Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
I have no idea how to construct a testable hypothesis for an algorithm from inception (I suspect that A-G is onto something here...). Do you have any ideas how to go about doing that?
It might be useful to look at The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which existed before the Revolution, and which is regarded as having been the source and inspiration for much of what followed. Section 16 discusses religion, and says that it must be voluntary, and "it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other." Quite non-sectarian, and non-dogmatic, but nevertheless inspired by the Christian religion.
Let me see if I'm following you here, Physicist. When one photon is measured, and collapses into a well-defined polarization state, its "twin" is similarly affected, though it be light years away from the first one. Is the subsequent measurement of the second photon even necessary if all the relevant information was given in the collapse of the first?
I must be a lousy superhero. The only villain I get is The Babbler.
Nevermind that it was ID we were talking about, not Alamo-Girl's assertion about algorithms. :)
I'm convinced there is no testable hypothesis possible for ID and that is why the IDers haven't been able to construct one.
Thank you so much PatrickHenry! Unfortunately, such a statement of "mutual duty", if uttered today by a public official, would probably get him or her sued for violating "the separation of church and state." Or put him on the front page of the New York Times, and not in a flattering light (as in, "this person is an insensitive religious bigot"). That's how "rigid" many people are on this question. We seem to have lost our ability to draw reasonable distinctions about such matters.
Unless it's a democrat about to raise taxes.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the credentials of the players involved with the dates in Yockey's message: John von Neumann and Niels Bohr. Hubert P. Yockey, PhD Berkeley is an information theorist, a physicist and was Chief of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Reactor Branch. Yockey's work is textbook material and von Neumann's work is cited by the likes of Chaitin, Patten and Rocha.
Just like the work of Euclid, Newton, Riemann, Einstein and Schwarzchild does not carry an expiration date, neither does the work of Bohr, von Neumann and Yockey.
Yockey has demonstrated his point. If you care to argue with him, you can join that message board and make your case directly.
The central problem with ID, and the reason it should not, in its present form, be taught is that it asserts that certain things cannot happen. that kind of thinking shuts down curiosity, a terrible thing to do to children.
The acceptance of Intelligent Design would have no more effect of shutting down curiosity than the Anthropic Principle currently does.
BTW, I don't think either is reason to quit asking questions!
With regard to my hypothesis, I do not have the credentials to take it any further myself - but I believe it can be done. The scope obviously must include inception, so it cannot be taken as a frontal assault of the theory of evolution whose technical definition excludes inception.
I do expect to see testable hypotheses forthcoming for I.D., creationism and directed panspermia.
But it seems to me that Intelligent Design requires that there be such an algorithm, or something closely akin to it. The "Father of Science," Aristotle, called it the Unmoved Mover or First Cause. Given that the first cause spreads its effects throughout the entire causal chain throughout time, and its effects are characterized by it "from inception," all things are as they are (and not some other way) because of the "content" of the first cause.
Aristotle said there had to be a First Cause, because an infinite regression, in effect, can provide no "limit," without which no definite thing can come into existence. Though you might have some kind of an inchoate, eternal "cosmic soup," the absence of the limit means the soup has no principle whereby it can manifest actual living forms.
I expect the hypotheses related to directed panspermia to be a natural byproduct of NASA astrobiology and exobiology endeavors. Much research is already in progress there and I expect the directed panspermia proponents to leap-frog from those foundations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.