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 : )
So you keep saying, LeGrande. Over and over.
For some reason you cite the Feynman path integral formalism on this question. But since the formalism sums an infinity of possible trajectories to compute a single quantum amplitude, I think the problem of "what is the 'adequate' frame of reference for this procedure?" comes to the fore.
Is it that of the localized particle, whose trajectory has been calculated as the sum of an infinite number of virtual histories (from its point of view, so to speak), which converts to a finite quantity?
Or is it that of the "configuration space" of the entire procedure which, because it is defined by an infinite number of possible trajectories, must itself be very large, indeed verging on infinity?
It seems clear to me that, on the above assumptions, the "frame of reference" of the localized particle, having been "reduced" to the finite, is ever much less than that of the total configuration space. Yet the local particle is part of that configuration space.
Therefore, it seems clear to me that the frame of reference we need to understand these phenomena is that of the entire configuration space. Certainly this is "larger" (or "higher") than that of the local particle's reference frame.
Just thinking out loud....
You wrote:
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.I believe these statements might be true if the materialist/naturalistic/physicalist presuppositions regarding reality are valid. But these models give us no way to understand such widespread biological phenomena as consciousness, self-direction, intelligence, even the idea of information — let alone explain the process by which life comes into existence. And so we are questioning those models.... To the extent that the ToE depends on these models, it might have to be revised.
I happen to believe that all three of your statements are false. Maybe we'll get around to them one at a time, in due course.
Thank you so much for writing, LeGrande!