Replies

Therefore, Williams believes that each level of the autopoietic hierarchy cannot be naturalistically explained by the level below, and thus each level (from a materialistic point of view) represents a “Polanyi impossibility.”

I thought that Williams' resort to the language of "Polanyi impossibility" was a tad unfortunate. But I can understand his basic motivation for putting the problem that way. (I.e., it makes the concept easier for laymen to grasp.)

I imagine that what Polanyi was speaking of is more correctly given in the language of "Polanyi plateaus", which are not "convergent." Each "plateau" has its own level of description adequate to its function in the overall scheme of life. The point is, the "lower level" plateau(s) don't (can't) explain the "plateaus" of higher hierarchical order.

If I understand you correctly, that is precisely what Williams is saying. None of the lower levels can explain the higher levels. That presents a potentially insolvable problem for naturalistic evolutionists: How did the higher levels get there if they cannot be universally explained by the lower levels of the hierarchy?

[[I thought that Williams’ resort to the language of “Polanyi impossibility” was a tad unfortunate.]]

I think that Williams devloped it ok- actually pretty good. IF it can be shown, and perhaps it has, that metainfo, the info about info, could not arise before info, and that it is impossible for chemicals to create the forward looking metainfo (by forward looking, I mean megainfo that has instrucitons to deal with practically anyhtign thrown at it so that species can survive despite constant assaults to it)

Perhaps htough Williams should have said it was a “Wallace impossibility” instead of intimating indirectly that Polanyi might agree- which obviously polanyi would not agree as polanyi feels that info can give rise to metainfo (Despite hte fact that there is nothign in biology to indicate this is hte case, infact, what biology indicates, is that metainfo already exists, and deals with new problems just hte way it was designed to

I think it’s the “Metainformation” that is really key here, that and the fact that simple chemicals simply don’t have this advanced information- no matter how they are combined. Evidence suggests the metainfo is already present, and must have always been already present per the heiarchal arguement