what they are now, very precisely, at the Big Bang. As Zimmer and Feder say in the podcast, there are no “fossils” indicating previous sets of constants that could have been somehow naturally winnowed or otherwise tuned by unguided, unintelligent forces. With fossils of previously existing life forms, on the other hand, there is at least a suggestion of evolution — whether that was guided (intelligent design) or unguided (Darwinian theory). With the physical constants, there’s no ground for arguing against design other than by appealing to purely speculative ideas of other universes that can never be scientifically detected. (And even then, as Stephen Meyer shows in Return of the God Hypothesis, whatever mechanism might generate universes would itself demand an explanation pointing to ID.)
Nakedly Versus Less Nakedly
The multiverse is nakedly an attempt to save atheism from science. Darwinian theory is less nakedly so. On that I’d agree. In fact, Paul Nelson recalled here the other day watching atheist physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg thinking about the cosmological constant, and visibly troubled by it: “[H]e paced the stage from one end to the other, not looking at the audience, muttering to himself and staring at his feet.”
It’s an interesting point and I’d never heard it put quite that way. The podcast is definitely worth listening to and considering.
The issue for Trinitarians'.
Luke ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,"
The God and Father of Jesus is ,according to scripture, THE MOST HIGH GOD. This what Trinitarians' need to address the God and Father of Jesus has no co-equals in absolute contradistinction to any of the members of Christendom's trinity.
Indeed the identity of the most high God on the whole is a Trinitarian issue because none of the entities name in the trinity is without numerous co-equals and thus none of them match the designation most high which the scriptures gives to the Lord JEHOVAH.
The Cambrian explosion was nuclear.
From Bad to Worse for Darwinism, as New Cambrian Explosion Finds Arrive
More bad news for Darwinism arrived after my last article about Cambrian Explosion. I showed there that taphonomic conditions should have produced Precambrian animal fossils had they existed. Now, some of the other props for Darwin’s House of Cards have been removed. Tom Bethell had said in that book, “The near-instant explosion of body plans is the opposite of what Darwin’s theory predicts” (p 134)
Oxygen Theory Deflated
“No, oxygen didn’t catalyze the swift blossoming of Earth’s first multicellular organisms,” begins some news from the University of Copenhagen. “Life on Earth didn’t arise as described in textbooks.” What? Textbooks wrong? Shocking!
“The fact that we now know, with a high degree of certainty, that oxygen didn’t control the development of life on Earth provides us with an entirely new story about how life arose and what factors controlled this success,” says the researcher, adding:
“Specifically, it means that we need to rethink a lot of the things that we believed to be true from our childhood learning. And textbooks need to be revised and rewritten.”
Textbooks had been saying, “increased oxygen levels triggered the evolutionary arrival of more advanced marine organisms.” Scientists at the university, with international peers, claim that the oxygen theory “is being disproved” by measurements of oxygen levels in rocks dating from “the Avalon explosion, a forerunner era of the more famed Cambrian explosion.” The Avalon Explosion they date at “between 685 and 800 million years ago.”
Defying expectations, the result shows that Earth’s oxygen concentrations had not increased. Indeed, levels remained 5-10 times lower than today, which is roughly how much oxygen there is at twice the height of Mount Everest.
Evolutionists have a strained relationship with oxygen. They don’t want it at the origin of life, but they were relying on it to power the Avalon and Cambrian Explosions. And in modern times, they struggle with the complexity of molecular machines that protect life from Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS). Current atmospheric oxygen levels appear finely tuned for complex life, as biologist Michael Denton argues in Fire-Maker. We have a Goldilocks value that balances the advantages of oxygen for metabolism against the disadvantages of too much or too little.
Time Squeeze
A different paper last month in PNAS, by Lyle Nelson and scientists from Canada and the U.S., has more bad news for those who want to stretch out the duration of the Cambrian Explosion.
The early Cambrian Period marks the important interval when most major groups of animals first appear in Earth’s sedimentary record. The tempo of this biological diversification is still poorly defined because, globally, there are few absolute age constraints that calibrate early Cambrian fossil occurrences or the carbon isotope perturbations used to correlate the biostratigraphy of different continents. In this study, we present high-precision age constraints for strata in the southwestern United States, which suggest the early Cambrian animal radiation was significantly faster than currently recognized. Accurately constraining the timing and rates of early animal evolution is a critical step toward better understanding this milestone in Earth’s history.
The authors measured “precise zircon U–Pb dates for the lower Wood Canyon Formation, Nevada,” which lies in the southeastern Death Valley region. Their measurements constrain the onset of the explosion to “younger than 533 Mya, at least 6 My later than currently recognized.” Out with 540 Mya; in with 533 Mya as the new official “onset of infaunalization” (the sudden appearance of complex animal body plans).
