noncontingent

  • **
  • 630 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #30 on: October 27, 2020, 08:30:26 am »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s
Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines

1

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24667 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #31 on: October 27, 2020, 08:35:19 am »
^ It still does not follow to only that particular conclusion.

Is it epistemically possible that there was a brute fact that just happened to be something instead of nothing, that a universe happened to have the properties necessary for expansion, that the laws are complex enough (e.g., matter, dark matter) to develop into galaxies, that the fine-tuning parameters for galaxy formation was "just so," that life was in principle possible despite the "just so" fine-tuning, that life as improbable still even with fine-tuning occurred, and that consciousness (a deep mystery that we don't understand) evolved on earth? Sure. But, it's just as epistemically possible that you and Spero are brothers separated at birth (however that would be far more probable). Obviously God has provided enough evidence of His existence.

2

noncontingent

  • **
  • 630 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #32 on: October 27, 2020, 08:41:40 am »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE
Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

3

Spero

  • ***
  • 1366 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #33 on: October 27, 2020, 08:55:00 am »
Quote
..that life as improbable still even with fine-tuning occurred, and that consciousness (a deep mystery that we don't understand) evolved on earth? Sure.
...and that consciousness, endowed with an intellect, and wrapped up in a specific form [body] capable of placing itself on other celestial bodies..also epistemically possible..I guess.
Quote
Obviously God has provided enough evidence of His existence.
I’d say so.

Quote
.. you and Spero are brothers separated at birth..
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

😂 Just kidding, mammal..you’re a good chap!

Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.

- Proverbs 16:18

4

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4808 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #34 on: October 27, 2020, 09:28:16 am »
Is it epistemically possible that there was a brute fact that just happened to be something instead of nothing, that a universe happened to have the properties necessary for expansion, that the laws are complex enough (e.g., matter, dark matter) to develop into galaxies, that the fine-tuning parameters for galaxy formation was "just so," that life was in principle possible despite the "just so" fine-tuning, that life as improbable still even with fine-tuning occurred, and that consciousness (a deep mystery that we don't understand) evolved on earth?
Hahaha, same old Harvey. It is just that we don't all have to jump to a "just so" God explanation.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

5

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24667 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #35 on: October 27, 2020, 09:35:47 am »
Hahaha, same old Harvey. It is just that we don't all have to jump to a "just so" God explanation.

But, then you are contradicting Wolfram who provided an elaborate structure as a necessary "just so" structure. Necessity is the only thing that epistemically allows for just-so-ness having a reasonable explanation.

6

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4808 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #36 on: October 27, 2020, 10:25:50 am »
But, then you are contradicting Wolfram who provided an elaborate structure as a necessary "just so" structure. Necessity is the only thing that epistemically allows for just-so-ness having a reasonable explanation.
I don't think he said that it is a necessary "just so" structure. Anyway there are those who postulate a self-organizing Turing mechanism, in fact it is argued that it is implied by how it functions. Digital physics is perfectly compatible with quantum information. And we then steer back to those same old debates that we've had way too many times. I don't think we should go through that again.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

7

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24667 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #37 on: October 27, 2020, 12:44:50 pm »
I don't think he said that it is a necessary "just so" structure.

Sure he did. He said:

Quote
Then, looking at all possible ways a given rule can update these hypergraphs, we form what we call a multiway graph. The transversals of this graph define what we call branchial space, in which we can see the pattern of entanglements between quantum states.

A pattern that spans all possible ways is another way of saying that this pattern is necessary.

Quote from: Mammal
Anyway there are those who postulate a self-organizing Turing mechanism, in fact it is argued that it is implied by how it functions. Digital physics is perfectly compatible with quantum information. And we then steer back to those same old debates that we've had way too many times. I don't think we should go through that again.

But, why is the universe mathematical? Wolfram says:

Quote
It turns out that there’s a nice mathematical characterization of rulial multiway graphs for Turing machines: they’re just Cayley graphs of groups that we can call “Turing machine groups”. Why is this? Basically it’s because the possible configurations of a Turing machine have a direct correspondence with transformations that can act on these configurations.

When we ask this fundamental question we see that even in Wolfram's view all of algorithms of math exist eternally prior to the physical universe. This infinite collection of math theorems, corollaries, etc. make up God's natural knowledge and are part of the mind of God.

8

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4808 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #38 on: October 28, 2020, 12:53:06 am »
Yes, yes, but the last bit still does not follow; that part is your own personal conclusion. We are pretty sure we live in a world constructed and operated by quantum properties and mechanisms and we agree that the mathematical constructs that we have devised seem to capture, explain or decode much of nature. It is not to say mathematics per se is a fundamental property, or divinely encoded. If you believe that our space-time universe is fundamental, well then you might have a point. I don't.

PS. And you seem to have missed Dennett's point completely.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2020, 01:11:46 am by Mammal »
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

9

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24667 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #39 on: October 28, 2020, 05:16:41 am »
It is not to say mathematics per se is a fundamental property, or divinely encoded. If you believe that our space-time universe is fundamental, well then you might have a point. I don't.

The key phrases is that his view rests on "all possible ways" and "there’s a nice mathematical characterization." You can't argue that space is what it is because of this mathematical order of all posible ways and equally it is contingent space-time being fundamental because those are two contradictory concepts. One is purely conceptual in terms of pure mathematical patterns not violating math axioms and the other is just whatever it hapoens to be but not constrained by being the only possibility (a contingent brute fact). The former is theistic based because necessity derives from purely semantic grounds which implies a cognitive ground or foundation to all that there is, while the latter refers to a last Thursday beginning which is whatever it happens to be. It could be atheistic or it could just as well include Swinburne's view of God and nature.

