On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 15:42:11 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
>>LH>(Those "primordial seeds," mentioned above, are crucial data for galactic
>>>formation.) There are models, but they're pretty weakly constrained
>>>compared to other processes/events in cosmological history.
>>SJ>Planting "primordial seeds" is an *intervention* by a human
>>intelligent designer. If all cosmological models require the
>>arbitrary intervention of a human intelligent designer then they are
>>support for intervention by a *real* Intelligent Designer.
BH>There were many other statements along a similar vein.
>
>You make an interesting point that I would like to pursue.
>What would a model of the intervention of an Intelligent
>Designer look like?
I would assume that such "a model of the intervention of an
Intelligent Designer would look" un-"like" a non-interventionist
fully naturalistic model. That is, there would be be origins that
would defeat purely naturalistic explanations.
BH>Is the model under discussion here an example of such a model?
It could be. If science gradually makes progress in integrating its
computer models and relies more on plausible early-universe
physical laws and less on human intervention, then that will
tend to falsify a interventionist Intelligent Designer model.
Of course that would not in any way disprove that there was an
Intelligent Designer, just that He did not intervene supernaturally
in cosmological history.
OTOH, if science is unable to make no further progress in integrating
its models, and is unable to dispense with human intervention at
critical points, then that would tend to support the ID
interventionist model.
It is significant to me that the situation is the same in cosmology
as it is in the origin of life. Both fields need what Thaxton et al
call the "illegitimate role of the investigator":
"Over the years a slowly emerging line or boundary has appeared which
shows observationally the limits of what can be expected from matter
and energy left to themselves, and what can be accomplished only
through what Michael Polanyi has called "a profoundly informative
intervention.". When it is acknowledged that most so-called
prebiotic simulation experiments actually owe their success to the
crucial but illegitimate role of the investigator, a new and fresh
phase of the experimental approach to life's origin can then be
entered. Until then however, the literature of chemical evolution
will probably continue to be dominated by reports of experiments in
which the investigator, like a metabolizing Maxwell Demon, will have
performed work on the system through intelligent, exogenous
intervention. Such work establishes experimental boundary
conditions, and imposes intelligent influence/control over a
supposedly "prebiotic" earth. As long as this informative
interference of the investigator is ignored, the illusion of
prebiotic simulation will be fostered. We would predict that this
practice will prove to be a barrier to solving the mystery of life's
origin." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of
Life's Origin", 1992, p185)
BH>I would like to see a definition of intervention and intelligent
>design which supports your view that the cosmological model
>being discussed here is an interventionist model.
>
>I'll go first. All these ideas are my own and are not intended
>to represent yours or anyone else's views.
>
>Let's start by considering, by way of analogy, the argument
>from fine tuning. This seems a suitable analogy since it
>also involves cosmology. In this argument we make the
>observation that several parameters must fall within a
>very narrow range in order to yield some desired final
>outcome, usually a universe suitable for life. The basic
>idea of design is this fine tuning towards some final goal
>or purpose.
Agreed.
BH>Now for the computer model. The final goal would be
>associated with the final output of the model. For
>this output to have been designed one would need to
>maintain that the planting of the "primordial seeds"
>was performed with some final goal in mind. So, I
>think you would have a case if the modelers selected
>"primordial seeds" in such a way as to achieve some
>final purpose. From what Loren wrote, there does not
>seem to be any selection of this type going on:
Of course there is. Do you think they just threw anything into the
model and it worked first time? If that was so, they could use "the
outputs of other computer models". The problem is that "the
outputs of other computer models" do *not* yield values that can be
fed into the input of the computer model of the next stage. They have
to "insert it by hand".
>======
>LH>...For the "initial condition" inputs and the
>>assumptions made at the smallest and largest length scales
>>of these models, they don't usually rely on the outputs of
>>other computer models; as much as possible, they start with
>>known observational data (they "insert it by hand").
>=======
See above.
BH>If the modelers start with known observational data, or
>output from other models for that matter, then they are
>not selecting the initial conditions to produce some
>desired final result.
The problem is that if the "output from other models" is different
from "known observational data", then there must be something wrong
with the model. Only when the model yields "known observational data"
as its output, and that can be fed into the model for the next
stage and so on, up the chain, can we have confidence they
are modelling something in the real world.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------