Formally, the base of the Cambrian is now defined by the first appearance of an ichnofossil assemblage that includes Treptichnus pedum, a distinctive branched, bilaterian trace fossil, interpreted as potentially formed by priapulids. The inclined branches of T. pedum are the earliest examples of systematic probing of the substrate, thus marking the onset of infaunalization that is pervasive in the Phanerozoic sedimentary record.
Priapulidae are complex animals, still extant today, that reproduce sexually and have a true coelum (body cavity), muscles, nerves, and a through gut. If the trace fossils are from one of these phylum members, they represent a significant level of “infaunalization” indeed.
Phylum Squeeze
The famous Burgess Shale (pictured above), the showcase of early Cambrian animals, has produced another taxonomic group: the earliest swimming jellyfish (phylum Cnidaria, subphylum Medusozoa). The Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) announced this month the discovery of “well preserved” fossils of Burgessomedusa phasmiformis, a newly-named jelly complete with a medusa (free-swimming) stage — the most advanced type. Other cnidarians (the phylum that includes corals and anemones) are known in lower Cambrian strata, but medusozoans are “the most efficient swimmers in the world” (here). Was this a primitive cnidarian?
Jellyfish belong to medusozoans, or animals producing medusae, and include today’s box jellies, hydroids, stalked jellyfish and true jellyfish. Medusozoans are part of one of the oldest groups of animals to have existed, called Cnidaria, a group which also includes corals and sea anemones. Burgessomedusa unambiguously shows that large, swimming jellyfish with a typical saucer or bell-shaped body had already evolved more than 500 million years ago.
Burgessomedusa fossils are exceptionally well preserved at the Burgess Shale considering jellyfish are roughly 95% composed of water. ROM holds close to two hundred specimens from which remarkable details of internal anatomy and tentacles can be observed, with some specimens reaching more than 20 centimetres in length. These details enable classifying Burgessomedusa as a medusozoan. By comparison with modern jellyfish, Burgessomedusa would also have been capable of free-swimming and the presence of tentacles would have enabled capturing sizeable prey.
The date given (505 Mya) is not significantly different from earlier estimates for medusozoans mentioned in my 2013 article about “instant body plans,” but it points to an even earlier first appearance:
“Although jellyfish and their relatives are thought to be one of the earliest animal groups to have evolved, they have been remarkably hard to pin down in the Cambrian fossil record. This discovery leaves no doubt they were swimming about at that time,” said co-author Joe Moysiuk, a Ph.D. candidate in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at the University of Toronto, who is based at ROM.
If it was already swimming like a modern jellyfish, it had parents who swam, and ancestors who swam. This is among the earliest identifiable medusae, but its date necessitates earlier ancestors. One of those must have (in Darwinism) won the mutational lottery to start swimming freely. But it would have needed muscles, nerves, and sensory equipment to avoid floating off into evolutionary oblivion. Given that jellyfish rarely fossilize, being 95 percent water, it’s within the realm of possibility that earlier specimens may turn up some day even closer to biology’s big bang.
Majoring on Minors?
Graham Budd and friends had a little spat with Nicholas Strausfeld about details of a Cambrian animal. The give and take in Science at the end of June concerned whether a lower Cambrian lobopodian named Cardiodictyon had a tripartite brain and thus represented the origin of euarthropod brains, euarthropods being the most complex group within the panarthropods. (Strausfeld et al. responded here).
But surely there is a forest in these trees. Brains! Are they products of unguided natural processes? A look at the figures in their respective papers should astonish anyone that creatures with legs, antennae, mouth parts, guts, muscles, and central nervous systems should appear in rocks suddenly without precursors. Darwinians waste time trying to connect details of one tree to details in other trees, when the forest is shouting, “We were designed!”
As new discoveries continue putting the squeeze on the Darwinian scenario, proponents of intelligent design feel no pressure. Complex life appearing suddenly, operating from day one with exceptionally rich functional information, is just what we would expect from engineering genius.
Why our Al overlords will never possess a "Logos".
Human Exceptionalism — Why Artificial Intelligence Will Never Tell a Story
One of the biggest contentions in the current debate over OpenAI’s new Large Language Model (LLM) ChatGPT is its purported ability to create a story, to speak and communicate narrative like a human storyteller. If you ask ChatGPT to write an Edgar Allan Poe-esque story, it will generate something spooky, gothic, and darkly poetic. Ask it to write a Shakespearean sonnet, and out comes a fourteen-lined poem about nature and romance. Need a horror thriller like The Shining or It by Stephen King? You got it.
For all its scary impressiveness, and the guarantee that the technology will only get better, the chatbot extraordinaire fails and will always fail to tell a story. In fact, it can’t be expected to generate meaningful art and literature whatsoever. Why? In short, ChatGPT isn’t a person.
