Lastly, to the alien theory.
You might point out that my version outlined in my previous posts could just as well be describing some alien intelligence but there is a difference - at least from my point of view.
The alien proposal seems to have been put forward as yet another way of constraining the creation and evolution of life within a materialistic worldview. As such, it just kicks the can down the road. In my view, the creative entities are spiritual and, while being creatively independent and possessing free will, are nevertheless part of the spiritual whole that we call God. Creation happens within, not without. The stuff of creation is the same stuff as the intelligence that gives form.
(2020-10-04, 08:36 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Cosmological fine tuning ensures that there is a universe in which life can exist. We might say the same about ecological fine tuning on this planet. At some point, evolution takes over and evolution seems to include at least some weighting and some intelligent action according to gathered information. Tweaks in variables, as you say. Epigenetics seems to point to this from my limited understanding.
So is the fine tuning evidence of design? I don't see another explanation although I am not in favour of the omniscient designer at His drawing board - just too simplistic and fantastical for my sensibilities. I am more in favour of an evolved group consciousness working towards a goal - a goal perhaps determined by the ultimate source but an evolutionary scenario set in motion by some advanced group entity. I see no reason why self-organisation and information feedback shouldn't be incorporated to ensure teleological evolution.
Well I'd say there's some group of entities that designed the cosmos, finely tuning the variables at the outset. "Gods" perhaps.
And then some other entities with much less vision/power who mucked about with evolution, given there's nothing "fine" IMO about the abundance of death and suffering it takes to move along the evolutionary ladder.
I think the challenge with the latter is that it is very hard, IMO, to exactly explain & defend stuff like protein folding times and even irreducible complexity. That being said subjectiveness isn't going to be explained via materialist evolution, nor will the grasping of mathematical/logical universals. So at least there we can say there was either an intervention or these aspects of mind were always there but evolution was directed to manifest them.
(2020-10-04, 09:00 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Lastly, to the alien theory.
You might point out that my version outlined in my previous posts could just as well be describing some alien intelligence but there is a difference - at least from my point of view.
The alien proposal seems to have been put forward as yet another way of constraining the creation and evolution of life within a materialistic worldview. As such, it just kicks the can down the road. In my view, the creative entities are spiritual and, while being creatively independent and possessing free will, are nevertheless part of the spiritual whole that we call God. Creation happens within, not without. The stuff of creation is the same stuff as the intelligence that gives form.
Well a materialist could very well posit aliens for most of what IDers offer up as evidence. In fact
Dembski himself gives it an option among others:
Quote:ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien, a computional [sic] simulator (a la THE MATRIX), a Platonic demiurge, a Stoic seminal reason, an impersonal telic process, …, or the infinite personal transcendent creator God of Christianity? The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide. But that’s not to say the designer is anonymous. I’m a Christian, so the designer’s identity is clear, at least to me. But even to identify the designer with the Christian God is not to say that any particular instance of design in nature is directly the work of his hands.
It seems to me that the
"Stoic seminal reason" and
"impersonal telic process" options don't even involve a designer of any kind? And how can the identity of the designer be clear to Dembski, if the instances of design in nature are not the work of
"His hands"? Aren't those instances of design the very evidence IDers are offering us?
Dembski's argument here seems quite muddled to me.
OTOH we have, IMO, much simpler to comprehend arguments that tell us materialist-only evolution doesn't get you to mind. And those impossibilities cannot be bridged by aliens, no matter how advanced their technology. But once you have mental characteristics includ[ed] I do believe aliens could make every adjustment that IDers have offered as evidence. And apparently Dembski agrees with me on that?
A couple of examples in detail of the two classes of "fine tuning" are the carbon resonance, and photosynthesis.
The carbon resonance, a very good example of fine tuning in the laws of physics (from
https://salvomag.com/article/salvo46/the...le-element ):
Quote:"Stars fuse carbon and oxygen from helium through a series of reactions known as the triple-alpha process, in which three helium nuclei are combined to make one carbon nucleus. In the first step in this process, two helium nuclei (with 2 protons each) fuse together to make beryllium (which has 4 protons). Next, a helium nucleus fuses with a beryllium nucleus to make carbon (which has 6 protons). Then, some carbon nuclei fuse with helium nuclei to make oxygen (which has 8 protons).
The only reason that the triple-alpha process produces any carbon or oxygen at all is because in the first step, the ground state energy level (i.e., the state of an atom when all of its electrons are at their lowest energy levels) of the beryllium-8 nucleus (containing 4 protons and 4 neutrons) almost exactly equals the ground state energy level of two helium-4 nuclei (2 protons and 2 neutrons each). In the second step, the ground state energy level of a beryllium-8 nucleus plus a helium-4 nucleus almost exactly equals the energy level of an excited state of a carbon-12 nucleus (6 protons and 6 neutrons). In the third step, the ground state energy level of a carbon-12 nucleus at 7.65 million electron volts is just slightly larger than the ground state energy level of an oxygen-16 nucleus (8 protons and 8 neutrons) at 7.12 million electron volts.1
If it were not for the near equivalences or resonances of the nuclear energy levels of two helium nuclei relative to a beryllium nucleus, and of a beryllium nucleus plus a helium nucleus relative to a carbon nucleus, the universe would contain very little or no carbon and very little or no elements heavier than carbon. Life would be impossible.
