Seeing God in the Physics Lab

AISH ^ | Fall 2003 | Dr. Gerald Schroeder

[Right Wing Professor]

Yup, you see a marvel of design which none of us could come even close to accomplishing it.

So why are there 49 cytochrome C pseudogenes, Gore3000? And how do LINE elements contribute to human well-being. And why do we have that broken golonolactone dehydrogenase gene? You see the marvel of design. Explain these things to me!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! Indeed, I read the word "revulsion" as a perjorative - hence my reaction.

I think you're mistaking the formal argument for the motivation.

We obviously read Penrose's statements excerpted at post 307 quite differently. I do not see him starting with a "revulsion against the idea that we might not be free agents" and using Gödel's theorem to rationalize it. I see him as realizing from the logic of Gödel's argument that some areas of human consciousness are noncomputable.

We won't convince each other differently, but for the sake of Lurkers - here is what I consider to be the key excerpt from Penrose's remarks about his personal history:

"My reason for presenting this bit of personal history is that I wanted to demonstrate that even the "weak" form of the Gödel argument was already strong enough to turn at least one strong-AI supporter away from computationalism. It was not a question of looking for support for a previously held "mystical" standpoint. (You could not have asked for a more rationalistic atheistic anti-mystic than myself at that time!) But the very force of Gödel's logic was sufficient to turn me from the computational standpoint with regard not only to human mentality, but also to the very workings of the physical universe."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

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.

I realize that there are a number of experts who disagree with Penrose. IMHO, it is to his credit that he allows a voice for all the rebuttals in The Large, The Small and The Human Mind.

Thankfully, achievements in science and mathematics are not by popular vote.

[Alamo-Girl]

Me: Your example makes a presumption of reality (like metaphysical naturalism) which I do not hold.

You: 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.

I understand your position. But because scientific materialism uses spatial and temporal boundaries, your conclusion will be limited by those constraints.

In a simple albeit extreme example for the Lurkers, a conclusion drawn from looking at a single tree might be false if applied to the entire forest.

Holistic scientists such as Pattee mentioned are concerned with the whole instead of the part. I believe Penrose is of this mindset as well, ditto for Grandpierre.

[gore3000]

So why are there 49 cytochrome C pseudogenes, Gore3000?

This is an argument from ignorance. We do not know what all the DNA is for, however every year, indeed, every month, every week, every day, we find out what some of the DNA called by scientists non-coding DNA is used for. It took us some 50 years to learn what part (but not all) of the 5% or so of DNA which is in genes is for. Nowadays noone would call such DNA useless. We have been looking at what the rest is for for less than a decade. Some of those 'LINE's which evolutionists for long time claimed were nonsense were found to be essential for cell division. They are the ALU DNA which is used as a zipper during cell division. They form some 10% of our DNA. As usual, the evolutionists when proven wrong are just trying to buy some time to formulate another just-so-story not based on any scientific facts but which cannot be refuted with current knowledge. This is what Darwin did, he wrote a long story with absolutely no scientific facts which was refuted and had to be reworked numerous times afterwards.

It is time for evolutionists to start showing real evidence for evolution instead of making rhetorical claims against evidence contrary to their theory. Where's the beef in evolution?

[CobaltBlue]

Are you not going to answer my questions about hitting the abuse button against evolutionists?

What are you hiding?

[Heartlander]

RWP,

I believe I asked you directly if you believed, “Is it all unguided, mindless, and without purpose?”

And you responded HERE

But in response to your analogies…

Peter Ward, Donald Brownlee, and Guillermo Gonzalez argue that advanced life may be extremely rare due to: 1) the many potential hazards in the universe and 2) the stringent requirements for its existence.

So let’s say that we find a rock on a planet and it is ‘exactly’ like a rock we have on our planet (same shape and composition). I believe science can write this off as chance. Let’s say a strange pattern was found on another planet that happens to be the same pattern found on our planet – again, I believe science ‘could’ write this off due to laws of physics, chance and time - just as though we were to discover two identical snowflakes or crystals due to the fact that they follow the same laws of nature due to their chemical properties.

Now let’s say we found another Right Wing Professor on another planet, the exact same genetic structure and personality. We both know, based on solid physics, this cannot be chance and must be design. Please explain… you know, to us lay folk.

Oh, but please don’t use those nasty terms like “specified complexity” and “intelligent design”.

So, you are the scientist that rejects design… Hmmm… what separates you from those who study science? (please don’t use any form of the nasty terms above as you are a ‘bright’)

[Right Wing Professor]

I see him as realizing from the logic of Gödel's argument that some areas of human consciousness are noncomputable.

AG, I have no idea how familiar you are with Gödel's theorem. I myself approach it as a layman, but I can recommend the Gödel, Escher, Bach book, as an excellent exposition which had me, at least, believing I had understood it.

It's just a theorem in symbolic algebra. Like relativity and the uncertainly principle it seems to have some broader meaning, and certainly it has all sorts of people drawing all sorts of conclusions from it. Perhaps some are justified, and no doubt Penrose as a mathematician is immune, but it says nothing directly about the computability of human consciousness. Penrose may be inferring something from it, but it's a long, stretched, deductive argument.

