Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #60 on: October 28, 2020, 01:06:42 pm »
You guys know that Gall's law is a simplistic aphorism along the lines of Murphy's law, right?

I get the impression that it is being taken much more seriously than is warranted.

I didn't know that. I'm just using the term Gall state since it's easy to refer to it than saying "the most fundamental state of reality by which everything comes from it."

1

Gordon Tubbs

  • ****
  • 5446 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #61 on: October 28, 2020, 02:48:08 pm »
You guys know that evolution is just a biological theory right? I get the impression that it is being taken much more seriously than is warranted, which is to say: applied to contexts outside biology without the same quality and quantity of evidence that biology has brought to the table.

It is the naturalist who is positing a simple state that evolves and gives rise to the complexity and structure we observe in the Universe. Gall's Law tells us what that state ought to be like: a simple system of no less than two parts. The naturalist-qua-physicalist requires a Gall State of this kind, because something has to interact with something to get everything.

Can the Gall State be more complex (consisting of more parts) than that? Sure. But if the Gall State can be more complex than theorized by Gall's Law, then this undercuts accusations of divine complexity against theism (e.g. "who designed the designer?"). Can it be simpler (consisting of one part)? Sure. But this gives the theist an edge over naturalism, because only God (as a being with one property) could sufficiently explain the Universe.

This dilemma is of the naturalist's making, and the solution is to abandon physicalism and accept that some non-physical being guides the cosmic order, or accept that the Gall State can be more complex (>2 parts) than theorized. Call it how you see it.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2020, 02:54:18 pm by Gordon Tubbs »
Ordained Minister of the Word and Sacrament (PCUSA)
Regent University, Master of Divinity (Chaplain Ministry)
US Navy (Active 2004-2009, Reserves 2012-2018)

2

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4822 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #62 on: October 28, 2020, 11:23:50 pm »
It is the naturalist who is positing a simple state that evolves and gives rise to the complexity and structure we observe in the Universe. Gall's Law tells us what that state ought to be like: a simple system of no less than two parts. The naturalist-qua-physicalist requires a Gall State of this kind, because something has to interact with something to get everything.
Hi Gordon, that is exactly what I provided in my last post. Harvey's objection though is that my simple state is contingent and could be something else. I am saying, like Carroll, that nature is inherently quantum and as such exists in it's simplest state in a native Hilbert configuration and basically that:
Energy is space moving, space is energy at rest.

That's your simplest quantum system, right there. The uncertainty of the value, or position, at any given point and the probabilities associated with it. According to Carroll that is sufficient to get nature going.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

3

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4822 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #63 on: October 29, 2020, 12:20:59 am »
Quote from: Mammal
Your counter will be why Hilbert, why quantum, my response will be why God, you will counter because God is necessary, I will respond that you cannot just insert the generic name God, assume that it is a theistic Jesus kind and be done with it. Nope.
I'm not inserting a generic name. I'm providing a semantic theory that must have certain necessary properties needed for satisfaction (e.g., omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence). These properties are necessary because even the lack of such a Gall state refers back to that same Gall state having to exist. That's what necessitarians assert about the laws of logic. Any absence of those laws can only be described with those laws as being present. Thus, these laws are necessary and don't require humans or natural selection to lead to their construction or invention in order to exist.
See my post in response to Gordon above (also in answer to the first part of your post that I did not quote here as we had that discussion many times and I don't want to repeat it).

As for this here, I have said from the outset that if you want an additional "just so" God explanation for a "just so" natural beginning, then that's up to you. That is where we don't agree and never will. It does not matter how you try to sell it to me, in essence you are asserting that there must be what you call a necessary God to account for the first cause. And I don't need to buy into that. Neither do naturalists and scientists. We have all the omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence in the form of a quantum system that we need to account for what follows. We don't need to call that system God.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

4

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #64 on: October 29, 2020, 07:38:13 am »
See my post in response to Gordon above (also in answer to the first part of your post that I did not quote here as we had that discussion many times and I don't want to repeat it).

Quote
I am saying, like Carroll, that nature is inherently quantum and as such exists in it's simplest state in a native Hilbert configuration and basically that:
Energy is space moving, space is energy at rest.

