Intelligent Design Now Comes to Australia ( Issue is Going International)

Sydney Morning Heralkd ^ | Aug 11,2005 | AAP

[VadeRetro]

All my memories are of in-body stuff.

I am a living out-of-body experience of my late father. Well, half of me is.

[King Prout]

people want to believe the world is less mundane than it is.

*shrugs*

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping to this fascinating sidebar!

VadeRetro, I'd like to challenge you - and PatrickHenry, if you are interested - to contemplate the difference in two concepts of infinity. I'll use time as an example.

On the one hand, theologians and philosophers - and most all cosmologists - look at the finite existence ("in" space/time regardless of dimensionality) - in context with the void. In the void, there is no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no physical causality, no information, no geometry, no thing. The emphasis goes to no physical causality. Concerning time, this is also seen as eternity - timelessness.

On the other hand, certain scientists and philosophers view infinity as merely finite without borders. In that view, finite is indeed a subset of infinite. But the entire worldview rests on the pre-existence of time itself. And not only time, but time ordered by physical causality - a line and not a plane, certainly not a dimension. Obviously this view is counter-indicative to current thinking in geometric physics (additional temporal dimensions, etc.) but that's a sidebar for another day...

The bottom line to this sidebar on this thread is these two views of "infinity" are not the same at all.

To get a handle on Grandpierre and many others - one must be able to comprehend the void as well as boundaryless-ness.

It is in that meditation that one realizes that order cannot arise from the void - the true chaos - without a "guide" to the system. We Christians know that God is the uncaused cause. There can be no other.

[betty boop]

I nearly fell over when I heard that slimeballs were promoting this [NDEs] as a preview of heaven, or whatever. some puking scum will say anything for a buck. I put them in the same category as con artists who bilk the elderly out of their life savings, or evangelists who ply the TV viewing morons for donations while sucking the toes of prostitutes.

Jeepers, js1138, you certainly seem to be more attracted to the fine art of polemics than you are to scientific/mathematical rigor in such pronouncements.

And then VadeRetro seems to have found a new talent for satire. And PH seems to demonstrate some kind of characteristic strange melange of stoicisim cum cynicism.

What a cast of characters! But we do have some fun some times, don't we?

I'll be back with my counter-satire in due course....

[Alamo-Girl]

What a cast of characters! But we do have some fun some times, don't we?

Indeed. Wit is fun but it is not a substantive alternative to wisdom. I look forward to a return to well-reasoned debates on the science threads.

Thank you oh so very much for all your insights!

[PatrickHenry]

To get a handle on Grandpierre and many others - one must be able to comprehend the void as well as boundaryless-ness.

I confess, A-Girl, that I am unable "to comprehend the void as well as boundaryless-ness." That leaves me with two possible conclusions:

a. People like Grandpierre are babbling buffoons.

b. I'm an uncomprehending buffoon.

So which is it? I don't know. It may be that Grandpierre's really got something. But if he does, it's something I lack. Either way, I can't meaningfully participate in this.

[Mylo]

More than you could possibly imagine.

[VadeRetro]

On the other hand, certain scientists and philosophers view infinity as merely finite without borders. In that view, finite is indeed a subset of infinite. But the entire worldview rests on the pre-existence of time itself. And not only time, but time ordered by physical causality - a line and not a plane, certainly not a dimension. Obviously this view is counter-indicative to current thinking in geometric physics (additional temporal dimensions, etc.) but that's a sidebar for another day...

You and Grandpierre are evidently quaffing the same hooch. I defer to you, Madam! You do him much better than I.

Speaking of which, Betty, thanks for getting me drunk last night!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both for your replies! Your frankness is much appreciated, PatrickHenry!

For anyone interested in more on the subject:

Seems to me that some may be valuing Grandpierre’s insights as though he were an intelligent design theorist or a Christian creationist. He is neither, but it should make no difference if he were.

From a temporal perspective (boundaryless-ness) – Grandpierre’s musings on the chain are akin to fractals - which we often associate with Mandelbrot sets and have recently discussed wrt cell intelligence.

Please check out the following webpage which explains the infinite detail in a Mandelbrot set from an artist’s point of view. Essentially, the observable finite is merely a “morsel” of the potential infinity in the fractal.

The void, on the other hand, is none of this. Conceptually, one might think of it as the background in which the Mandelbrot set materializes or becomes observable. But that too is an impoverished view in that the void itself is not merely empty space or a vacuum – indeed, the void has no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no geometry, no information, no mathematics, no thing and especially no physical causality. It is the context of everything which is possible.

Grandpierre put it this way:

The realm of the Finite cannot exist without the realm of Infinity, since the Finite can change only by its connection with Infinity, and it can maintain itself only by continuously changing.”

I would put it somewhat differently:

What we perceive as finite is actually but a segment of a potentially endless chain of the same phenomenon. Even so, no temporal phenomenon (whether finite or without boundary) can exist or evolve except in the void.

Or to recast my phrasing using Grandpierre’s terminology:

What we perceive as Existence is actually but a morsel of a potentially endless chain of the same phenomenon. Even so, no Existence can come to be outside the context of Non-Existence – which accommodates all potential possibilities.

[PatrickHenry]

Betty, thanks for getting me drunk last night!

I may not understand Grandpierre’s insights about the void, the infinite, or the foggy-foggy-dew, but I'm not a complete fool. I can read between the lines.

[VadeRetro]

Still in Dave Barry mode, another episode of "Look Out! Here Comes Mr. Language-Enforcement Person!"