AI Lacks Understanding
Critics might interject and say that LLMs are starting to match the dexterity and even beauty of human poetry and art. AI can crank out verse in the spirit of Milton and Donne (or maybe not quite, but it can approximate the style) and write your freshman composition paper for you. To be fair, it can do a lot. And some entry-level writing jobs may inevitably fall to AI. The technology journal CNET has already employed an AI system to generate articles, although the results have been a bit disastrous, to say the least.
But while AI can generate poems, stories, and essays, it can never grasp the meaning of what it produces. It’s not a sentient mind (despite former Google employee Blake Lemoine’s claim to the contrary) intent on communicating truth, goodness, and beauty to you. Instead, it’s pulling from a preexistent database and giving you approximations of what you’re asking for. It’s algorithmic. The AI optimists (and those declaring doom for all writers and artists) might just be misunderstanding the purpose and nature of language and art.
Josef Pieper on the Purpose of Language
Josef Pieper, a 20th-century philosopher, outlined the two primary functions of language. In his excellent little book Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power, he writes:
First, words convey reality. We speak in order to name and identify something that is real, to identify it for someone, of course — and this points to the second aspect in question, the interpersonal character of human speech (p. 15).
For Pieper, language has a “two-fold purpose”: it conveys reality through the word and establishes relationships among persons. It connects us through shared meaning. Can AI do this? Sort of. It can scrape the Internet and produce a coherent sentence. However, Pieper would be skeptical of its ability to fulfill either function, since AI cannot be interested in “reality.” He writes further, “Because you are not interested in reality, you are unable to converse. You can give fine speeches, but you simply cannot join in a conversation; you are incapable of dialogue” (p. 17). Here, Pieper is talking about the “sophists” in Plato’s era. They were witty rhetoricians but had more interest in persuasion and manipulation than in telling the truth.
So, is ChatGPT simply technological sophistry, drawing on a bizarre Internet landscape, designed to give you fancy distortions of the world? Robert J. Marks, Senior Fellow at the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence, writes in his book, Non-Computable You:
When discussing artificial intelligence, it’s crucial to define intelligence. Computers can store oceans of facts and correlations; but intelligence requires more than facts. True intelligence requires a host of analytic skills. It requires understanding; the ability to recognize humor, subtleties of meaning, and symbolism; and the ability to recognize and disentangle ambiguities. It requires creativity (p. 16).
The Question of Consciousness
Christina Bieber Lake, Clyde Kilby Professor of English at Wheaton College, expresses a similar conviction about the limits of computed “intelligence,” particularly in relation to literature. She writes in her book Beyond the Story:
Computers can be programmed to “write” stories, but since they do not have first-person consciousness, they cannot reasonably be said to have intended them. Whatever meaning such stories can be said to have is limited by the parameters of the programmer — who is necessarily a language animal (p. 14).
Bieber Lake turns the issue into the fundamental question of consciousness. “First-person consciousness,” she contends, is a uniquely human quality, and in Robert Marks’s terms, it can never be “computed.” No algorithmic complexity will ever be able to generate consciousness, regardless of how humanoid our robots become. She writes:
All art, and especially story, depends on a relationship between conscious persons. For any story to exist, much less to have meaning, conscious persons must be intentionally interacting with each other. There is always an I and a you and a thing — usually another you — for the I and the you to focus on.
She further notes that intent is always shared “by one person with another person.” The personal, communicative nature of storytelling rules out AI as a legitimate author. It can’t intend meaning and can’t speak to you as a person to a person.
The Person Behind the Word
Her comments lead to the perennial question of authorial “intent,” or whether the author’s intended meaning in a text should have any bearing on its interpretation. Robin Phillips writes that if language is common, comprised of words with definite meanings (although words can change meaning, and their combinations be subject to differing interpretations), intent matters significantly. He observes:
If we were attending only to the meaning of a poem as an isolated collection of words rather than as a work of communication and art, then it would not make any difference whether it was written with artistic intent, that is to say, by a human being rather than a computer or an ape. Hence, all the predicates we might apply to the meaning of the poem we should be able to use whether or not it had a human creator. But this is not how we engage with art, for many aesthetic predicates that we commonly apply to poems would be meaningless when predicated to the computer-generated poem. Consider such predicates as “witty,” “intelligent,” “insightful,” “controlled,” “suppressed,” “overdone,” etc., which presuppose a creative intelligence behind them. To attend to the poem as an artwork is, therefore, to already be aware of more than merely the meaning of the words themselves: it is to be aware of their meaning as an intended artwork.
If we consider ancient oral cultures, where storytelling and myths were primarily communicated by mouth and received by ear, we might get a better sense of the human uniqueness of language. When we read a story, or a poem, or study a painting, we might come away with different impressions, or even various interpretations, but one aspect is evident: a personal consciousness was responsible for creating it, affirming the wisdom of a quote often attributed to C. S. Lewis, “We read to know we are not alone.”