Quote from: Mammal
PS. And you seem to have missed Dennett's point completely.

How so? We haven't even touched on natural selection. We've been discussing metaphysics.

10

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4808 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #40 on: October 28, 2020, 07:00:13 am »
Meh.. I really don't want to revisit all that again. As an aside, there is good reason to think that mathematics is not fundamental, incl. at least one theory that I know of that shows that it does not need to be. Don't confuse quantum mechanisms with the need for mathematical theorems, and such. That is not what Wolfram was saying, afaik.

Here is my take on what is being conveyed by both these articles. The Turing mechanism could be viewed as an abstraction of a property of nature whereby "complexity" - perhaps as a measure of information/energy utilization - gets copied and enhanced every step of the way. Wolfram deals specifically with it's layered functioning within our *manifested* universe. I'll get back to this just now.

What Dennett is basically illustrating is that if we assume that a robot is the next level humanoid in a similar manner than a super computer is a next level basic computer, then we could reverse engineer and unpack it backwards, like this:
Super computer / AI - copied and enhanced from -
Basic computer functions - copied and enhanced from -
Human functions, cognition, mind  - copied and enhanced from -
Primates - copied and enhanced from -
All predating organisms - copied and enhanced from -
First living organisms - copied and enhanced from -
DNA - copied and enhanced from -
Building blocks of life - copied and enhanced from -
Etc.

Similarly, if we use Wolfram's very nicely illustrated and explained article, we could read into that:
Ultra high definition layer of the simulation of our universe - copied and enhanced from -
High definition layer " " " " " " - copied and enhanced from -
Intermediate definition layer " " - copied and enhanced from -
Micro cosmic interactions that basically set the ground rules on which this simulation works that themselves are governed by a quantum entangled state of affairs (as you rightly pointed out).
See how this fits in with that other by now familiar idea of the holographic universe based on entanglement/AdS/CFT correspondence.

Somewhere the above two reverse-engineered sequences get together at the same level of e.g. atoms (as Wolfram's schematics show), fundamental particles, fundamental forces, QFT and all that, i.e. the bottom line of our simulation.

Interestingly enough, however, is that somebody like Sean Carroll proposes that cosmic inflation (the process by which this simulation has manifested) was in itself driven by something like digital physics, i.e. another and even more basic level of quantum informational computation. Which according to him could be further reverse-engineered to even more fundamental and simpler quantum operators.

By now you get the picture and we end up where we always do. The problem with your thinking though is that you insist on a mind and an already ultra high level of complexity at the start, whereas Carroll does not think that is necessary .. and whereas Dennett puts the mind at a much higher level Turing mechanism .. after having been repeatedly copied and enhanced .. and possibly just an intermediate stage in itself to the next level, AI.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2020, 07:53:32 am by Mammal »
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

11

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24667 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #41 on: October 28, 2020, 07:53:44 am »
Don't confuse quantum mechanisms with the need for mathematical theorems, and such. That is not what Wolfram was saying, afaik.

He wasn't limiting nature to just a quantum theory. Why quantum? Why not zuantum, muantum, buamtum, etc.? He was dealing with the limitations of patterns which has a mathematical background to it.

Quote from: Mammal
By now you get the picture and we end up where we always do. The problem with your thinking though is that you insist on a mind and an already ultra high level of complexity at the start, whereas Carroll does not think that is necessary .. and whereas Dennett puts the mind at a much higher level Turing mechanism .. after having been repeatedly copied and enhanced .. and possibly just an intermediate stage in itself to the next level, AI.

The reason I put a mind at the start is because when we consider necessity as all possible rules or all possible patterns we are discussing a semantic theory of truth which requires a concept of satisfaction which surely implies a mind that is satisfied by that truth. To avoid that option you need a last Thursday approach where the beginning state is stuff existing for no reason which is contingent. If we go with a B-theory, as Carroll is high on, then this contingent stuff is the universal wave function of the universe which includes everything and all time (including this discussion) existing for no reason. It's last Thursdayism on super steroids.

12

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4808 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #42 on: October 28, 2020, 08:14:02 am »
The reason I put a mind at the start is because when we consider necessity as all possible rules or all possible patterns we are discussing a semantic theory of truth which requires a concept of satisfaction which surely implies a mind that is satisfied by that truth.
No, we don't require a "mind". You anthropomorphize nature. Think of it as a quantum (informational) schema. The above is your theory and it is not something that everybody agree on. If we have this kind of copy and enhance process on top of a quantum informational state of affairs, we are all good. Nowhere does Wolfram mention the need for a mind.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

13

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24667 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #43 on: October 28, 2020, 08:17:08 am »
No, we don't require a "mind". You anthropomorphize nature. Think of it as a quantum (informational) schema. The above is your theory and it is not something that everybody agree on. If we have this kind of copy and enhance process on top of a quantum informational state of affairs, we are all good. Nowhere does Wolfram mention the need for a mind.

It's a hidden assumption in semantic theories if we're talking about an objective truth.

14

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4808 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #44 on: October 28, 2020, 08:27:30 am »
Well ok, but what Dennett is saying is that we can unpack a mind into its "mechanistic" functions. That is exactly how the Turing machine came into play that then developed into the computer. So if we rewind and unpack "mind" we get to the fundamental mechanisms that I am referring to under my scenario. So, we are saying the same thing. So maybe God is just your human enhancement.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God