Furthermore, unless the difference in the nuclear energy levels between a carbon nucleus and an oxygen nucleus were precisely 0.53 million electron volts, the universe would contain either a lot of carbon and no oxygen or a lot of oxygen and no carbon. Either way, physical life would be impossible in the universe."
Fine-tuning in biology - one of many irreducibly complex biological (biochemical) systems of great sophistication and complexity is photosynthesis (derived and paraphrased from comments at
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...y-complex/ ):
Quote:In sum, photosynthesis is a process that converts sunlight into energy ultimately used by the cell with nearly 100% quantum efficiency. This critical biological process depends on some very elaborate and rapid chemistry involving a series of enormously large and complex molecules - a set of complex molecular systems all working together. The complex that accomplishes this feat requires 188 genes to construct. Molecular phylogenetics has produced no evidence of evolution, as you can produce 188 different trees of how it was produced.
There is no question about photosynthesis being irreducibly complex. It's finely tuned. Take away or significantly alter parts of this very complex mechanism and it stops working. But it’s worse than that from an evolutionary perspective. There are 17 enzymes alone involved in the synthesis of chlorophyll. Are we to believe that all intermediates had selective value? Not when some of them form triplet states that have the same effect as free radicals like O2. In addition if chlorophyll evolved before antenna proteins, whose function is to bind chlorophyll, then chlorophyll would be toxic to cells. Yet the binding function explains the selective value of antenna proteins. Why would such proteins evolve prior to chlorophyll and if they did not how would cells survive chlorophyll until they did?
Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT), that is, co-option by the target organism of subsystems developed by other organisms, is supposed by evolutionary biologists to have made a major contribution to evolution of irreducibly complex systems like this - the only possible explanation besides design. There are fundamental problems however.
One problem with HGT is that it can never be demonstrated. It is just this magical event ("just-so story") that is proposed to have happened in the past where 188 genes came together, with slight modifications, to create an energy gathering mechanism of an astonishing 100% efficiency."
The biggest problem is that parts of a very complicated whole need to be fitted together. They must all have useful, selectable functions in their donor organisms. But wait a minute - they developed independently and are very unlikely to be compatible.
For example, if three societies independently developed technologies (or spelling/language for that matter) and then combined their resources, it would be very unlikely that there would be much compatibility between the groups.
The linear measures would be different. The nuts and bolts would have different threads and different diameters. The electrical equipment would have different voltages and if AC would work at different frequencies, to name but a few problems. This problem was early pointed out by Michael Behe, and in effect vastly extends the required time for the Darwinistic mechanism.
In the former case (the laws of physics), it seems that the only two options are design or a multiverse. In the latter case (biology), it seems the only two options are design or some sort of slow haphazard Darwinistic process. In the physics fine-tuning case, the multiverse hypothesis is untenable for many reasons especially because it is not science and therefore not even a hypothesis, being unobservable and unfalsifiable, in addition to just requiring a further level of fine tuning and so on. In the biology fine-tuning case, analysis shows that the conventional Darwinian mechanism just doesn't have the ability to achieve such fine-tuning over anywhere near the required period of time indicated by the fossil record.
The bottom line is that the two examples are very different in nature, but both are certainly fine-tuning in the sense of systems that when examined in detail exhibit a very high level of optimization for their function. The alternatives to design are in both cases untenable for various different reasons, leaving design as most likely. The nature of the designers is a very different issue and probably can't be resolved at our level of knowledge and/or intelligence.
(2020-10-04, 09:28 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Well I'd say there's some group of entities that designed the cosmos, finely tuning the variables at the outset. "Gods" perhaps.
And then some other entities with much less vision/power who mucked about with evolution, given there's nothing "fine" IMO about the abundance of death and suffering it takes to move along the evolutionary ladder.
I think the challenge with the latter is that it is very hard, IMO, to exactly explain & defend stuff like protein folding times and even irreducible complexity. That being said subjectiveness isn't going to be explained via materialist evolution, nor will the grasping of mathematical/logical universals. So at least there we can say there was either an intervention or these aspects of mind were always there but evolution was directed to manifest them.
It seems to me from this and previous posts that your views are somewhat related to the gnostic demiurge, considered variously as ignorant or evil
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent...s_ignorant
(2020-10-05, 01:24 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me from this and previous posts that your views are somewhat related to the gnostic demiurge, considered variously as ignorant or evil
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent...s_ignorant
Well the Fine Tuner wouldn't necessarily be a Demiurge, but I suppose the Evolution Editor could be.
But I wouldn't infer that the Evolution Editor enjoys suffering, and of course it's possible what we see is more driven by souls incarnating into these forms and pushing the evolutionary drive.
I guess another way to combine the disparate designers is to say all incarnating beings created this reality, and then decided to enter into playing within it. The slow awakening from matter to energy back to spirit is what accounts for the evolutionary jumps.