Even Carroll says his beginning state is contingent, whereas you keep conflating a "simple state" with a necessary state. If a "simple state" is contingent, then it doesn't answer any questions as to why there is something instead of nothing. I put simple state on scare quotes because in reality this is a highly complex state that programmers cannot even begin to imagine how to simulate it in a cyber environment. It is extremely complex with very sophisticated rules, so it's not at all simple. Carrol's view is absurdly complex since he involves multiple universes being in superposition as part of a universal wave function. If B-theory is correct, which Carrol is favorable to, then you have this discussion happening an infinite number of times with an infinite number of differences all cojoining to form this "simple state." It's completely ridiculous. But, don't let me stop you from believing it. However, you shouldn't mislead people with this notion that you are peddling a "simple state" beginning. You absolutely are not. It's the most unimaginably complex state one can at least try to imagine.

Quote from: Mammal
As for this here, I have said from the outset that if you want an additional "just so" God explanation for a "just so" natural beginning, then that's up to you. That is where we don't agree and never will. It does not matter how you try to sell it to me, in essence you are asserting that there must be what you call a necessary God to account for the first cause. And I don't need to buy into that. Neither do naturalists and scientists.

There are many scientists, even Nobel Prize winning scientists who believe in God, so nice try. There are naturalists of course who reject God, but nowadays they are starting to back away from traditional naturalism too. We saw this in Wolfram's paper where he rejected traditional naturalism and embrassed Platonism. Plato was a theist and there are reasons for that.

Quote from: Mammal
We have all the omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence in the form of a quantum system that we need to account for what follows. We don't need to call that system God.

Cough ***Last Thursdayism** Cough.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2020, 07:40:59 am by Harvey »

5

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4822 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #65 on: October 29, 2020, 10:39:10 am »
Even Carroll says his beginning state is contingent, whereas you keep conflating a "simple state" with a necessary state. If a "simple state" is contingent, then it doesn't answer any questions as to why there is something instead of nothing. I put simple state on scare quotes because in reality this is a highly complex state that programmers cannot even begin to imagine how to simulate it in a cyber environment. It is extremely complex with very sophisticated rules, so it's not at all simple. Carrol's view is absurdly complex since he involves multiple universes being in superposition as part of a universal wave function. If B-theory is correct, which Carrol is favorable to, then you have this discussion happening an infinite number of times with an infinite number of differences all cojoining to form this "simple state." It's completely ridiculous. But, don't let me stop you from believing it. However, you shouldn't mislead people with this notion that you are peddling a "simple state" beginning. You absolutely are not. It's the most unimaginably complex state one can at least try to imagine.
Carroll's view on this has changed and evolved a bit and what you are referring to is something he wrote about in his most recent book, if I am not mistaken, which is a bit controversial (and something that we could put aside as a more advanced higher order SOA). However, I was not referring to this particular state of affairs, but rather to an earlier position that he took about the bare minimum state of affairs needed for a basic native quantum state. He even specifically mentioned that it does not require anything more than this - no codes, no math's, no formula's, nada. He also has a very simple schematic to illustrate it, which is in a PowerPoint presentation that I linked in previous threads. This is the idea that I am talking about, a very simple native state without all the complex formula's we think of when we work with QM from our framework.

So if we assume such minimalistic state, we have a Qubit that represents a quantum state Q having 2 ground states {0,1} in a two dimensional Hilbert space. But, whereas a total of 4 different transformations can explain all possible transformations of a random bit, a Qubit can be transformed in infinitely many ways. And therein lies it's potency if you consider the implications of the Turing mechanism that we have discussed so far.

So it is not completely ridiculous and unimaginably complex. It is extremely simple, yet with immense potency.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

6

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #66 on: October 29, 2020, 02:02:02 pm »
This is the idea that I am talking about, a very simple native state without all the complex formula's we think of when we work with QM from our framework.

But of course if it were simple then you wouldn't have the explosive complexity that we see coming from this quantum Gall state. Also, if it were simple you wouldn't have the complex quantum theory that cannot be programmed because it is too complex. And, why *that* as the Gall state instead of a 3D Euclidean state having nothing in it? If you're just gonna say that your quantum Hilbert state is simpler than a 3D Euclidean state, or the 3D Euclidean state requires mass-energy to exist, then you're missing the point as to why your quantum Hilbert space is contingent.