Wednesday, 16 August 2023
On the role of imaginary numbers in describing/explaining the real world.
Intelligent Design in Imaginary Numbers
The concept of imaginary numbers can seem like an especially esoteric or detached-from-reality notion, perhaps dreamt up in the overactive imaginations of mathematicians. The absurdity of the concept doesn’t improve when one learns that the origin of imaginary numbers comes from trying to take the square root of a negative number.
Positive numbers have a pleasing solidity to them, in that they correspond to countable “things.” Five apples, ten people, and even fractional amounts, such as 2.2 pounds of rice. The number zero becomes less concrete, referring merely to the absence of something — such as, zero cows in the barn. Although most people are more comfortable with negative numbers than imaginary numbers, when we encounter a number like negative five, we have already departed from a simple association of the number with tangible things.
The ancients rejected negative numbers as being without meaning because they could see no way physically to interpret a number that is less than nothing….As late as the sixteenth century we find mathematicians referring to the negative roots of an equation as fictitious or absurd or false.1
Nonetheless, we learn fairly early on in school how to do simple arithmetic with negative numbers. In particular, we learn that the square of any (real) number is positive. So, how could a negative number even have a square root? Surely, the label “imaginary” is appropriately applied to the result of any such endeavor.
Why Bring Up Imaginary Numbers?
I raise the issue simply because imaginary numbers have shown themselves to facilitate, despite their moniker, mathematics without which we would be seriously impeded in our ability to describe and quantify reality. To understand their nature, it will help to introduce complex numbers. If the square root of -1 is designated with the letter i, then a complex number, z, might be written as z = a+bi, where a and b are real numbers. So, a complex number has two parts, a real part, a, and an imaginary part, b.
We are accustomed to real numbers being laid out on a “number line,” typically with the positive numbers to the right of zero and the negative numbers to the left of zero. In this sense, real numbers are one-dimensional, with a number corresponding to every point on the line. Analogously, it can be useful to consider complex numbers as two-dimensional quantities, with a complex number corresponding to every point on a plane.
This is exactly how complex numbers are visualized — as points on a so-called complex plane. The familiar number line makes up the x-axis, or real axis, so any point on this line has its imaginary part b=0. Points in the plane above or below the real axis have a positive or negative imaginary part, respectively. Since complex numbers correspond to the points in a plane and the entire real number axis is just a single line in that plane, it makes sense that learning to work with complex numbers should lead to expanded functionality in mathematics.
And Such Is the Case!
What kind of practical benefit has come to us through the use of complex numbers?
When people first considered taking square roots of negative numbers, they felt very uneasy about the problem….They certainly would not have believed that the new numbers could be of any practical use. Yet complex numbers are of great importance in a variety of applied fields; the electrical engineer would, to say the least, be severely handicapped without them.2
Solving mathematical problems involving fluid flow, oscillatory motion, and quantum mechanics are all facilitated through theorems and procedures for handling functions of complex variables. At this point, someone might object to all this by asserting that the physical world corresponds to real things, so how could invoking imaginary numbers avoid a departure from reality? Remember, however, that the form of a complex number, z = a+bi, contains two real numbers, a and b, and it’s these real numbers that end up corresponding to actual properties of real-world phenomena.
An electrical engineer can analyze an alternating current circuit by assuming a complex-number form of the electrical current. The actual current corresponds to just the imaginary part, but the complex resistance, known as the impedance, has physical meaning in both its real (ohmic resistance) and imaginary parts (capacitive and inductive impedance).
The term, imaginary, for the part of a complex number that lies off the real number axis may contribute to our sense that mathematicians are dabbling in something out of a fairy tale. René Descartes, in 1637, is credited with being the first to assign this label to results involving the square root of a negative number.
Before Descartes’ introduction of this term, the square roots of negative numbers were called sophisticated or subtle.3
I think these earlier labels would’ve actually been more appropriate, considering the enormous benefit complex number theory has given us in mathematical descriptions and calculations of many aspects of the physical world. Exploring the possibilities found in the realm of complex numbers (perhaps not too dissimilar, after all, to an adventure in fairy land) we reach a particularly magical point known as Cauchy’s integral formula. This ultimately useful mathematical result comes from doing calculus with complex numbers.
Almost Insurmountable Difficulty
Anyone who has taken a calculus course learns the process of integration for finding the area under the curve described by a mathematical function. One also learns, however, that integrating certain functions poses almost insurmountable difficulty. Cauchy’s integral formula, however, melts the difficulty of doing a wide class of integrals by taking advantage of the two-dimensional number space of complex numbers.