Gnosticism is interesting, but AFAIK no deceased afterlife communication confirms it, nor does any spirit communication of any other kind tell us the whole of reality is a prison.
(2020-10-05, 01:56 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]nor does any spirit communication of any other kind tell us the whole of reality is a prison.
Actually, I suppose Ufology could suggest this, and it's an idea Vallee had IIRC.
(2020-10-04, 11:05 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]In the former case (the laws of physics), it seems that the only two options are design or a multiverse. In the latter case (biology), it seems the only two options are design or some sort of slow haphazard Darwinistic process. In the physics fine-tuning case, the multiverse hypothesis is untenable for many reasons especially because it is not science and therefore not even a hypothesis, being unobservable and unfalsifiable, in addition to just requiring a further level of fine tuning and so on. In the biology fine-tuning case, analysis shows that the conventional Darwinian mechanism just doesn't have the ability to achieve such fine-tuning over anywhere near the required period of time indicated by the fossil record.
The bottom line is that the two examples are very different in nature, but both are certainly fine-tuning in the sense of systems that when examined in detail exhibit a very high level of optimization for their function. The alternatives to design are in both cases untenable for various different reasons, leaving design as most likely. The nature of the designers is a very different issue and probably can't be resolved at our level of knowledge and/or intelligence.
In the first case it seems to me that even many (most?) militant atheist types agree that minute shifts in certain universal constants result in life as we know it not existing. It's this precise, elegant lineup of variables that suggests the universe is finely tuned. So the dispute is not the implications of shifting the constants, AFAIK, but whether such a shift justifies the inference of a designer's involvement.
The second case turns on probability of some event within a certain time limit, and/or arguments from the controversial -
even to a Christian theologian like Feser - concept of irreducible complexity. Both arguments depends on mountains of corpses where the Evolution Editor(s) intervene at times for inexplicable reasons - Cambrian Explosion, adding the flagellum, suddenly deciding to put together the eye, etc. Aren't some of these examples of convergent evolution? None of this, to me, suggests "fine"...the number of corpses involved also makes me hesitate to use the word "tuning". To borrow from software design, "patching" might be a better term.
As for the nature of the designers, we can go back to Dembski and his mentions of "Stoic Seminal Reason" and "Impersonal Telic Process". Those don't seem to involve any designers at all. It seems to me Dembski's thinking is muddled here, as he says as a Christian he knows who the designer is amidst all the options...even though he also says no particular example of design has to be His work...what?
Just as we can see Survival is a better hypothesis than Super Psi we can also put ID in its proper place as a branch of parapsychology and select from possible explanations as to who the designers are. I'd even say that we have a level of knowledge right now that can enable us to give a rough ranking of the possibilities. I suspect many in the ID field know this as well, which is why they wish to elide Cosmological Fine Tuning and Evolution Editing/Patching.
All that said, I applaud the efforts of the ID field to push against naturalism in the same way I hope defenders of Super Psi and even Materialism in parapsychology continue to push for the acceptance of Psi by STEM academia. Similarly, I hope varied theistic philosophers like Feser continue to refine and advocate for Proofs of God even though I don't think any of these proofs really point to the gods they worship.
(2020-10-05, 08:58 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]......................................
As for the nature of the designers, we can go back to Dembski and his mentions of "Stoic Seminal Reason" and "Impersonal Telic Process". Those don't seem to involve any designers at all. It seems to me Dembski's thinking is muddled here, as he says as a Christian he knows who the designer is amidst all the options...even though he also says no particular example of design has to be His work...what?
Just as we can see Survival is a better hypothesis than Super Psi we can also put ID in its proper place as a branch of parapsychology and select from possible explanations as to who the designers are. I'd even say that we have a level of knowledge right now that can enable us to give a rough ranking of the possibilities. I suspect many in the ID field know this as well, which is why they wish to elide Cosmological Fine Tuning and Evolution Editing/Patching.
All that said, I applaud the efforts of the ID field to push against naturalism in the same way I hope defenders of Super Psi and even Materialism in parapsychology continue to push for the acceptance of Psi by STEM academia. Similarly, I hope varied theistic philosophers like Feser continue to refine and advocate for Proofs of God even though I don't think any of these proofs really point to the gods they worship.
I'm curious - could you hazard a ranked list of guesses of who the designers possibly were and why?
(2020-10-05, 04:25 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]I'm curious - could you hazard a ranked list of guesses of who the designers possibly were and why?
Sure. For Cosmological Fine Tuning the designers are likely what we would consider gods, as in entities with power over space and time. Of course there could just be one of these beings.
The Fine Tuners as Wheeler's Observer Participants across the Universe's history suffers from a lack of evidence, and the fact that this implies retrocausality which I contend is a deeply flawed idea.
The Fine Tuner(s) as Simulation Programmers suffers from the fact that there is nothing, AFAIK, but suggestive evidence that has to be interpreted in a particular way for Simulation arguments.
Dembki's non-design options, the "Stoic Seminal Reason" or "Impersonal Telic Process", seem to indicate Someone setting up nature in this way so don't rate IMO.
The question of who the Evolution Editors/Patchers might be and how to rank possibilities will take some more time, so will do that in a subsequent post.