Quote from: Mammal
So if we assume such minimalistic state, we have a Qubit that represents a quantum state Q having 2 ground states {0,1} in a two dimensional Hilbert space. But, whereas a total of 4 different transformations can explain all possible transformations of a random bit, a Qubit can be transformed in infinitely many ways. And therein lies it's potency if you consider the implications of the Turing mechanism that we have discussed so far.

Why qubits instead of tribits, quadbits, no bits, etc.? You're engaging in Last Thursdayism and seem completely unaware you are doing it.

7

wonderer

  • *****
  • 15146 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #67 on: October 29, 2020, 05:38:53 pm »
It is the naturalist who is positing a simple state that evolves and gives rise to the complexity and structure we observe in the Universe.

In my case, only in the weakest sense of "posit".  (I.e. suggesting it is worth considering.)  I don't have any need to pretend to myself that I have the explanation for how everything began.  I'm with Richard Feynman:

"You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things. But I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit; if I can't figure it out, then I go onto something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell -- possibly. It doesn't frighten me. [smiles]"

The reason I think that a simple origin of the universe merits consideration, is the clear pattern one sees with knowledge of the sciences, of complex things supervening on simpler things, everywhere you look.

Quote
Gall's Law tells us what that state ought to be like: a simple system of no less than two parts. The naturalist-qua-physicalist requires a Gall State of this kind, because something has to interact with something to get everything.

Nah.  "Gall's law" is an aphorism relevant to humans designing things. (e.g. engineering and computer programming)  And even in those sorts of endeavors, the "law" is far from universally true.  I design somewhat complex things, and sometimes I've wished that I started with something simpler, and other times my design just works.  The difference seems to be largely a matter of the percentage of unknowns that can be eliminated prior to committing to a design.  In some cases the  feasibility of minimizing the unknowns early in the process is easier than in other cases.

Applying Gall's law to cosmology doesn't make sense to me.  On the other hand, recognizing the seeming universality, of complex things supervening on simpler things, warrants consideration when it comes to cosmology.

Quote
Can the Gall State be more complex (consisting of more parts) than that? Sure. But if the Gall State can be more complex than theorized by Gall's Law, then this undercuts accusations of divine complexity against theism (e.g. "who designed the designer?"). Can it be simpler (consisting of one part)? Sure. But this gives the theist an edge over naturalism, because only God (as a being with one property) could sufficiently explain the Universe.

The thing is, you don't have any explanation for how a god could cause the universe to exist that amounts to anything much better than, "Magic!".   So why commit to an explanation at all?  See the Feynman quote again.

Quote
This dilemma is of the naturalist's making, and the solution is to abandon physicalism and accept that some non-physical being guides the cosmic order, or accept that the Gall State can be more complex (>2 parts) than theorized. Call it how you see it.

There really is no dilemma for me, since I don't feel a need to believe I have an explanation for the origin of the universe.  Furthermore, I don't see any reason to think that you have a better basis for claiming knowledge of an explanation than I do.

I don't rule out the possibility that the explanation is complex, like Tod, or something simple that I can't even imagine.  So I disagree that, "the solution is to abandon physicalism and accept that some non-physical being guides the cosmic order",  To me it seems more reasonable to simply admit that I don't know what the explanation is.
"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger

8

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4822 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #68 on: October 30, 2020, 12:20:01 am »
Just something that I would like to make clear from what wonderer wrote above, especially the first part of his post. First of all, the reason why we are having an extended discussion in this thread is because of what he touched on in the last paragraph of the first section of the post. It is because the theists were claiming, as usual, that there is no way that naturalism can account for the *apparent* teleology towards complexity in nature, also that it implies some (divine) "mind" behind everything. At which time I brought in the example of the Turing mechanism and as the discussion developed, I had to show more about its potential and the Dennett opinion to refute said notion.

Having said all that, I am not claiming to know that the Turing mechanism is the ultimate explanation, neither am I claiming that everything that Carroll has put forward must be true and the only explanation for how the universe came to be what it is.