When I’ve taught complex variable theory as part of an advanced mathematics course for physics majors, introducing this topic to students feels something like giving them a secret power to do math. The author of the book already referenced on imaginary numbers describes his first encounter with Cauchy’s formula while studying at Stanford University:
For me, complex function theory was a revelation bordering on a mystical experience….With Cauchy’s theory of complex integration one could almost without effort, calculate the values of a seemingly endless number of incredibly odd, strange, and downright wonderfully mysterious-looking definite real integrals….Such calculations were to me, then, seemingly possible only if one had the powers of a sorcerer.4
One example of a practical application of Cauchy’s formula for complex variables is in solving an integral from the equation of motion for a planet with an elliptical orbit, which leads to the famous result of Kepler’s Third Law of Planetary Motion. A completely different use of complex numbers arises in the research field of computational nanoelectronics. Analyzing electron transmission through nanoscale structures routinely includes considering information revealed by the imaginary part of the complex variable associated with the energy of the electrons. The following statement is from an article on currents circulating around a benzene ring molecular structure.
The positions of the transmission zeros and poles in the complex energy plane, and their possible interference or even complete cancellation of each other, are shown to correlate with the amplitude and resonance structure of the circular transmission resonances.5
What Does All This Have to Do with Intelligent Design?
I think that the discovery of the almost unbelievably practical applications of complex number theory — derived from the bold intellectual extension of real numbers into the two-dimensional realm — is so “wonderfully mysterious” that it seems more consistent with a buried treasure we were intended to find than a prodigious bit of unexpected luck encountered by accidental beings in a happenstance universe.
For centuries, mathematicians discounted the “imaginary” solutions of equations involving the square roots of negative numbers. But when these nonsensical outcomes of mathematical manipulations were tentatively embraced and explored, they revealed a hidden usefulness without which our quantitative formulations of reality would be severely curtailed. If the extension of our familiar one-dimensional number line to a two-dimensional complex number plane proved fruitful, who’s to say that a further extension of numbers to encompass a complete three-dimensional volume might not disclose further unimaginable treasures?6
Notes
Paul J. Nahin, An Imaginary Tale: The Story of √(-1), (Princeton University Press, 1998), 5-6.
Mary L. Boas, Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences, 3rd ed. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006), 47.
Boas, Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences, (2006), 6.
Nahin, An Imaginary Tale, (1998), 188.
Eric R. Hedin, Arkady M. Satanin, and Yong S. Joe, “Circular transmission resonances and magnetic field effects in a ring of quantum dots connected to external leads in the meta-configuration,” Jnl. of Computational Electronics, June 2019, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 648–659. DOI 10.1007/s10825-018-01291-2.
A speculation on what a 3-dimensional number might correspond to is suggested by the mathematical impossibility of the square root of a negative number, which led to the two-dimensional plane of complex numbers. Another mathematical “impossibility” is the problematic case of division by zero, giving infinity. Perhaps the three-dimensional space above and below the complex number plane is populated by quantities (call them complete numbers) that correspond to complex numbers divided by zero. This hint is not without basis, as complex numbers that lead to infinities in real quantities (such as the transmission amplitude) have turned out to have practical significance (signifying the energy width of the transmission resonance). Furthermore, Cauchy’s formula, referred to above, actually exploits the existence of points in the complex plane that lead to infinites.
Bioelectricity vs. Darwinism.
Bioelectricity Gives Biologists a Jolt
We’ve explored bioelectricity in cells. We’ve looked at bioelectricity within the human body. Now, functional use of “electrical engineering” is being found in the realms between.
Physicists learn about electrostatics, the laws governing stationary charges. Then they learn about electrodynamics, the laws governing moving charges. Biologists are finding that life utilizes both systems of laws at all scales, from within the cell to tissues, organs, and entire organisms. Here are some recent discoveries in the emerging science of bioelectricity.
Electric Transportation
How does that tick jump from its twig onto your clothing as you walk through brush? The answer, says Current Biology, is by hopping on an electrostatic bullet train. A cow or other host animal walking through the bushes carries a net static charge. The tick, regardless of its own charge polarity, is “pulled by these electric fields across air gaps of several body lengths.”
Images in the paper show that a rabbit or cow literally glows with an electric field as it walks through vegetation. “Live ticks are passively attracted by the electric fields of their hosts,” the scientists found through experiment and measurement. It may not be good news for us, but the discovery suggests ways to fight back.
We also find that this electrostatic interaction is not significantly influenced by the polarity of the electric field, revealing that the mechanism of attraction relies upon induction of an electrical polarization within the tick, as opposed to a static charge on its surface. These findings open a new dimension to our understanding of how ticks, and possibly many other terrestrial organisms, find and attach to their hosts or vectors. Furthermore, this discovery may inspire novel solutions for mitigating the notable and often devastating economic, social, and public health impacts of ticks on humans and livestock.
