Posted on 10/20/2003 10:49:13 AM PDT by yonif
I have contended (and often), as have many other qualified individuals, that this question is never really addressed by Penrose. He prattles on at length, but he does not adequately justify his assertion, at least not to the satisfaction of many of the people familiar with the fields of mathematics he discusses on this subject.
The thing is... Well, nevermind. It would probaly only get me in trouble.
Well, yes, it is true that I presume the objective. But for most simple models, that can be inferred to exist from the subjective. Which is good enough for me; no point in complicating things needlessly.
If one does not presume that the universe is some manner of finite state machine (no matter how bizarre) then my reasoning does not hold. Given that there is not insignificant evidence that the universe functions in an effectively finite state fashion (c.f. thermodynamics), I see no reason to presume otherwise at this point in time.
The Zombie-Mary argument is very flawed, though subtly.
System equivalence is independent of the nature of the implementation. Fundamental differences in construction and internal behavior can only impact time complexity and have no impact on theoretical equivalence. Just because some internal components are not equivalent do not make the systems that contain them non-equivalent. There are an infinite number of ways to implement equivalent systems.
For example, take two different machines that add two numbers between 0 and 99. One machine uses a standard adding algorithm, while the other machine uses a giant lookup table containing all possible values. Are these machines equivalent? Absolutely. Are they identical in the way two numbers are "added"? Not even close. But it doesn't matter, because equivalence is determined by inputs and their corresponding outputs. Two numbers go into a machine, a correct sum comes out.
Because every pattern has an infinite number of implementation possibilities, the details of the implementation are irrelevant. You can't determine how something is implemented from looking at the inputs and outputs alone (e.g. you can never prove or detect that a person is a zombie -- you may be, I may be, or both, or neither). From the standpoint of information theory, these two machines are identical in every way. In fact, viewing these two machines as different is a naive Shannon perspective, as it completely ignores high order patterns, and making these equivalent was a/the major contribution of Kolmogorov to the field.
So I'll put the ball back in your court. They are not Shannon equivalent (what the Zombie-Mary argument relies on), but they are Kolmogorov equivalent. And remember, the primary flaw in Shannon that Kolmogorov fixed was that Shannon information often asserted non-equivalence for many kinds of high-order patterns that casual inspection showed to be equivalent in fact. This example is precisely the kind of theoretical domain that breaks the pure Shannon assumption.
The fact is - we live in a universe that appears to be fine-tuned for life and science is 'consciously' aware of this fact.
As I stated before, it is as of recent that science has thrown away design and now assumes only natural agencies for everything leading to our very conscious. You have accused me of ‘skipping a few steps’. I am assuming science did not skip any steps and asking “for the evidence” that life and the universe is the result of unintelligent, purposeless forces.
If science rejects design than I do not see how I am asking you to prove a negative. I am merely asking for the evidence that science is currently searching for with its’ a priori belief…
Beyond this, if intelligence denotes teleology and ‘current’ science must reject teleology than science rejects the two things ‘it’ requires. Why use intelligence and purpose to reject intelligence and purpose? Have we thunk ourselves stupid?
Now, we can discuss quantum mechanics and how we may never know how it all operates, but ‘current’ science still cannot let intelligence or purpose enter the scene.
So here we are, life the universe and everything – science, our conscious, emotions, etc... It all appears to be designed. Fine-tuned? Unintelligent? Purposeless? Illusion?
As a ‘skeptic’ I am asking “for the evidence” that I am the result of a mindless happenstance from the beginning.
We'll never resolve this, and I suspect that the cosmologists won't either. First you say it all appears to be designed. And I suppose it does -- to you. But not to everyone. Which is the core of the problem. Others will -- with equally pure hearts -- say that it doesn't appear designed, and then they will ask for evidence that it was designed.
In such cases, we're probably not asking the right questions. It seems to me that it's perfectly acceptable to pick the answer that pleases you. There's not much else to go on at this stage, so it's as good a method as any.
Beyond this you say to pick one way or another because we will probably never know? It seems ‘current’ science has picked… but you say it doesn’t matter either way?
We are talking about our existence and where we came from…
This is not important anymore?
They all say that the universe is suitable for life, which seems undeniable. Not all say it's designed. For names, see my next paragraph.
Beyond this you say to pick one way or another because we will probably never know? It seems ‘current’ science has picked… but you say it doesn’t matter either way?
Science hasn't picked anything. It's a topic of debate. Check out the article in th is thread. You asked for names. They're in the article.
We are talking about our existence and where we came from… This is not important anymore?
It's important. Today it seems scientifically unanswerable. I'd like to know, but there's not enough information. So you may as well pick the answer that makes you happy.
Aaah please, who cares what his motives are? Everyone has motives. The point is that Penrose has written at detailed length of his views and why he thinks they are correct. If you or others cannot refute them with facts, then his view has to be listened to regardless of whatever his motives are.
Motives are the classical Communist form of argument when the facts cannot be contradicted. It is a variation of the Clintonian politics of personal destruction, it is known throughout history as attacking the messenger and it is a totally false and a pretty despicable way of discussing the validity of ideas.
There is no doubt that there is more than one way to skin a cat. However, I have never heard of anyone who wanted to learn how to skin a cat opening up a mathematics book to find out how to do it.
Which is irrelevant. Those who say it was designed point to numerous facts and scientific laws which show that the whole thing could not have occurred at random. As a proponent of materialism you have to show that those incredible coincidences could have occurred at random. You cannot so you play the how many people say this or that game. The only thing valid in science is facts, opinions are worthless.
Yet science rejects design with emotional passion?
And again you say it doesn’t matter and we should just pick…
‘Current’ science only adheres to unintelligent, purposeless forces. Your article only shows from some the rejection of evidence regardless of evidence. (though I did not see where anyone rejected that the universe appears to be designed)
If science is going to be based on:
1. unintelligent, purposeless forces.
2. Impartial investigation.
What does science ‘assume’ when the two go opposite ways?
BTW- Thanks for the article…
I don't. When you look up at the sky, do you see any patterns? Any letters spelled out?
When you look at the human genome, in detail, see any evidence of design? Any efficent placement of the genes? Any evidence of an attempt to get rid of the junk? What about the fraying ends of the chromosomes? The transposons that just get up and move themselves randomly to another location? The broken genes?
When you look at the avifauna of Hawaii, why does it look like it as all descended from a small number of accidental arrivals? Why were there no land mammals before humans arrived? If you were designing an island paradise, wouldn't you give it a rich fauna? All the really isolated islands are like that. Funny, huh?
I have to say, Gore3000, that you are a true exemplar of your faith. When I hear the phrase 'Christian Virtue' I think of you. Keep up the good work!
Yup, you see a marvel of design which none of us could come even close to accomplishing it. We see some 100 trillion cells working together to make us what we are. Now if that is not a marvel of design, let's see you or anyone else do better.
Have you actually read any of Penroses' books, Gore3000?
I don't have a list of names. Even if I did, it wouldn't be persuasive to either of us. Maybe Physicist can give you some names.
And again you say it doesn’t matter and we should just pick…
No. I haven't said it doesn't matter. The last time you claimed that was my position, I attempted to clarify things. In post 328 I said: " It's important. Today it seems scientifically unanswerable. I'd like to know, but there's not enough information. So you may as well pick the answer that makes you happy."
If science is going to be based on: 1. unintelligent, purposeless forces.
Those adjectives are your own. Science is based on verifiable data. Surely you know this. When the data runs out, speculation begins. But that's not solid science.
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.