My approach is to illustrate that there are indeed ways in which nature itself could account for the *apparent* teleology towards complexity in nature. Furthermore, also to show that such complexity does not need to exist at the bottom layer (a divine mind) where I simply use Carroll's theory as something that I am familiar with that shows that it could indeed be a very simple starting state of affairs.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

9

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4822 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #69 on: October 30, 2020, 01:15:49 am »
But of course if it were simple then you wouldn't have the explosive complexity that we see coming from this quantum Gall state. Also, if it were simple you wouldn't have the complex quantum theory that cannot be programmed because it is too complex. And, why *that* as the Gall state instead of a 3D Euclidean state having nothing in it? If you're just gonna say that your quantum Hilbert state is simpler than a 3D Euclidean state, or the 3D Euclidean state requires mass-energy to exist, then you're missing the point as to why your quantum Hilbert space is contingent.
No, as I already showed and as that particular Carroll hypothesis shows, you could indeed have the explosive complexity that we see coming from such a quantum ground state.

I have used the term "native" repeatedly, also "inherently". You don't seem to catch that at all. We know we live in a quantum world, so I am agreeing with Carroll that we should look at the world in it's most innate quantum guise. If that is so, we should be ok to assume that fundamental innate quantumness exists in the form of energy as space in motion, space as energy at rest.

If we fast forward along with the Turing mechanism, we get to today's classical biological organism, a human (brain), who is able to detect the universe's underlying quantum structure. And in the process human scientists have formulated all sorts of mathematical equations and theorems and such to be able to explain how quantumness apparently works, among other things to refer to the native quantum environment as a "Hilbert" space. So that then the answer to your question.

Quote from: Harvey
Why qubits instead of tribits, quadbits, no bits, etc.? You're engaging in Last Thursdayism and seem completely unaware you are doing it.
Because that is what scientists call those properties that function in that particular manner.

I don't care much for the Last Thursdayism. You keep on referring to it, but it is still a cheap shot. It has already been debunked for you by someone else in another thread a while ago. Furthermore, you keep on bringing it up and argue that we need to avoid it and the only way is to accept that a metaphysical necessary God must exist with a semantic theory of truth and what have you. But, I don't. I don't subscribe to that particular set of rules. I.m.o. Last Thursdayism is not avoided by simply positing a generic supernatural God.

PS. By adding God, we simply rephrase the same hypothetical questions to why did God use Hilbert space, why did God use qubits, why did God use a Turing mechanism? And you seem to be satisfied with accepting that God might have used those same mechanisms; maybe because your evolved human Turing mechanism believes that its latest MGB God enhancement (as it will tend to do) must be better equipped than nature because you have now given it aseity, a mind, and omni's..
« Last Edit: October 30, 2020, 05:38:05 am by Mammal »
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

10

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #70 on: October 30, 2020, 09:04:34 am »
No, as I already showed and as that particular Carroll hypothesis shows, you could indeed have the explosive complexity that we see coming from such a quantum ground state.

Because it is not a simple state. A simple state requires a few lines of code to simulate. Here is a moderately complex state requiring about 100 lines of code in Python (so machine language maybe a few thousand instructions):



Now, programming just a quantum-mechanical simulation (not even considering quantum gravity) requires an immense number of instructions. It's been done such as here but it is perhaps just as complex as a car or airplane. If you add quantum gravity to the mix it is far more complex.

Quote from: Mammal
I have used the term "native" repeatedly, also "inherently". You don't seem to catch that at all. We know we live in a quantum world, so I am agreeing with Carroll that we should look at the world in it's most innate quantum guise. If that is so, we should be ok to assume that fundamental innate quantumness exists in the form of energy as space in motion, space as energy at rest.

That's irrelevant because all contingent beginning states have no reason to be in that particular state versus any other. Of course, if it is a state describable by a few lines of code then it seems like it could be a reasonable beginning point so I could accept that as a beginning point. But, you want us to assume a contingent state that is far beyond our ability to program which is absurd. Why not just say it was a last Thursday state if you're assuming that level of beginning complexity?

Quote from: Mammal
I don't care much for the Last Thursdayism. You keep on referring to it, but it is still a cheap shot. It has already been debunked for you by someone else in another thread a while ago.

Tom accepted it as epistemically possible but objected to its silliness. But, that's the point. It's silly to introduce thousands or millions or billions of properties to a beginning state unless you can show why those properties necessarily exist from some simple set of logical principles. Otherwise you are committing this last Thursday fallacy. The fact that atheists cannot see this is just astounding.

