Posted on 03/07/2008 4:40:38 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Since writing my book "Irreligion" and some of my recent Who's Counting columns, I've received a large number of e-mails from subscribers to creation science (who have recently christened themselves intelligent design theorists). Some of the notes have been polite, some vituperative, but almost all question "how order and complexity can arise out of nothing."
Since they can imagine no way for this to happen, they conclude there must be an intelligent designer, a God. (They leave aside the prior question of how He arose.)
My canned answer to them about biological order talks a bit about evolution, but they often dismiss that source of order for religious reasons or because of a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
(See Complexity and Intelligent Design for my Who's Counting discussion of biological and economic order and complexity arising out of very simple programs.)
Because the seemingly inexplicable arising of order seems to be so critical to so many, however, I've decided to list here a few other sources for naturally occurring order in physics, math, and biology. Of course, order, complexity, entropy, randomness and related notions are clearly and utterly impossible to describe and disentangle in a column like this, but the examples below from "Irreligion" hint at some of the abstract ideas relevant to the arising of what has been called "order for free."
Necessarily Some Order
Let me begin by noting that even about the seemingly completely disordered, we can always say something. No universe could be completely random at all levels of analysis.
In physics, this idea is illustrated by the kinetic theory of gases. There an assumption of disorder on one formal level of analysis, the random movement of gas molecules, leads to a kind of order on a higher level, the relations among variables such as temperature, pressure and volume known as the gas laws. The law-like relations follow from the lower-level randomness and a few other minimal assumptions. (This bit of physics does not mean that life has evolved simply by chance, a common mischaracterization of evolution.)
In addition to the various laws of large numbers studied in statistics, a notion that manifests a different aspect of this idea is statistician Persi Diaconis' remark that if you look at a big enough population long enough, then "almost any damn thing will happen."
Ramsey Order
A more profound version of this line of thought can be traced back to British mathematician Frank Ramsey, who proved a strange theorem. It stated that if you have a sufficiently large set of geometric points and every pair of them is connected by either a red line or a green line (but not by both), then no matter how you color the lines, there will always be a large subset of the original set with a special property. Either every pair of the subset's members will be connected by a red line or every pair of the subset's members will be connected by a green line.
If, for example, you want to be certain of having at least three points all connected by red lines or at least three points all connected by green lines, you will need at least six points. (The answer is not as obvious as it may seem, but the proof isn't difficult.)
For you to be certain that you will have four points, every pair of which is connected by a red line, or four points, every pair of which is connected by a green line, you will need 18 points, and for you to be certain that there will be five points with this property, you will need -- it's not known exactly - between 43 and 55. With enough points, you will inevitably find unicolored islands of order as big as you want, no matter how you color the lines.
A whole mathematical subdiscipline has grown up devoted to proving theorems of this same general form: How big does a set have to be so that there will always be some subset of a given size that it will constitute an island of order of some sort?
Ramsey-type theorems may even be part of the explanation (along, of course, with Diaconis' dictum) for some of the equidistant letter sequences that constitute the bible codes. Any sufficiently long sequence of symbols, especially one written in the restricted vocabulary of ancient Hebrew, is going to contain subsequences that appear meaningful.
Self-Organization and Order
Finally, of more direct relevance to evolution and the origin of living complexity is the work of Stuart Kauffman. In his book, "At Home in the Universe," he discusses what he has termed the aforementioned notion of "order for free."
Motivated by the idea of hundreds of genes in a genome turning on and off other genes and the order and pattern that nevertheless exist, Kauffman asks us to consider a large collection of 10,000 light bulbs, each bulb having inputs from two other bulbs in the collection.
Assume that you connect these bulbs at random, that a clock ticks off one-second intervals, and that at each tick each bulb either goes on or off according to some arbitrarily selected rule. For some bulbs, the rule might be to go off at any instant unless both inputs are on the previous instant. For others it might be to go on at any instant if at least one of the inputs is off the previous instant. Given the random connections and random assignment of rules, it would be natural to expect the collection of bulbs to flicker chaotically with no apparent pattern.
What happens, however, is that very soon one observes order for free, more or less stable cycles of light configurations, different ones for different initial conditions. Kauffman proposes that some phenomenon of this sort supplements or accentuates the effects of natural selection.
Although there is certainly no need for yet another argument against the seemingly ineradicable silliness of "creation science," these light bulb experiments and the unexpected order that occurs so naturally in them do seem to provide one.
In any case, order for free and apparent complexity greater than we might naively expect are no basis for believing in God as traditionally defined. Of course, we can always redefine God to be an inevitable island of order or some sort of emergent mathematical entity. If we do that, the above considerations can be taken as indicating that such a pattern will necessarily exist, but that's hardly what people mean by God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University, is the author of the best-sellers "Innumeracy" and "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper," as well as of the just-released "Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why The Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up " His "Who's Counting?" column on ABCNEWS.com appears the first weekend of every month.
Douglas Adams knows already, one way or the other. We won’t worry about him anymore.
Thought by whom?
You won’t accept anything else to prove the spiritual.
Science isn’t allowed to do it because the supernatural is allegedly outside the realm of science.
Anytime someone tries to philosophize about it, they’re told it’s not *logical*.
Miracles don’t count either because you can’t tell what the source is.
Personal experience is discredited because it’s too subjective.
There is nothing that a good atheist will accept as proof of the supernatural because they have decreed beforehand that nothing is capable of proving the supernatural, so they reject everything out of hand before the discussion starts.