Electromagnetic induction was one of the major discoveries made by the devout scientist Michael Faraday in 1831 (published independently in America the following year by another devout scientist, Joseph Henry). Yet here we see a tiny arachnid making use of electromagnetic induction. We can’t blame the tick for this trick. It doesn’t intentionally carry disease germs. It’s just taking advantage of a transportation system to hitchhike around, the way a cocklebur does when its Velcro-like seeds latch onto the fur of a passing cow. Pretty clever, actually.
Roundworms also know about this trick. In another paper in Current Biology, scientists wondered why dauers [larvae] of the common roundworm C. elegans come equipped with electrical sensors. The answer: “electroreception helps these microscopic worms to attach themselves to insects for transportation.” Leave it to scientists to design clever experiments to test and measure this trick! They charged bumblebees up to 724 thousand volts per meter!
The electric field strength (200 kV/m) required to induce leaping behavior in C. elegans far exceeds the upper limit of those seen in aquatic animals. It is also worth noting that air is a good electrical insulator compared with the aquatic environment, which makes it possible for terrestrial animals to carry significantly more electrostatic charges. Thus, it is highly possible that dauers can electrostatically interact with other animals in nature. To directly test this theory, the authors used bumblebees that are known to be highly electrostatically charged in the wild. These bumblebees were artificially charged by rubbing them against a Canadian goldenrod flower. Further experiments confirmed that the charge of bumblebees obtained in the lab was comparable to those observed in the wild. When the charged bumblebees were put close to the nictating dauers, leaping behavior was detected (Figure 1A). The electric field strength calculated was about 724 kV/m, exceeding the 200 kV/m leaping threshold. Strikingly, as many as 80 dauers were able to leap at the same time (Figure 1B). The leaping distance between dauers and bumblebees was about five times the dauer body length, which is also biologically meaningful.
Plant Electrodynamics in the Venus Flytrap
The involvement of electricity in the well-known traps of Dionaea muscipula, the Venus flytrap, are becoming increasingly appreciated. Researchers at Linköping University in Sweden speak of the flow of electrical signals in these amazing plants — and probably to some extent in all plants.
Most people know that the nervous system in humans and other animals sends electric impulses. But do plants also have electrical signals even though they lack a nervous system? Yes, plants have electrical signals that are generated in response to touch and stress factors, such as wounds caused by herbivores and attacks on their roots. As opposed to animals, who can move out of the way, plants must cope with stress factors where they grow.
For a plant studied by Darwin, it’s remarkable how much remains unknown about electrical propagation in the Venus flytrap. How can a plant, without neurons, conduct electricity? This team found some new things.
Electrical signalling in living organisms is based on a difference in voltage between the inside of cells and the outside environment. This difference in voltage is created when ions, i.e. electrically charged atoms, are moved between the inside and the outside of the cell. When a signal is triggered — for instance by mechanical stimulation in the form of bending a sensory hair — ions flow very fast through the cell membrane. The rapid change in voltage gives rise to an impulse that is propagated.
Their results, published in Science Advances, add to knowledge about plant electrophysiology. They carefully observed the “action potentials” of the traps, and how the signal is propagated in the leaf. Using 30 delicate electrodes arranged in a “neurogrid” attached to the inside of the trap, the team found that the action potential (AP) spreads first, followed by a calcium ion wave. It begins at the trigger hair, as expected, but then propagates radially outward at 2 cm/s across both lobes of the trap without a particular direction.
Biologists have long known that the trigger hairs must be touched twice within thirty seconds for the trap to close. This trick allows the traps to ignore non-living stimuli, but how that threshold is encoded is not clear. Did I hear codes?
In addition, any combination of hair stimulations induces faster AP propagation during the second stimulation, indicating that the excitability information must be encoded across the entire trap, rather than coupled with the stimulated hair alone. The nature of this information encoding remains unclear.
This is the first time that biologists have applied methods of measuring electrical transmission in plants that have normally been performed on animals, such as on rodent brains. The authors are excited about the possibilities of learning more about plant electricity. What about Darwinism? They apparently have no need of that hypothesis.
More on Microbes
More findings about intercellular electricity in bacteria have come forth. In May, Phys.org published the “First experimental confirmation that some microbes are powered by electricity.” In “electrosynthesis,” bacteria can make alcohol using carbon dioxide and electricity, but how they do it has been unclear. The new research in Germany was “able to confirm experimentally for the first time that the bacteria use electrons from hydrogen and can produce more chemical substances than previously known.” A report on this research at ChemEurope.com says it may lead to harnessing bacteria to make useful chemicals for industry. Feed the microbes hydrogen and watch them run their power plants.
A month earlier, Duke University reported that a “previously unknown intracellular electricity may power biology.” Specifically, that article says that electric fields may underlie the formation of biological condensates that bring interacting molecules together. Read about condensates in my earlier article here.
The future of bioelectricity looks bright. Here, an unexpected series of discoveries opened the door to new ways of looking at biological processes. And with it, as in previous revelations, biologists are finding codes, communication of information, and exquisite engineering.
