How can something be "universal" if it's something "relative to us?" This doesn't make sense to me: You can't put man "outside" of a system and then say the system is universal. Which is what happens when you make the relative position of the observer the criterion of what is "universal." Our frame of reference gives us relative position with respect to other frames. It does not give us truth, which is what the universal physical laws are awesomely good at approximating in astonishingly high degree.
It seems what we're looking for is a higher frame of reference. If indeed it is true that the universe is one single, integrated, dynamic, "informed" system — as modern theory suggests — then that frame of reference would need to extend to the whole; as such it would be universal.
You wrote this puzzling line: "Not everything, simply everything that is not identical." No explanation given. Is it reasonable for me to infer that here you are making a case for some kind of novel, spontaneous emergence? Or do you really believe in "special creation" for "non-identical" entities? If the latter, how would that work?
Thanks so much for writing, LeGrande!
p.s.: RE: my "bunch of guesses ... dressed up nicely in an equation format." I wouldn't exactly call them guesses. But if it pleases you, you may do so. BTW, I left out the algorithmic complexity value conventionally given for DNA: ~109 bits.
I'm sorry you did not appreciate the way I "imagined" the structure of the IC/AP system. It could be imagined differently. But I thought this might be a good way to tackle the issue, especially because it makes explicit work done in the assessment of the algorithmic complexity of living systems, and suggests how unimaginably vast is the "available potential information" of Nature.
Also, some Jewish mystics have proposed that the firmament of Genesis is the speed of light and not geometric, i.e. no "here" and "there" division between physical and spiritual reality.
Moreover, no particles are at rest, space/time continually expands. For that reason, a photon sent by a star which was a billion light years away may not reach us for ten billion light years, long after the star is gone. The photon did not slow down, time did not elapse for the photon - but because space/time expands, it took longer to reach us.
Or to put it another way, rest frames in space/time are time relative - they only occur at a moment. For the observer "in" space/time, the rest frame is a mathematical construct.
Only the observer outside of space and time - God - sees every where and every when, all at once.
That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past. - Ecc 3:14-15
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58
That is just it. It isn't Universal, it is Relative.
It seems what we're looking for is a higher frame of reference. If indeed it is true that the universe is one single, integrated, dynamic, "informed" system — as modern theory suggests — then that frame of reference would need to extend to the whole; as such it would be universal.
That is the point. There is no universal (higher) frame of reference.
You wrote this puzzling line: "Not everything, simply everything that is not identical." No explanation given. Is it reasonable for me to infer that here you are making a case for some kind of novel, spontaneous emergence? Or do you really believe in "special creation" for "non-identical" entities? If the latter, how would that work?
If ID and IC are correct, then there had to be distinct and separate creations complete and fully formed. Evolution from simpler to more complex organisms is ruled out. The Design had to be in place at the beginning, IC rules out modifications.
You're asking me how it would work? I have no idea, other than the story of creation and we know that that story doesn't hold water : )
I'm sorry you did not appreciate the way I "imagined" the structure of the IC/AP system. It could be imagined differently. But I thought this might be a good way to tackle the issue, especially because it makes explicit work done in the assessment of the algorithmic complexity of living systems, and suggests how unimaginably vast is the "available potential information" of Nature.
Did you take into account the Sum of all paths, as posited by Feynman and Penrose as information? Potentially that would be an infinite amount of information right there. Like I said, guesses dressed up in an equation : )