[tortoise]

Conversely, if they are able to explain it ? and the explanation requires a finite state mechanism of complexity beyond what could arise under the physical laws, i.e. a bootstrap ?algorithm? of the type Rocha mentions, then that would point directly to an intelligent designer.

Don't count on it. The Kolmogorov complexity of truly universal bootstrap systems that we know about is getting smaller and smaller. In fact, the smallest ones we know about are small enough that their random emergence in nature is well within the bounds of reasonable probability. It takes more than a bootstrap though, it also requires a semi-stable and suitable environment that lasts long enough for the bootstrap to bootstrap to interesting and better protected structures. I think the latter is more likely to be the rate limiting factor than the emergence of a bootstrap itself.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

It takes more than a bootstrap though, it also requires a semi-stable and suitable environment that lasts long enough for the bootstrap to bootstrap to interesting and better protected structures. I think the latter is more likely to be the rate limiting factor than the emergence of a bootstrap itself.

It may be as you say. However, I expect the epistemologically zealous, such as you, to always "finish the sentence."

Thus if the bootstrap is "Very unlikely. Deeply, shockingly unlikely." like Sir Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers" - you will say so.

And then IMHO the Hawking/Aristotles among you would invoke the anthropic principle and quit looking --- but the Penrose/Platonists among you would keep looking until it makes sense. LOL!