At 04:09 PM 9/12/00 -0500, Stan wrote:
>Hi Brian!
>
>You commented on Nelson's post:
Hi Stan, sorry about my delay. I can't seem to keep up.
First let me say that my previous argument was not really
intended to be taken seriously. IOW, I do not believe you
can reason as I did to the conclusion of no design. My
point really was to illustrate the weakness of the argument
by analogy. But since I started it :), I guess I owe you
some kind of answer.
[...]
>OK, I'll bite. It is perhaps tempting to equate the concept
>of a designed object with an object with "irreducible simplicity"
>by the use of something like an Occam's razor principle. In other
>words, a truly intelligent designer would only use a very simple
>design, indeed perhaps the simplest possible one to achieve the
>desired goal or function.
Yes, I think simplicity of this type is a factor in engineering design,
though perhaps not as important as some might suppose. But this
brings up an important point that I wanted to throw out in another
thread. If ID is to be useful I believe one has to identify the constraints
on the designer. For example, Cuvier was undone because he would
not admit to there being any constraints on the designer. This was
a theological point of course. Since there are no constraints the
designer would optimize each and every form to its function. Homologies
were little known at this time of course. As more and more became
known, Cuvier's idea became less and less credible.
Today people talk about homologies as being a re-use of basic designs.
Since engineers do this they argue it must be a design principle as if
engineers were only concerned with design. But this is primarily an
economic constraint rather than a design principle. Now here comes
the weakness with the analogy argument. Shall we say that all designers
are constrained in the same ways? How about one capable of designing
the wonderfully complex organisms we see around us? Constrained in
the same way as human designers? Of course not. So, if you want
to make some headway you have to identify the constraints on the
designer of living things.
Another constraint of human engineers also pertains to simplicity.
They want machines that are controllable and predictable. Thus
they deliberately try, whenever possible, to avoid nonlinear ranges
in material or mechanical behavior. One of the complexities of
living things is that they are enormously nonlinear.
>However, assuming I understand what you
>mean by "simplicity", I would challenge this notion. The use
>of "multiple redundancy" (in spacecraft systems design, for example)
>is the work of an intelligent designer who has the foresight to
>anticipate adverse environmental conditions that might threaten
>the system's operation and to plan ahead of time for such contingencies.
>Thus, mechanical devices with such "backup systems" seem to me
>to be inherently less simple that those without such systems; yet
>they also seem to be more highly designed (although I admit it is
>hard to conceive of a quantitative index for "degree of design").
From the point of view of information theory the increased complexity
due to redundant structures is very slight.
>It's not a very large leap from the human design concept of multiple
>redundancy and the systems that employ this concept to the kinds of biological
>systems that contain various "error-checking" mechanisms.
Conceptually I would agree. But the complexity of the actual components
seems to me to vastly exceed that in engineering designs.
>So, I must be missing something...or perhaps it's not so
>"simple" after all. Can you help me?
No, its never simple :).
>Thanks,
You're welcome. Nice to hear from you again.
>Stan Zygmunt
>Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
>Valparaiso University
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"One never knows, do one?"
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 18:44:34 EDT