>>Ccogan: My point was intended to counter Bertvan's incredibly
fuzzy-thinking about the topic of what it takes to produce complexity, *not*
to claim that an infinite number of such combinations would occur in the real
world.
DNAunion: Since evolution and the origin of life are/were real world
occurrences, and your "theory" is not, then what does it tell us about these
topics?
>>DNAunion: Then you should have refrained from using "literally infinite".
>>Chris: Note that I did not say "*actually* infinite," which would be
something that would, indeed, be false.
DNAunion: Note that you also did not say something like *infinite -
occurring only in an idealized conceptual model with the added assumption of
an infinitely-old universe*.
>>CCogan: Perhaps I should have emphasized that I was talking about the
mathematical implications of the basic process of variation branching and
replication. But, wait! I *did* emphasize that!
>>DNAunion: Perhaps I should have emphasized that it was your supposed
mathematical use that was your downfall. But wait, I *did* emphasize that!
>>Ccogan: Seriously, though, perhaps I should have added asterisks around the
word "mathematical,"
>>DNAunion: No, you seriously should have left out the "literally infinite"
phrase.
>>Ccogan: but, even as is, I think it should be clear that I'm not claiming
that an *actual* infinity is or would be or even could be produced in a
finite period of time.
>>DNAunion: No, that is not clear when you use the word LITERALLY. If you are
speaking figuratively, then you should refrain from labeling such statements
as being LITERAL.
>>Chris: "Literal" and "actual" have different meanings.
DNAunion: "Literal" and "Actual" also have the *SAME* meaning (check
Webster's definitions of LITERAL and LITERALLY). I think it valid to assume
that if someone (here Chris) is proposing a mechanism/explanation for a real
world phenomenon, that his/her use of the term "literally" should take on the
added constraint of actually existing in / pertaining to the real world. It
makes little sense to invoke something that can occur ONLY in an imaginary
world as an explanation for something that has occurred in the real world, so
why should that illogical meaning be inferred by default by the reader?
>>Chris: A literal *mathematical* infinity is not an *actual* infinity, but
merely one that is be distinguished from a mere figurative mathematical
infinity (such as a googolplex raised to its own power a googolplex number of
times). But, you have a point, nevertheless. Using the word "mathematical"
should mean that I would not have to use the word "literal," because a
*mathematical* infinity already *is* a literal infinity. What I was trying to
emphasize
was that there is *no* mathematical limit to the number of possibilities to
the variational branching process.
DNAunion: But if the possibilities are infinite, and nature could have
accessed a maximum of only 10^150 of them since the birth of the universe,
then there are still an *infinite* number of possibilities that nature could
not have reached. So there would have been astronomically many more
never-hit-upon possibilities than there were hit-upon possibilities: only an
extremely, extremely, extremely, ...., small fraction of the possiblities
could ever be hit upon by nature (this statement gets the point across but is
not mathematically correct as there is no solution for Y in the equation
10^150 x Y = infinity, so there can't be any real fraction). Again, how does
this fact - that an infinite number of possibilities will *never* be realized
- help confirm nature's ability to create any complex structure or process?
>>Chris: To illustrate: Take one string of bits. Make a modified copy of it.
This makes two strings. Make a modified copy of each string, such that there
are now four distinct strings of bits. Thus, for each "generation," we double
the number of variations because we ensure that all copies are different from
their parent and from each other. Obviously, the total number of variations
approaches infinity as the number of generations approaches infinity
(although, strictly speaking, one does not "approach" infinity; one merely
gets further from the starting point).
DNAunion: It might work in the *in principle* world, but you still run into
insurmountable problems in the *real world*. The total number of elementary
particles in the entire universe is estimated to be about 10^80, or about
2^266. That is, if you took a single elementary particle and "doubled
it/them once per second", you would run out of matter in about 266 doublings
(less than 5 minutes!).
>>Chris: Though biological variations do not neatly double in number per
generation because there is so much duplication, there is still, in the same
way, no *mathematical* upper limit to the number of variations that can be
produced.
DNAunion: Hate to sound FMAJish (that is, repeating the same thing ad
nauseam) but your statement is only true for imaginary, ideal conditions: it
is false for the real world.
>>Ccogan: The point is that the process of producing variations has no
ultimate limit in and of itself, and that, therefore, the variations can be
as complex as is physically possible, given available materials and time
(lack of materials becomes a *selective* factor at some point, as does, in a
sense, insufficient time). There is no inherent "complexity-barrier" in the
process.
>>DNAunion: Great, then why have no Pentium III processors ever just
materialized in nature?
>>Chris : Easy: They aren't created by an inherently evolutionary process…
DNAunion: In your ideal universe where an infinite number of possibilities
occurs and there is literally no bounds to the degree of complexity that can
be generated, they could be manufactured by cells (which do evolve).
What unnatural atoms are found in a Pentium III processor? None. We just
have to get them bonded correctly (a reductionist point of view for sure).