[Heartlander]

Pat,

I’m talking about the assumption science ‘now’ begins with and adheres to…

Speculation only exists within the parameters that science has created.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the analysis of the Shannon v Kolmogorov implications of the Zombie Mary example!

I believe it was his intention to have Kolmogorov equivalence between Mary and Zombie Mary. Neither would know if they are real or zombie - like B(s) and B(r) wouldn't know which is s and which is r.

In the notes, Vierkant comments:

"The conceivability of a zombie world is a necessary condition for the coherence of the epiphenomenalist position. But epiphenomenalism makes even stronger claims as well: the conceivability of a zombie world only shows that there might be a world in which function and phenomenology are completely separated, but this does not entail that our world has to be such a world, as epiphenomalists hold. As my arguments make use of the weaker zombie argument, every result I achieve counts a fortiori against epiphenomenalism."

I understand your point about Shannon. The Zombie Mary thought experiment looks like it is dealing only with Shannon Channels. But I do not believe that was the intent of the experiment at all; Vierkant is illustrating that the knowledge argument is not compatible with the argument from modality.

[Right Wing Professor]

I believe I asked you directly if you believed, “Is it all unguided, mindless, and without purpose?” And you responded HERE

That's right. I can't explain my personal perceptions deterministically, and since I'm not a solipsist, i assume that holds for everybody. After all, in choosing to respond to you (or at least having the illusion of choosing to respond) I'd be in somewhat a false position, wouldn't I, if I denied volition?

Clearly, socially and philosphically we have to act as if humans have free will. It is possible that at some time in the future the scientific enterprise will put us in the awkward position that we can reliably predict human choices using an algorithm. That will be a distinct problem. I expect something will get us out of it, and I have some sympathy with the betty boop/Alamo Girl project of looking for a way to cut the Gordian knot using present physics, but I don't think the necessities are there yet. As a scientist, I abhor theorizing ahead of the data.

To some extent I think I'm more secure than you believers, except perhaps John Paul II (who said truth cannot contradict truth). I don't think science is incompatible with human freedom; I don't think perception and consciousness and choice are illusions, but I don't think we're at the point yet where we can even think about altering the way we do science to accomodate concepts we don't even really understand. I'm sure there's an answer to all this, i just don't think we've found it yet. In the meantime, in science we have a way of understanding the world that works marvelously; in the ideas of freedom and individual autonomy we have a way of governing ourselves that works OK - well better than most of the previous attempts. There is a potential time in the future when there might be a conflict between them, but we aren't there yet, and by the time we get there, we'll probably have gotten a whole different view of the problem.

It's sort of like quantum mechanics and relativity. They're incompatible, but only on a time and distance scale we can't measure, so why worry?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

I realize that you do not see anything particularly marvelous in Gödel's theorem. You probably don't in the Mandelbrot Set either - or superposition, non-locality, omega, wave/particle duality, dimensionality and so on.

But these are exciting frontiers for many and there are indeed profound implications for theology and philosophy.

I'm sure that the Aristotleans in the field, like Hawking, are much aware of the import of their work. Hawking said as much in his lecture on imaginary time. In this case, he was offering an alternative to this universe having a beginning, i.e. of time.

"But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time."

You may see all this as much ado about nothing. That is the reaction Pattee notes in showing the differences between biologists and physicists and their interest in answering the question: "What is Life?"

[Right Wing Professor]

We do not know what all the DNA is for

So you think the design is marvelous, you just don't understand it. Gotcha. Most people looking at modern art think the same. Me, I think that's mostly junk too.

Some of those 'LINE's which evolutionists for long time claimed were nonsense were found to be essential for cell division. They are the ALU DNA which is used as a zipper during cell division. They form some 10% of our DNA.

Cite?

[gore3000]

Have you actually read any of Penroses' books, Gore3000?

Yes. Now that I have answered your question, let's see your objections against his theory, not a discussion of what his personal beliefs may or may not be which unless you have the ability to read men's minds (and you obviously do not since otherwise you would not have had to ask the question above) you cannot tell us what they are.

[Right Wing Professor]

Yes.

OK, explain to us all Penrose's argument in the Emperor's New Mind.

[gore3000]

OK, explain to us all Penrose's argument in the Emperor's New Mind.

You are the one attacking what he says, it is up to you to substantiate your statements. If you are pleading ignorance of what he said, then you should not be attacking his statements out of a knee-jerk reaction because you do not like his conclusions.

[Right Wing Professor]

I knew you hadn't read it.

[gore3000]

I knew you hadn't read it.

Don't call me a liar and don't make excuses for your going around attacking Penrose with personal attacks when you do not have the vaguest idea about his arguments except that you do not like his conclusions. Do your homework before you open your mouth Professor.

[Right Wing Professor]

It's a good book. You'd be much better off reading it, than posting nasty rants on FR.

[Virginia-American]

no idea how familiar you are with Gödel's theorem. I myself approach it as a layman, but I can recommend the Gödel, Escher, Bach book,

Another good, non-technical exposition is in Rudy Rucker's Infinity and the Mind

He also claims to disprove Penrose's speculations, but I didn't follow the argument. (something to do with Goedel numbers being bigger than people can name...)