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.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/earn
Earned:
2 a: to come to be duly worthy of or entitled or suited to [she earned a promotion] b: to make worthy of or obtain for [the suggestion earned him a promotion]
Since one is not entitled to salvation, one becomes worthy of, or earns, it by the action of accepting the offer.
It was a joke, son.
In response to your saying:
Unless, of course, one is speaking in Spanish.
How do you know that any particular being under discussion is mythical? You don't. You just presuppose it. That's my point.
something is "functioning as it is supposed to" when it operates in harmony with reality.
Whose "reality" would that be? The brain chemistry of the person on the street ranting and raving that "the Invisible Space Aliens" were about to get him is just as much a product of evolutionary natural selection as any other brain chemistry and is just as real. On what grounds do you say that neurochemical products of evolutionary chance/necessity needs "corrective treatment"? How can there be something objectively "wrong" with what evolution has wrought?
Cordially,
Oh I knew it was a joke. I was trying to recall some of my spanish teaching from eons ago. Just remembered my first lesson - didn’t think I’d really need it. What a joke on me that was - I wouldn’t have to press #1 ever again.
Apologies to all who have posted to me. I had to leave town unexpectedly on Saturday AM and am just now getting to do some catch-up reading. Interesting subject.
Sorry no one’s here to welcome you home. Since every one else is sleeping, you will have quiet time while playing catch up. Turn the lights out when you leave and don’t forget the cat. :)
Still reading.
[[So the fact that the universe is apparently “orderly” neither proves nor disproves the existence of God?]]
Correct- although orderliness strengthens a certainty in the God of order
[[Islam did not exist before Mad Mo crawled into a hole to be enthralled by the hissings of The Serpent]]
Technically you are right-0 it wasn’t officially clalled islam however, the peopel who praciticed a particular religion of middle easeternern persuasion are the same peopel who were forced into islam by Mo- Mo hijcaked their religion.
[[Given the culture that they found, one can hardly blame them!]]
What culture woudl that be?
[[Yes, he refused to cave to The Church’s peer pressure, and believe the imaginary scenarios in that book they worship]]
It wasn’t the bible they were preaching but a godless account of earth evetns- which incidently is secular and had nothign to do with hte bible
[[All that practice, and this is all the better you can do?]
It’s a sure sight better than “If this condition were just right, and this event took place at just the right itme of year, and if the systems were isolated from the destructive forces of nature, and if somethign prevented cells from burnign htemselves out, then by golly a living single celeld organism might have happened along”
[[I’ve seen nothing that indicates that the Bible says the earth is it, you have stumbled on my whole point: science improves the understanding of God’s creation]]
Sure it does, when it sticks to pure science and doesn’t go wandering off in never never land claiming all kinds of unproven and scientifically impossible scenarios-
[[So please don’t say “I’m almost positive that in the time of Gallilaeo [sic] , there certaintly [sic] wasn’t sufficient evidences one way or hte [sic] other,”. It sounds as ignorant is if you had said: “I’m almost positive that in the time of Columbus, there certainly wasn’t sufficient evidences one way or the other, to say there was a ‘new world’ on the other side of the Atlantic.”]]
Galilaeo gave his opinion- nothign more- I stand by what I said.
[[Maybe He routinely talks to you, but He’s been notably silent on the world stage lately for the rest of us.]]
Maybe He is routinely silent with you, but for 2.6 billion+ people He isn’t
[[To be a separate species, something has to be genetically discontinuous with other species, otherwise they’d be the same species, wouldn’t they?]]
No- they would have to be unique kinds-
[[Also, the second half: “and can’t ‘morph’ beyond hteir [sic] own kinds.” doesn’t necessarily follow from the first half.]]
Sure it does.
[[Source please?. Last I heard there were seven distinct Eves based on mitochondrial DNA evidence]]
I’ll look more into that tomorrow- I beleive it was traced back to possible sources- some in Africa, perhaps in asia- the africa one i beleive has fallen out of favour due to some anomilies if I remember right.
doo the google search for htose two words first- it wil lshow up
The Aztec and Mayan cultures. The ones that would routinely tear the still beating hearts out of a couple thousand people in an otherwise boring afternoon. Do you know nothing of history?
It wasn’t the bible they were preaching but a godless account of earth evetns- which incidently is secular and had nothign to do with hte bible
Wow. You assert that the Church was secular? You assert that their strict belief in the creation accounts in Genesis weren't Bible based? I'm beginning to suspect that reality based meaningful discussion is impossible with you.
Sure it does, when it sticks to pure science and doesn’t go wandering off in never never land claiming all kinds of unproven and scientifically impossible scenarios-
OK. Put up or shut up. Either support this current statement with the chapter and verse where the Bible says that the earth is the center of the universe, or revert to your statement in post # 284: "I donm’t take a stand on this one way or hte other as there are controversies about hte situation that are ongoing- sdecondly, I’m not aweare that bible states that we are the center, " Pick one. You do not get to pee on my head and tell me it's raining.