... accommodates all potential possibilities.

Redundant. I picked on Grandpierre a bit for this usage. Potentially, it may be possible that English may not be his first language. There is no need to accomodate anything beyond real possibilities. While it may be possible that a thing could only potentially be possible, the distinction seems overly nuanced.

[VadeRetro]

I can read between the lines.

Shut your dirty mind!

[PatrickHenry]

I hope BB has the good sense to keep her anti-virus software up to date.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Without getting into yet another sidebar on "what is reality?" - I would like to suggest that "potential possibilities" may indeed seem grammatically tautologous.

However, I suspect his intent was to convey that not all possibilities are equal.

Around here, it seems like when many people speak of "probabilities" they are actually speaking about combinations. It is frequently argued that way against the theory of evolution - the "improbability" of this or that is presented as a simple combination.

And, invariably, the equating of probability and combination is countered by alternative probability theory (such as Bayesian) which makes the point that not all possibilities are equally likely to occur.

[VadeRetro]

It was all quite harmless, you know. It's supposed to be good for one's circulation.

[VadeRetro]

However, I suspect his intent was to convey that not all possibilities are equal.

I calculate a .73 probability you're right.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thank you for the chuckle!

[betty boop]

Hello VR! So glad you enjoyed your vino last evening! It is said, “in vino veritas.” But I think you missed the point that Grandpierre was making regarding Finite Existence and Infinity. Essentially, this is a problem that encompasses two time orders – time; and timelessness, or “infinity,” eternity.

All existing things are finite, because they are in time. But existing things also participate in timelessness. To view how that may be so, one would need to step out of “normal” 4D experience, and imagine the "all that there is" (i.e., the universe) from the standpoint of an observer who stands outside of linear time. The observer would see all that there is as occurring in one present moment. There is no past, present, or future in infinity. Time is not a line, but a plane. But even from the 4D perspective, we may be able to recognize that the timelessness of infinity contains all possibilities that can come into existence in time. Not all possibilities are extant all at once within the 4D “band.” And tellingly, it is a creative agent who drives the selection of possibilities that can be realized – that is, an intelligent agent capable of making a decision.

Grandpierre is not speaking of God here (he is not a theist!!!): Rather, I think he sees that nature (existence) is shot through with creative agents – living beings possessing some form of awareness or sentience, at the “low end,” e.g., molecules, cells, molecular machines; at the “high end,” human self-consciousness.

IOW, “observers” are information processors and catalysts reifying decisions (successful communications leading to a reduction of uncertainty in the receiver, in Shannon’s model) made available by an extraordinarily rich and dynamic information flow mediated to inorganic and organic existents via particle exchanges with universal fields. The universality of fields speaks to timelessness, and unboundedness.

Plato has a pithy way of stating this case: “Time is the moving image of Eternity.” Finite existents similarly are moving images of the Cosmos (to the Greeks) or of God (to Christians). Alamo-Girl’s reference to fractals and Mandlebrot sets is very instructive here.

You didn’t think much of this, I gather: “The realm of the Finite cannot exist without the realm of Infinity, since the Finite can change only by its connection with Infinity, and it can maintain itself only by continuously changing.”

I just love this line! To me it speaks to the fundamental dynamic undergirding all existence, which one conjectures is a dynamic tension between that which does not change in nature (a conservation principle), and that which is susceptible to change (that which we call “random,” but perhaps this would be misleading).

The Infinite in this observation is that which does not change; it is the complete set of all possible existents that can come into being. Reified existents are finite; that is, changeable, changing, contingent, limited in/by space and time.

By way of illustration, the human body moves about in universal fields, exchanging particles/charges with the “external world” such that the body is never exactly the same each time it is “measured.” Cells come and go; but we do not cease to be recognizably “ourselves.” It is said that the human body replaces all its cells periodically, that is every 7 years. And yet we are “conserved” as who we are, for at least as long as we exist – i.e., have life. When we no longer have life, the 2nd law of thermodynamics takes over; and our cellular materials are eventually returned to “nature” -- for “recycling,” so to speak.

But what becomes of our life – the seeming form of our material being – when we die? It seems life is somehow opposed to the operation of the second law, at least during our existence. But what happens to life when we “die?” We know that the second law inexorably claims material bodies; but it seems to me that if a “life principle” dominates the second law in material existence, it appears doubtful to me that “life” and “matter” can be equated; or more particularly, that the former cannot be entirely reduced to the latter.

Well, that’s enough for now, I guess. We are in the domain of cosmological speculation here, and perhaps this sort of thing is not to your taste anyway. So thanks for hearing me out, and thanks so much for writing, VadeRetro!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the beautiful essay-post and further explanation of the principles involved in Grandpierre's statement!!!

[VadeRetro]

Hello VR! So glad you enjoyed your vino last evening! It is said, “in vino veritas.”

It was only two serving-size containers of Chateau Slopbucket Merlot.

But I think you missed the point that Grandpierre was making regarding Finite Existence and Infinity...

I could understand you thinking that.

All existing things are finite, because they are in time... etc. etc.

You generate this stuff rather better than I do. I bow before you and AG!

... It is said that the human body replaces all its cells periodically, that is every 7 years...

I think I heard that about replacing molecules, not cells. Some of our cells are relatively irreplaceable once we are grown. Central nervous system neurons would be an example, if I recall correctly.

... We are in the domain of cosmological speculation here, and perhaps this sort of thing is not to your taste anyway.

This may be the real problem. My eyes simply glaze over on reading any text which is overly abstract. That probably makes me a concrete-head!