Brian D. Harper (11th Jan) had some very interesting thoughts on
the "argument from design".
>> Let's first use these ideas to test the reductionistic
viewpoint of Dawkins or Dennett, i.e. let's test the following
premises:
a) living things are just machines, mechanisms
b) life came to be by a mechanistic (algorithmic) process
c) life is reducible to physics, i.e. the algorithm for producing
life is comprised of the laws of physics.
I believe this claim to be already falsified by Chaitin's
results. Chaitin has determined the algorithmic complexity of the
laws of physics and found it to be very small (not surprising).
The algorithmic complexity of DNA is very very large (Yockey).>>
I cannot see how the reductionists are going to give in to this
argument!! If you can sustain it, it is worth devoting some time
to a thorough documentation!
I wonder whether there is an analogy here with the entropy
argument often used against evolution. If it is true that
entropy is low in living systems, and that complex organisms have
a lower entropy than simple organisms, how can evolutionary
change be possible when all the processes we know have the effect
of increasing entropy? The reductionist will dismiss the
argument on the grounds that we do not have closed systems - and
although the total effect is increasing entropy, the local effect
(with living systems) is an entropy decrease.
So, the argument would be that whatever Chaitin has determined,
the systems being analysed are not closed - so the supposed
falsification of reductionism fails.
>> If the complexity does not come from the laws of physics
themselves then it must come from some other input to the
"algorithm" responsible for evolution (whether it be chemical or
biological). The only possibility I can think of, limiting
ourselves to the rules of the game :-), is through specificity
in initial or boundary conditions. But this magnitude of
specificity leads one to Anthropic Principle type of arguments
with their inherent implications regarding design.>>
I am having difficulty getting my mind around this - because I
cannot envisage "initial or boundary conditions" which can be
abstracted from the laws of physics (or chemistry). My
understanding of Anthropic Principle arguments is that design is
apparent in the laws of physics and chemistry. Surely this is
what the self-organisationalists are saying??
>> On the cover page for the section "Evolutionary Dynamics and
Artificial Life" there is the following slogan:
"The mechanical world view will be swept away and replaced
by the picture of a self-creating world.">>
I do not see how this can be a move away from reductionism: the
only thing that has changed is our understanding of the natural
laws which describe the behaviour of our material world. The
slogan might be "The king is dead; long live the king!" which for
all practical purposes might be: "Business as usual ... !"
Then on 13th Jan, Brian contributed a further post on this theme.
>> Morowitz, whom I mentioned above, happens to be one of these
complexologists and, in fact, is editor in chief of a new journal
<Complexity> published by John Wiley. Has he lost his commitment
to design? No, his argument would be (if I dare speak for him :)
that the existence of natural laws allowing for the spontaneous
appearance of irreducible complexity is strong evidence of
design.>>
Presumably this is only at the level of the Anthropic Principle.
Jim Bell asked whether you could distinguish Anthropic Principle
design from Intelligent Design. You replied:
>> Ah, no, I don't think I could distinguish it from
"intelligent" design. :-)>>
It seems to me that Jim was right to ask the question, and I
would like to hazard a response.
Intelligent design is evidenced in, for example, the DNA code,
where there is no physical or chemical reason for the sequencing,
and where the sequencing has no direct connection to the
phenotype. We have raw information, analogous to machine code
computer software.
Anthropic Design is evidenced in, for example, the way enzymes
work: the chemical structure of the enzyme resulting in a precise
morphology which is appropriate for interacting with a specific
target material in order to execute a specific chemical reaction.
So, this is an attempt to keep Jim's question alive! I'm ready
to be corrected - and am very interested to find out what others
think.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***