Conserving function from root to branches of a "tree of life"
Quiz: Is This a Prediction from the Tree of Life?
The three-domain Tree of Life (TOL) geometry below is textbook orthodoxy, due largely to the work of the late Carl Woese on patterns in 16S rRNA.
Okay — here’s a quiz:
On the basis of this TOL geometry, what would you predict as the genome content for the Last Bacterial Common Ancestor (LCBA) — the hypothetical entity occupying the branch near the red circle?
Or, to turn the puzzle around — this is the actual quiz question — if the LCBA existed, what would you expect to find in the “core genomes” of bacterial groups at the tips of the branches within the domain Bacteria? Should every bacterial group conserve the same core set of orthologous genes?
Give your answer, then read on…
Now refer to a new article in Genome Biology, “Reconstruction of the last bacterial common ancestor from 183 pangenomes reveals a versatile ancient core genome” (open access). From the article:
core genomes differed greatly at the gene-level, with no single OG [orthologous group] observed in all 183 core genomes, consistent with previous observations that biochemical functions rather than individual genes tend to be conserved.”
Conservation of function, but not genes, can be understood with an analogy to natural language. Consider two sentences:
The hulking great lorry skirted round an enormous chasm in the roadway.
The massive truck dodged a huge pothole in the street.
The individual words in these sentences — e.g., “lorry” vs. “truck” — are functional synonyms, but not direct variants of each other (such as “color” and “colour”). Varying “lorry” letter by letter will take a LONG way to get to “truck,” with nearly all of the intermediate character strings not referring to large commercial vehicles.
Is conservation of function, without conservation of genes, a TOL prediction? It would seem not.
Physicists still on the quest for JEHOVAH'S Mind?
Barbieri’s Dilemma: Biological Information without Intelligence
Last week, we looked at a most interesting paper, by University of Ferrara theoretical biologist Marcello Barbieri. He was discussing the discomfort biologists feel with the vast amount of information in life forms, which — in the view of many — “does not really belong in science.” The divide, he says, is between biologists who insist that life is chemistry only and those who, like him, see it as chemistry plus information. The problem is obvious: Information is by its nature immaterial. It is measured in bits, not kilograms or joules. It is understood in terms that invoke mathematics and probability more than chemistry and physics.
A physicalist biologist ignores or discounts the role of information. Barbieri wants to show that information is fully compatible with current assumptions in biology. So, in his 2016 paper, he tries his hand at incorporating it into a materialist origin-of-life story:
It comes from the idea that life is artefact-making, that genes and proteins are molecular artefacts manufactured by molecular machines and that artefacts necessarily require sequences and coding rules in addition to the quantities of physics and chemistry. More precisely, it is shown that the production of artefacts requires new observables that are referred to as nominable entities because they can be described only by naming their components in their natural order. From an ontological point of view, in conclusion, information is a nominable entity, a fundamental but not-computable observable.
BARBIERI MARCELLO 2016 WHAT IS INFORMATION? PHIL. TRANS. R. SOC. A.3742015006020150060
HTTP://DOI.ORG/10.1098/RSTA.2015.0060, 13 MARCH 2016
Wait. Artifacts, are made by intelligent, purposeful agents. Almost all artifacts are, of course, developed by humans, using abstract thinking. Some other animals use artifacts in the form of simple tools. But these life forms are not prebiotic chemistry; they are already highly developed life forms.
That Raises a Question
If the James Webb Space Telescope required many human intelligent agents, why should we simply accept that the development of early cells, also complex, could be managed by chemistry alone — when such a development has never happened in nature since? That is, there is no spontaneous generation, as far as know.
Barbieri uses terms like “manufactured” and “naming” freely but they are only meaningful if we suppose intelligent agents. Some may blame the limits of human language for that. But there is a reason why language features those limits: When writing for a serious purpose, we don’t attribute decisions that clearly require intelligence to non-intelligent agents.
A Speculative History
Barbieri sketches a speculative history of the molecular machines that, he argues, preceded life:
The origin of protein life, on the other hand, was a much more complex affair, because proteins cannot be copied and their reproduction required molecular machines that employ a code, machines that have been referred to as codemakers. The evolution of the molecular machines, in short, started with bondmakers, went on to copymakers and finally gave origin to codemakers.
BARBIERI, 2016
It’s an interesting story. It sounds a bit like the history of a human industry. Which again raises the problem: If these makers were themselves unintelligent and non-purposeful, some other entity must have been using them as instruments. Complex, specified artefacts don’t just “happen” to get built. When Barbieri tells us that “The divide between life and matter is real because matter is made of spontaneous objects whereas life is made of manufactured objects,” he sounds like an intelligent design theorist. Unpopular but right.