I honestly don’t see how that’s any different than scientists looking at the fossil record and deciding upon an explanation for it (ToE) and then declaring that every fossil they henceforth find supports their theory. Of course it would because they have already decided that it would a priori.
Nothing "alleged" about it.
I assume you chose your screen name because of some background in the sciences, particularly in weather.
That would imply that you took Science 101 where you were taught about the Scientific Method.
It doesn't allow for miracles to explain what is re-creatable. Mix vinegar and baking soda, and the resulting reaction can't be described as a miracle.
Science doesn't even take a position on whether miracles can occur, but if they do, they're outside the scientific method, and certainly not offered up as an explanation for something yet to be explained.
Supernatural means something outside of natural processes. So, yes, it's outside the realm of science.
The only problem with your analysis is that I’m not an atheist.
I have a problem with the way some mortals have described Him, or recounted actions attributed to Him, but I do believe in God.
I question the actions attributed to Him, because first, I’m not sure they happened. The Books of Moses, upon which much of the discussion is based, probably weren’t written by Moses, but by a variety of authors. In any event, it’s a pretty nifty trick to write about your own death and beyond.
Secondly, if you or others wish to call me an atheist for what I’ve asked, it doesn’t hurt my feelings. You’re wrong, so I view anything else you write knowing that you got the basics wrong.
I guess I do regret even posting on this thread, because it certainly hasn’t been helpful. I learned that neanderthals were half angels, but that’s about it.
[[Thought by whom?]]
thoughtful people
[[*sigh* You do know that using the Bible to prove the Bible is the spiritual equivalent of saying ‘I found it on the Internet, it must be true’, don’t you?]
The internet doesn’t have 0ver 600 prophesies that came 100% true- the bible is more solid and certain and trustworthy than your proposed outcoem I’m afraid.
Okay, got it.
Thoughtful people think that Neanderthal Man was half angel.
This doesn’t speak well of angels, does it?
Or thoughtful people, for that matter.
[[In any event, it’s a pretty nifty trick to write about your own death and beyond.]]
Not hard when you have divine revelation
[[Secondly, if you or others wish to call me an atheist]]
Noone htinks that- irreverent agnostic- sure- atheist? No.
[[ I learned that neanderthals were half angels, but that’s about it.]]
No- you learned that some poeple think that- nothign more- also you learned that there were giant’s bones in display during hte time og Josephus, and had you looked into the situation more, you’da learned that during that time many people had personal testimonies of having met giants who were nehpilim
If you have a link to where Neanderthal giants have been found, I’d appreciate it.
Heck, I’d take a link to where Josephus visited the traveling circus to see them.
I’d really like to see the fossils of half-angels.
You have no concept of what I would accept.
I honestly don’t see how that’s any different than scientists looking at the fossil record and deciding upon an explanation for it (ToE) and then declaring that every fossil they henceforth find supports their theory. Of course it would because they have already decided that it would a priori.
Scientists of the day tried very hard to fit the rock and bone evidence into the Biblical frame. Ultimately, they reluctantly had to let the evidence of the rocks in their hands supplant the rock of their faith.
I suspect that if science is faithful to its methods, it and religion will converge on a better understanding of our place in the universe.
Don't be afraid...
I find ‘the Bible predicted this, and it happened’ much more compelling than ‘the Bible proves the Bible, and therefore I believe it’.
I could use the same reasoning and the Harry Potter stories to ‘prove’ magical folk exist side-by-side with us muggles.
(BTW, what outcome did you think I proposed?)
I ask again....If there is no God, why is there something at all?
That's what science would have us believe.
They claim it's more reasonable that something popped itself into existence out of nothing for some as yet unknown reason, organized itself, and produced information, than to think that someone created it.
What’s interesting is to consider the ramifications of a universe that naturally went to increasing complexity instead of going naturally towards disorder.
There would be no decay, no breakdown of materials. Everything would over time become increasingly complex until it became a rigid, unyielding mass of material. Nothing could be done with it. Any attempts to break it down as we would think of it would only INCREASE its order and structure, making more unmanageable.
Everything would be so locked up tight that nothing could happen. There would be no release of energy only absorption.
Virtually all of the verifiable science points to a beginning, and as Jastrow says, to a scientist who has clawed himself up the mountain of knowlege only to peak over the edge to pull himself up and see a group of theologians who have been saying the same thing. Jastrow says, to the scientist, it ends in a nightmare....there seems to be a beginning and a creator.
Virtually all of the verifiable science points to a beginning, and as Jastrow says, to a scientist who has clawed himself up the mountain of knowlege only to peak over the edge to pull himself up and see a group of theologians who have been saying the same thing. Jastrow says, to the scientist, it ends in a nightmare....there seems to be a beginning and a creator.
Try cosmology. Specifically, the "quantum fluctuation" that "caused" our universe. Or the quantum foam that "causes" multiple universes. And although scientists don't use "supernatural" to describe quantum entanglement and "instantaneous" correlation at a distance, it is "supernatural".
In particular, quantum theory is non-local: it predicts entanglement between distant systems leading to correlations that cannot be explained by any theory based only on local variables [1], as demonstrated by Bell inequality. All experiments are in remarkable agreement with quantum theory. Hence, the physics community faces a very strange worldview: in theory, everything is entangled, but, in practice, decoherence makes it impossible to reveal this entanglement. In addition to its "experimental metaphysics" [2] aspects, quantum entanglement has recently gained much interest and respect because it is at the heart of quantum information processing. The general idea is that entanglement provides means to carry out tasks that are either impossible classically (quantum cryptography) or that would require significantly more steps to perform on a classical computer (searching a database, factorization) [3].
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.