Quote from: Mammal
By adding God, we simply rephrase the same hypothetical questions to why did God use Hilbert space, why did God use qubits, why did God use a Turing mechanism? And you seem to be satisfied with accepting that God might have used those same mechanisms; maybe because your evolved human Turing mechanism believes that its latest MGB God enhancement (as it will tend to do) must be better equipped than nature because you have now given it aseity, a mind, and omni's..

Quantum properties are a result of symmetries as Victor Stenger often argued. But, that adds more evidence of God because symmetries are based on an observer's perspective which just adds evidence for a God existing and basing the laws of the universe on mathematical symmetries.

11

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4822 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #71 on: October 30, 2020, 10:21:22 am »
Because it is not a simple state.
...
That's irrelevant because all contingent beginning states have no reason to be in that particular state versus any other.
Before I waste more time on the rest of the post, I already explained what the simple state of a qubit entails. Do you really want to argue this point? Do you need me to again show you what Carroll's position is on this?

Also, just elaborate what would the beginning state be contingent on?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2020, 10:40:06 am by Mammal »
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

12

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #72 on: October 30, 2020, 10:56:30 am »
Before I waste more time on the rest of the post, I already explained what the simple state of a qubit entails. Do you really want to argue this point? Do you need me to again show you what Carroll's position is on this?

Thousands of lines of code is not a simple state. Look, if it's so simple then just code and run the simulation. Let me know how it goes.

Quote from: Mammal
Also, just elaborate what would the beginning state be contingent on?

Contingent brute fact states aren't contingent on anything, that's why they are contingent brute facts.

13

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4822 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #73 on: October 30, 2020, 11:05:18 am »
Thousands of lines of code is not a simple state. Look, if it's so simple then just code and run the simulation. Let me know how it goes.

Contingent brute fact states aren't contingent on anything, that's why they are contingent brute facts.
But, nothing about the qubit explanation a page back, or Carroll's SOA suggests thousand lines of codes. I specifically said as much. Why are we stuck here?

Right, so it is "contingent" on the brute factness of the innateness of the first-cause SOA..?

PS. The fact that you challenge me to run codes to simulate it, shows you have not yet got my point about innate, or native quantumness.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2020, 11:16:09 am by Mammal »
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

14

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Pretty much every book I've read on evolution
« Reply #74 on: October 30, 2020, 12:37:14 pm »
But, nothing about the qubit explanation a page back, or Carroll's SOA suggests thousand lines of codes. I specifically said as much. Why are we stuck here?

You are not dealing with the reality that quantum foundations has not deduced quantum mechanics as a result of qubits (the principle of superposition).:

Quote
Contrary to other physical theories, such as general relativity, the defining axioms of quantum theory are quite ad hoc, with no obvious physical intuition. . . There exist different approaches to resolve this conceptual gap. . . Some of the counter-intuitive aspects of quantum theory, as well as the difficulty to extend it, follow from the fact that its defining axioms lack a physical motivation. . . The physical principles proposed so far include no-signalling,[21] Non-Trivial Communication Complexity,[22] No-Advantage for Nonlocal computation,[23] Information Causality,[24] Macroscopic Locality,[25] and Local Orthogonality. . . The drawback of the device-independent approach is that, even when taken together, all the afore-mentioned physical principles do not suffice to single out the set of quantum correlations.[27] In other words: all such reconstructions are partial.

In other words, you need a great deal of complexity to reproduce quantum mechanics. And, you still need quantum gravity which must give you QED, QCD, quantum chemistry, and not to mention GRT, SRT, and the classical theories. You're waving a magical wand and you seem oblivious to that fact.

Quote from: Mammal
Right, so it is "contingent" on the brute factness of the innateness of the first-cause SOA..?

No. It's contingent meaning there is no reason and no cause for one physical state to have been the case when any other physical state could have perfectly worked as a beginning state had it simply been that state.

Quote from: Mammal
PS. The fact that you challenge me to run codes to simulate it, shows you have not yet got my point about innate, or native quantumness.

I don't think you got the point of what Gordon was referring to a Gall state. If it's contingent then nothing about that state makes it innate other than this is the state by which things evolved from. Innateness doesn't mean anything here.