Considering for the moment that a CPU is made only of silicon, then all that
would need to occur, basically, would be for some cell (of the "literally
infinite" ones) to find a receptor (among the "literally infinite" number of
receptors that would have been produced) that binds and internalizes silicon
(excreted enzymes - you know, the correct ones out of the "literally
infinite" number that were exported from the infinite number of cells - could
break SiO2 down into pure silicon in the surrounding environment). Once many
silicon atoms were inside the cell, an enzyme (of the "literally infinite"
number that would have arisen) would bond them together covalently forming a
very small flat plane (if the plane needed to be stabilized, one of the
"literally infinite" number of cellular molecules would have been able to
stabilize it). Once enough of the silicon became "polymerized", the cell
would lyse leaving the solid silicon mini-wafer behind. As this occurred
time and time again, a silicon wafer would begin to be assembled (keep in
mind that cells in your body - called osteoblasts - construct solid
structural materials - your bones - over and over again). From a very
reductionist point of view (and carrying out similar "infinite" logic for
other needed parts), we can extrapolate from the growing silicon wafer to a
CPU (the highly unlikely arrangement of parts is truly no problem in a
setting where an infinite number of possibilities are actually realized).
Of course, in the real world, this would not occur. That was my point.
Because the "literally infinite" capabilities do not manifest themselves in
the real world, we do not find CPUs in the preCambrian strata. Thus, in the
real world, there are obviously severe limitations that do not exist in the
ideal mathematical world.
>>Chris: … and, in nature, steps in that direction would be selected out.
DNAunion: Selection is probably meaningless in a literally infinite
population.
>>Chris: This has *nothing* to do with my claims. *Please* drop the silly
red herring type of argument.
DNAunion: No way - it has everything to do with your claims. (And now Chris
adds to his mild comment about my intelligence, an accusation of my using
underhanded tactics).
IF you are claiming that your model explains all real world complexity, then
you are basing your argument on a flawed premise as your model relies on
"literally infinite" coverage of possibilities (which cannot occur in the
real world). IF on the other hand you are claiming that your model works
only in the idealized world of mathematics, and not in reality, then you
really aren't making a point about nature. No red herring on my part, just
sound logic.
[…]
>>Chris: I see no point at all to your obfuscations other than to try to
confuse the issue for the sake of reeling in a few unwary or unknowledgeable
readers.
DNAunion: Then you need to reread my statements. Either:
(1) you are dealing with an imaginary world, relying on processes where the
number of outcomes is literally infinite- in which case your "findings"
cannot be legitimately applied to the real world.
OR
(2) you are dealing with the real world - in which case there are an infinite
number of possibilities that could not have ever been obtained, and a maximum
of only about 10^150 that could have: in which case, your argument has added
nothing to our understanding of nature's abilities, and it becomes
superfluous.
>>Chris: You know that there is *nothing* whatever in the process that I
have described, or in any implications of it, that would imply that a P III
processor could "just materialize in nature," and you know very well that I
am claiming no such thing.
DNAunion: As explained above, that Pentium IIIs could (would?) have arisen
by purely-natural means does follow from your statements, if you are claiming
that the number of actual variations is literally infinite and there is no
limit to complexity that variation etc. can generate. If these are not your
claims (which I now know to be the case), then of course Pentium IIIs would
not arise naturally (as I obviously believe to be the case), but then again,
the force of your argument drops towards zero also.
>>Chris: So why pretend that I am claiming such a thing, or that what I
have clearly spelled out here previously implies such a thing?
DNAunion: Your use of "literally infinite" and comments about there being no
limits to the degree of complexity capable of being produced by natural
processes lead to the conclusion that Pentium IIIs could (would?) have arisen
in nature. Of course, if you are stating that such idealized
outcomes/conditions apply only to imaginary worlds, that's fine: you can
scratch the idea that Pentium IIIs arose naturally, but you also have to
throw out at least most of your original argument.
>>Chris: I have *repeatedly* stated that the process requires only small
changes (as little as one bit of change *per* change) and that it achieves
complexity by *accumulating* these changes.
DNAunion: Small changes are consistent with my explanation for the origin of
Pentium IIIs in your imaginary world of "literally infinite" possibilities
being hit upon, and there being no limit to the degree of complexity that
your natural processes can produce. Are you stating that the origin of
Pentium IIIs in nature could only occur in an imaginary world, and not in the
real world? Great, then we agree: but then your argument based on "infinity"
and "no limits" goes down the drain.
>>Chris: I gather that you have not been paying attention to what I or any
of the other naturalistic evolutionists have been saying.
DNAunion: I gather you are not aware of what your own claims imply.
>>Chris: I have even written a post on why evolution does not imply that a
pile of car parts can or ever will assemble themselves into a working car.
DNAunion: Would that be in an imaginary infinite world, or in our real
world?
>>Chris: Tell you what, when you start showing some signs of dealing with
real issues instead of creating absurdities like the Pentium III case above,
maybe we can take you a bit more seriously. Until then, you are just making
yourself look out of touch.
DNAunion: Tell you what, when you learn what "literally infinite" and "no
limits to the degree of complexity", in relation to real world phenomena,
imply and stop trying to incorrectly apply idealized conditions from the
imaginary world to real world phenomenon, then….
Also, we can add more to Chris's growing list of (for the time being)
not-really-too-derogatory charges. Now I am making myself look foolish, and
proposing absurdities (on top of my being ignorant in math and employing red
herrings). Someone is turning our exchanges into a personal thing, and that
person is not me.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 10:08:50 EDT