The resemblance becomes even clearer when he offers,
Both the sequence of nucleotides in a gene and the sequence of letters in a book are carrying information: hereditary information in genes and syntactic information in language. In both cases, the information is digital (because it is made of discrete units) and linear (because the units are arranged in a linear order).
A book? Yes. He cites photos and music as well. Then, “Finally, we can represent letters, numbers, pixels, musical notes and many other symbols with the characters of computer language… ”
Indeed We Can!
Immaterial ideas can be represented in any number of ways. But now, as to the origin of immaterial ideas…
Barbieri, of course, would not want to associate himself with intelligent design theory! Instead, he cites in his defense eminent biologist Ernst Mayr (1904–2005): “There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years!” Also, information theorist Hubert Yockey (1916–2016) who “tirelessly pointed out that no amount of chemical evolution can cross the barrier that divides the analogue world of chemistry from the digital world of life, and concluded from this that the origin of life cannot have been the result of chemical evolution.”
He senses that there is something missing from Yockey’s summation:
At this point, one would expect to hear from Yockey how did linear and digital sequences appear on Earth, but he did not face that issue. He claimed instead that the origin of life is unknowable, in the same sense that there are propositions of logic that are undecidable. This amounts to saying that we do not know how linear and digital entities came into being; all we can say is that they were not the result of spontaneous chemical reactions. The information paradigm, in other words, has not been able to prove its ontological claim, and that is why the chemical paradigm has not been abandoned.
BARBIERI, 2016
Exposing the Problem
In doing so, Barbieri exposes the problem: “Life is chemistry” is an accepted dogmatic proposition that flies in the face of the evidence of large amounts of information in life that did not get there only by chemistry.
But defenders of the evidence for information, like Barbieri, are stymied. Complex, specified information does not originate without underlying intelligence. But the defenders do not wish to acknowledge that intelligence and anyway, they wouldn’t be allowed to. They would be speaking an unspeakable truth and would lose their membership in the establishment.
Therefore, it is said, they have not proved their case. Either the information does not exist or anyway, it can be treated as if it did not. And all is well.
Note: As it happens, intelligent design theorists consider Yockey’s work a “primary contribution to the ID movement,” though an unintentional one, to be sure.
Next and last in this three-part series: Can information be separated from intelligence? Barbieri’s dilemma seems to be that he can’t give information its rightful place in life without acknowledging truths he cannot afford.
Monday, 14 August 2023
On physicists' search for the mind of God.
John Horgan on the Madness of “Scientific Omniscience”
I only saw physics Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg in person once — at Baylor University, in April 2000, at the big conference on “The Nature of Nature” organized by Bill Dembski and Bruce Gordon before the Polanyi Center ran into problems. Weinberg (third from left in the photo above) had the supreme self-confidence of a scientific Alpha Male, leaning on the speaker’s lectern from the side and dismissing design with ill-concealed contempt, except when he got onto the topic of the mysterious value of the cosmological constant. Then he paced the stage from one end to the other, not looking at the audience, muttering to himself and staring at his feet. The cosmological constant definitely bothered him.
Puzzles and Mysteries
Nonetheless, as science writer John Horgan explains in an article, Weinberg was one of the leading promoters of a “final theory” — the bedrock scientific account which would once and for all drive away all the remaining puzzles and mysteries. From, “The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience”:
Does anyone still think science can explain, well, everything? This belief was ascendant in the 1980s, when my career began. Bigshot scientists proclaimed they were solving the riddle of existence. They would explain why our universe exists and takes the form it does, and why we exist and are what we are. …
Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.
I suspect Hawking, who had a wicked sense of humor, was goofing when he riffed on the ultimate theory. The success of Brief History nonetheless inspired copycat books by physicists, including Theories of Everything by John Barrow (1991), The Mind of God by Paul Davies (1992) and Dreams of a Final Theory (1993) by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg.
Weinberg, a deadly serious man, was definitely not kidding when he envisioned a final theory. He argued that with the help of a new “supercollider” in Texas (which ended up being canceled), physicists might soon “bring to an end a certain kind of science, the ancient search for those principles that cannot be explained in terms of deeper principles.” Like Hawking, Weinberg hoped the final theory would crush, once and for all, our superstitious faith in an all-powerful, beneficent deity. “It would be wonderful to find in the laws of nature a plan, prepared by a concerned creator in which human being played some special role,” Weinberg wrote. “I find sadness in doubting that they will.”
Physicists were not the only scientists bewitched by the dream of omniscience.
As examples of “bewitched” scientists, Horgan mentions Peter Atkins, Francis Crick, and Richard Dawkins. Of note, he writes: “As for life, Dawkins’s claim that it is no longer a mystery is absurd. We still don’t have a clue how life began, or whether it exists elsewhere in the cosmos. We don’t know whether our emergence was likely or a once-in-eternity fluke.” Horgan himself bought into the final theory idea, at least for a time. Now he regards the notion as a species of insanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)