Galilaeo gave his opinion- nothign more-
The objective fact that anyone can see that Jupiter has its own moons isn't an opinion. The objective fact that anyone can see that the earth's moon is not a perfect celestial sphere is not an opinion. You have confirmed in my mind that rational conversation between us is impossible. You sincerely believe that facts that disagree with you are opinions, and that opinions you agree with are facts.
I stand by what I said.
Which time? The time you said the Earth is the center of the Universe? Or the time you said it isn't?
I’ll look more into that tomorrow- I beleive it was traced back to possible sources- some in Africa, perhaps in asia- the africa one i beleive has fallen out of favour due to some anomilies if I remember right.
I'm still interested in that data. I seriously doubt that we will ever converge on what it says, though.
Lurker: The Universe is an extremely disordered, random, and dangerous place...It's literally impossible to find any 'order' in it. People have been trying to do that since the time of Copernicus. All have failed.RightWhale:Order is in the mind, that is, subjective, that is, in the imagination.
Lurker: Sorry to quibble, but this whole 'order in the Universe proves that there is a God' thing is hokum. I don't deny the existence of God, but saying that the Universe is orderly is just not true.
Well I'm glad we got THAT cleared up.
ahem...just to clear up a few miscellaneous loose ends,
1. RightWhale, is the mind part of the universe?
2. Lurker, if the universe is disordered and random, what sense are we to make of your truth claim? It seems that you must presuppose that which you deny, namely; an orderly universe, otherwise your truth claims would be unintelligible and incoherent.
Are the orderly laws of logic, for example, also imaginary and subjective? Or are they universal and prescriptive? If they are just relativistic preferences for thinking, rather than prescriptive requirements, then truth claims such as have been made above would seem to be without any foundation at all, and futile. How do you even know that your stipulations for the mind are applicable to the world of thought or matter outside the individual mind? On the other hand if law of logic are universal, prescriptive requirements, how do you explain or account for said characteristics of logical laws in a disordered, random universe?
Is it even possible to tell from within it if a system such as the universe is really random?
Cordially,
Husserl attempted to clarify all this in his last writings and did fine although not finishing the work due to being indisposed. That is, all this is old business done with a century ago.
Cordially,
[[Which time? The time you said the Earth is the center of the Universe? Or the time you said it isn’t?]]
I never stated either case- let’s keep it intellectually honest, shall we?
[[The Aztec and Mayan cultures. The ones that would routinely tear the still beating hearts out of a couple thousand people in an otherwise boring afternoon. Do you know nothing of history?]]
Yup
[[Wow. You assert that the Church was secular? You assert that their strict belief in the creation accounts in Genesis weren’t Bible based?]]
Yes I do assert that- the early Catholic Church was certainly NOT doing hte will of God and as such were NOT of God! That is NOT to say that there weren’t people within the Church who were unsaved, BUT it IS stating the FACT that the leaders were unsaved and set themselves up as God’s arbitrators of justice which were directly AGAINST God’s word and character.
[[I’m beginning to suspect that reality based meaningful discussion is impossible with you.]]
Why is that? Because your OPINION about matters is different than mine? The aerly Cathoic Church was run and dictated by Romans who were ANTI-God. They ABUSED the position of hte church, and set themselves up in power with absolutely NO desire to obey God. They used the influence of the church to present irreligious secular ideals, and htus were NO part of God’s family! Their culpibility in deceiving many ‘in the name of religion’ will be massive when they are judged by God. Not everyone that says Abba father is saved, and many many people have deceived a great many people by professing that htey are ordained of God when they clearly are NOT. We are told to test the psirits (meaning to test whether someone is of God or if they are false teachers) and the early catholic church leaders FAILED this test because htier actions did not reflect God’s truth!
[[OK. Put up or shut up. Either support this current statement with the chapter and verse where the Bible says that the earth is the center of the universe, or revert to your statement in post]]
ahh- gettin a little testy eh? I never said the earth is the center- I HAVE said the bible doesn’t make mention one way or hte other as far as I know!
[The objective fact that anyone can see that Jupiter has its own moons isn’t an opinion.]]
In that you are correct- What were we talking about again? Whether people beleive we are geoncentric or heliocentric last I checked, any opinions based on the observances of moons and spheres concerning our position in the universe is just that- an opinion- especially in the early days when there was a lack of more sophisticated instruments- you seem ot be introducing several unrelated issues here.
We simple don’t have enough reference points in common to make meaningful discussions possible.
May I suggest we both throw in the towel, rather than just irritating each other to no useful end?
How can you think I called you atheist when I didn’t?
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.