My new responses are marked PR. Peter
Tim Ikeda wrote: I had written:
[...]
>> Whether a change is effected by altering the likelihood of particular
>> event or momentarily replacing the "standard laws" of physics, we're
>> still talking about rewriting the rules in midstream and altering the
>> "natural" timeline. We may say that these examples do not violate
standard
>> QM but they do fly in the face of what is generally observed. For
example,
>> if something can direct the choice of possible outcomes for tunnelling
>> events, couldn't it power an engine by directing the tunnelling of gas
>> molecules to the inside of a sealed air tank?
Peter:
>The idea of God's "hidden options" involves neither altering likelihoods
>nor momentarily replacing the "standard laws" of physics, but a
>purposeful selection among different events, all of which are physically
>possible. Extremely low probabilities would not normally characterize
>such an individual event, but result from linking together a whole
>series of them, e.g. in the same molecule of DNA (without the
>intermediates being subject to natural selection).
[...]
Tim: Regardless of the number of steps involved, if the transition from
one
state to another represents a "transastronomical improbability" under
'normal conditions', unaided by supernatural interaction, then let me
suggest that this constitutes altering the 'natural timeline' and
'rewriting
the rules' midstream. It is a disruptive event that the 'rules' would
not
otherwise permit over the course of the universe's lifetime. The
proposed
mechanism, which involves forcing the outcome of a particular quantum
state
is no different, qualitatively, from tunnelling a rock or replacing an
entire genome in a single step. All involve manipulating systems in
'physically possible' ways to generate outcomes which have a
"transastronomical
improbability" of happening otherwise.
PR: The tails of a Gaussian distribution extend to infinity. Thus, it
includes events of any transastronomical improbability. Yet, every one
of these transastronomically improbable events is physically possible.
It would be permitted over the course of the universe's lifetime, even
unaided by supernatural interaction. It would not be a "disruptive
event" involving "forcing the outcome of a particular quantum state" or
"manipulating systems". Only, we should not reasonably expect it to
happen. But if it _does_ happen, how do we interpret it? And if such
transastronomically improbable events have happened many times, as they
appear to have happened in life's history?
The real question we have to address is whether such transitions over
several not naturally selected intermediates really are
transastronomically improbable. It is not reasonable to just _assume_
they are not transastronomically improbable because one thinks they
couldn't be.
In any case, the processes I consider transastronomically improbable are
not just connected with one "particular quantum state", as they
necessarily imply a combination of several selections of particular
mutational outcomes (_not_ naturally selected).
Tim: At the 1E-99999999% level of probability, I don't think one can
meaningfully distinguish between capability gaps and improbability
hurdles. They are effectively the same. It you can't go from state-A
to final state-B in the time allotted, you've encountered a capability
gap.
This is not to say that a divine agent couldn't use quantum events
to direct systems toward desired outcomes. I'm only suggesting
that trying to differentiate between 'capability gaps' and
'improbability hurdles' might not be a terribly meaningful exercise.
PR: I don't think so, as we are not dealing with individual elementary
events. The improbability arises from a particular combination of events
which individually are not improbable. Therefore there is no capability
gap. The mechanism matters. We cannot just deal with the mathematical
product of many probability values as if it were a single event. Each of
the individual mutational steps (and its natural selection etc.) is, in
principle, scientifically accessible, but the whole sequence is not. And
my explanation of God's "hidden options" is not accessible, either.
Therefore, it is not a god-of-the-gaps argument. Peter
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2001 - 11:11:46 EST