At 05:16 PM 9/14/00 -0400, Bertvan wrote:
>
>
>
>Brian:
> >This is an important issue for me because I feel that
> >there are certain people who manage to get Christian
> >lay persons stirred up and then actively opposed to
> >science by telling them that evolution reveals a world
> >without purpose meaning or design. Now, if this really
> >is the result of the science of evolution then this is
> >justified. If it is instead certain scientists claiming that
> >their theological speculations are actually scientific
> >conclusions then I think its high time for some corrections
> >to be made. One problem is, of course, that the most
> >vocal elements on both sides of the evolution/creation
> >debate agree on this point.
>
> >My position is that there are no technical, objective
> >definitions of randomness that say anything about
> >purpose meaning etc. This being the case I am quite
> >happy to pursue the definition that you provided.
>
> >So, let's define a random process as one that involves
> >at least one random element.
>
>
>Hi Brian,
>Do you think the controversy would disappear if we were somehow able to adopt
>your devinition of random?
No. I'm not pressing for a particular definition of random. To me, the word
itself is not important but the idea or concept behind it. The word random
means something different in probability theory, Shannon information theory
and algorithmic information theory. Who has the authority to claim priority
for the word? No one. The fact of the matter is that different disciplines
routinely use the same word to mean different things. One has to force
oneself to first recognize this and then struggle to understand words in
their contexts.
Now back to the controversy. I think it would be greatly alleviated if people
quit playing word games. A word game occurs when you start with a
word in a technical context and then suddenly change definitions to
try to draw meaning from the words themselves (as Hubert Yockey
puts it). Many times this is done innocently. It probably comes as a
shock to some that the information content of a message has nothing to
do with its meaning and that random sequences have the greatest information
content. As another example, a law of nature (assuming it is correct and in its
final form) is algorithmically random. So, we might say that Newton's universal
law of gravity is random or nearly so. This is utter nonsense if you take
random
in its everyday meaning.
Now, the wordgamers could have a field day with this. They could mock
information theory (perhaps get a ban on government funds spent on the
subject) by saying "These idiots think that laws of nature are random".
Instead, they should say "These idiots think that laws of nature
represent the most concise descriptions of data". Of course, it
doesn't have quite the same effect when they don't play the word
game :).
Oh, and one more point. My statement above:
"My position is that there are no technical, objective
definitions of randomness that say anything about
purpose meaning etc."
was not intended as a definition. Were you taking it that way?
This is a logical consequence of having a technical objective
definition. Purpose is subjective and cannot be measured.
>Most people's definition of random means without plan, purpose, meaning or
>design. I agree that a process which includes plan, purpose, meaning or
>design can also include random components. In that case I wouldn't call the
>process random, myself. I don't think most people would. I'm sure everyone
>agrees all of nature includes random elements.
Yes, and I believe that if it were not so freedom would be impossible. Thus,
if one takes the definition of random process discussed in my last post it
would seem to be impossible for a designer to purposely design free beings.
>Do you mean that in "random
>mutation and natural selection" the mutations are random but natural
>selection is not?
This is the way its explained universally by every evolutionist writer that
I've
read. Perhaps it is clearer to say that mutations are (usually) random wrt
utility while selection is not.
>That is what I take Darwinism to mean. (correct me if I'm
>wrong) As an ID supporter I am skeptical of Darwinism, and suggest that the
>mutations are not random and natural selection doesn't play much part in the
>creation of complex organisms. Respectfully trying to understand your point,
>Bertvan
But in the engineering design process that I recently discussed (that mimics
Darwinism) the random element is crucial to success. I have a feeling that
as this sort of designing becomes more common people will start to be
less and less influenced by the theological pronouncements of some scientists.
As an aside, I was recently discussing the relation between engineering design
and simplicity. One reason for simplicity in design is that engineers cannot
handle the complexities. Given this I thought it significant to add that
one primary
motivation for using this type of design process is the enormous complexity of
a problem. Once again I could employ the argument by analogy to say that
we should expect designers to employ a random search/selection approach
whenever they design really complex things (like French mathematicians).
Brian Harper
Mechanical Engineering
Ohio State University
"Baby, I was born bawlin' and
I'm gonna bawl the rest of my life."
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 20:20:11 EDT