Pattern recognition and belief in God

[Sriram]

Not really, they are based on the two most fundamental (well tested) theories of reality we have (general relativity and quantum field theory). Both suggesting (in somewhat different ways) that the question of first cause or infinite regress may not be applicable.

Science is telling us that the question may not be relevant, "spiritual theories" appear to be indistinguishable from blind guesses.

Scientists say that the questions are not relevant when the possible answers are outside their comfort zone...!     Fairly standard response...

[Gordon]

Scientists say that the questions are not relevant when the possible answers are outside their comfort zone...!     Fairly standard response...

Not really: if these 'possible answers' are irrelevant to the scientific method then you'd need an alternative method in order to justify these 'possible answers', and as we've often seen there is no such method.

Of course the other issue here is that if you've already decided these 'possible answers' are valid without a method of investigating them then you are in cart-before-horse territory, as well as begging the question.

[Stranger]

Scientists say that the questions are not relevant when the possible answers are outside their comfort zone...!     Fairly standard response...

Simply wrong. Science is actually the only field that is offering any answers at all. As has already been pointed out, positing an intelligence (or any of the other claims of the religions) doesn't answer the 'problem' of infinite regress or first cause. All they offer are largely unfalsifiable, untestable, often mutually contradictory assertions that, in any event, fail to address the problems.

Neither quantum mechanics nor general relativity were developed to answer these questions, they were both developed to describe the world and produce testable and falsifiable predictions, yet both appear to offer potential answers.

Those working on the problems directly have many other potential answers - all far more credible than any religion merely because they are at least based in what we know and are able to test. I posted the series of videos on the subject here: Before the Big Bang.

[Stranger]

The example you choose is very specific to this earth and its life forms.
Outside living matter, natural events tend not to create the specific complexity existing within life forms.
Natural events will cause destruction of life forms, which is why things die.

This is just evidence denying drivel. There is no evidence whatsoever that life is not a natural phenomenon, and plentiful evidence that it is. Evolution explains the complexity and diversity.

And you're still using this "specific complexity" phrase as if it means something. Perhaps you mean the long discredited notion of "specified complexity"?

The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.

...

On page 150 of No Free Lunch Dembski claims he can demonstrate his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." When Tellgren investigated Dembski's "Law of Conservation of Information” using a more formal approach, he concluded it is mathematically unsubstantiated. Dembski responded in part that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity". Jeffrey Shallit states that Demski's mathematical argument has multiple problems, for example; a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 10⁶⁵.

Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). When information is replicated, some copies can be differently modified while others remain the same, allowing information to increase. These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.

[jeremyp]

The example you choose is very specific to this earth and its life forms.

But it is an example. If the second law of thermodynamics works in the way you suggest, it would be impossible for life forms to manufacture more life forms out of their constituent components and yet, that is exactly what happens.

Outside living matter, natural events tend not to create the specific complexity existing within life forms.

Galaxies are more complex than the clouds of gas out of which they form and there are literally hundreds of billions of them just in the part of the Universe we can see.

Natural events will cause destruction of life forms, which is why things die.

Natural events also cause the creation of new life forms.

[Sriram]

Simply wrong. Science is actually the only field that is offering any answers at all. As has already been pointed out, positing an intelligence (or any of the other claims of the religions) doesn't answer the 'problem' of infinite regress or first cause. All they offer are largely unfalsifiable, untestable, often mutually contradictory assertions that, in any event, fail to address the problems.

Neither quantum mechanics nor general relativity were developed to answer these questions, they were both developed to describe the world and produce testable and falsifiable predictions, yet both appear to offer potential answers.

Those working on the problems directly have many other potential answers - all far more credible than any religion merely because they are at least based in what we know and are able to test. I posted the series of videos on the subject here: Before the Big Bang.

You are not getting the point.  You seem to think that this is some good old 'science vs religion' debate.  It isn't.   I have no problem with what science is investigating. 

The issue is that scientific investigations are like looking through a microscope. That is fine for certain phenomena.   But you cannot insist that you should be able to see the stars also with the same microscope...if not the existence of stars is without evidence, according to you!!

How then to explain the things shining n the sky?  Since you can see only bacteria through the methods you employ...you try to explain stars in terms of bacteria. That is ridiculous!

Different methods and methodologies need to be employed to study different phenomena.   

[Stranger]

Different methods and methodologies need to be employed to study different phenomena.   

Firstly, you totally ignored my point.

Secondly, you haven't actually presented any sort of alternative methodology (except blind guessing based on what you'd like to believe), let alone come up with any answers. Science does use different methods for different phenomena but the methodology of science is what has achieved testable theories from the sub-atomic realm to the whole observable universe and its history.

[Alan Burns]

This is just evidence denying drivel. There is no evidence whatsoever that life is not a natural phenomenon, and plentiful evidence that it is. Evolution explains the complexity and diversity.

And you're still using this "specific complexity" phrase as if it means something. Perhaps you mean the long discredited notion of "specified complexity"?

The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.

...

On page 150 of No Free Lunch Dembski claims he can demonstrate his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." When Tellgren investigated Dembski's "Law of Conservation of Information” using a more formal approach, he concluded it is mathematically unsubstantiated. Dembski responded in part that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity". Jeffrey Shallit states that Demski's mathematical argument has multiple problems, for example; a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 10⁶⁵.

Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). When information is replicated, some copies can be differently modified while others remain the same, allowing information to increase. These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.

Shallit's argument is entirely dependent on his personal view of what he claims to be "information increase".  The random unguided forces of nature will certainly change whatever comprises the information contained in DNA, but truly random forces will invariably destroy useable information rather than increase it.  Try adding a few random characters to any piece of computer code and see what happens.

[ProfessorDavey]

... but truly random forces will invariably destroy useable information rather than increase it.

Not if certain configurations are inherently more stable than others - either due to the fundamentals of energetics, or that some configurations increase the chance of being inherited by a new generation due to evolutionary advantage.

[jeremyp]

The issue is that scientific investigations are like looking through a microscope.

You don't understand science. You think it's some sort of arcane art performed by men in white coats in special rooms. That's wrong. This is what science is:

1. You observe some interesting phenomenon

2. You make a guess about how it works.

3. Work out the consequences of your guess.

4. You test the consequences to see if they accord with reality.

5. If your guess does not accord with reality, your guess is wrong. Go back to step 2.

That's fundamentally all there is to science. All the fancy equipment and processes you see are just there to help you do the observations, do the testing and make sure you don't get fooled by the results. That's it.

No other method than the above has ever told us anything concrete about the real world.

Here's Richard Feynman explaining it much better than I can

https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/

[jeremyp]

Shallit's argument is entirely dependent on his personal view of what he claims to be "information increase".  The random unguided forces of nature will certainly change whatever comprises the information contained in DNA, but truly random forces will invariably destroy useable information rather than increase it.  Try adding a few random characters to any piece of computer code and see what happens.

The forces of nature are not random.

Evolution by natural selection is not analogous to adding random characters to computer code. For one thing, you are totally ignoring the "natural selection" part.

[Stranger]

Shallit's argument is entirely dependent on his personal view of what he claims to be "information increase".  The random unguided forces of nature will certainly change whatever comprises the information contained in DNA, but truly random forces will invariably destroy useable information rather than increase it.  Try adding a few random characters to any piece of computer code and see what happens.

Firstly, Shallit is only one of many critics of the idea of specified complexity, which, like irreducible complexity, is considered as nothing but pseudo-science made up by creationists and proponents of intelligent design.

Secondly, it is absurd to say that random variation will always destroy usable information since any mutation is just as likely as its inverse, so if you (somehow) define one as a loss of information, its (equally probable) reverse must increase it.

Thirdly, you are ignoring natural selection. If a change is useful (in the context of survival in the environment), it will reproduce (exactly because it is useful), if it is detrimental, it will die out (because it's detrimental).

Fourthly, variation and selection are actually used in real world design processes, see, for example: Evolutionary algorithm.

All this just goes to show that your ignorance of the process of evolution is as complete as your ignorance of logic and sound reasoning. Why is it you never bother to actually do your homework before speaking of things you don't understand?

[Alan Burns]

The forces of nature are not random.

Evolution by natural selection is not analogous to adding random characters to computer code. For one thing, you are totally ignoring the "natural selection" part.

Natural selection can only work on things which have gained advantage by some means.
Which from a secular point of view requires random forces to be capable of increasing the usefulness of information rather than corrupting it.

[Stranger]

Natural selection can only work on things which have gained advantage by some means.
Which from a secular point of view requires random forces to be capable of increasing the usefulness of information rather than corrupting it.

Which is exactly what random variation will do some of the time (otherwise, it wouldn't be random). Most mutations are neutral, some are deleterious and some are useful. The useful are amplified by natural selection.

This is all observable and mathematically modellable.

[Alan Burns]

Secondly, it is absurd to say that random variation will always destroy usable information since any mutation is just as likely as its inverse, so if you (somehow) define one as a loss of information, its (equally probable) reverse must increase it.

The absurdity is in your presumption that truly random events are equally probable of increasing information rather than corrupting it.

[Stranger]

The absurdity is in your presumption that truly random events are equally probable of increasing information rather than corrupting it.

That's not actually what I said. I was saying that you can't claim (no matter how you define 'useful information') that it is always reduced and never increased by random variation because any change that a mutation can make can happen in the other direction too*.

And you're still ignoring natural selection, which ensures that the useful changes survive and the deleterious ones die out - so the fact that most mutations are not useful is irrelevant.

* To be clear, any particular change has a low probability, but a change from (say) GGATCG to AGATCG is just as probable as its inverse, so if one is an decrease in information (however you define it), the other must be an increase, so claiming that all random changes decrease information is nonsensical.

[Sriram]

You don't understand science. You think it's some sort of arcane art performed by men in white coats in special rooms. That's wrong. This is what science is:

1. You observe some interesting phenomenon

2. You make a guess about how it works.

3. Work out the consequences of your guess.

4. You test the consequences to see if they accord with reality.

5. If your guess does not accord with reality, your guess is wrong. Go back to step 2.

That's fundamentally all there is to science. All the fancy equipment and processes you see are just there to help you do the observations, do the testing and make sure you don't get fooled by the results. That's it.

No other method than the above has ever told us anything concrete about the real world.

Here's Richard Feynman explaining it much better than I can

https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/

That is fine.  But first causes cannot be understood using the above steps.  Consciousness for example, cannot be understood using that methodology.

[Stranger]

But first causes cannot be understood using the above steps.

This is obviously false. Causation (or lack thereof) is already part of scientific theories, as I have already pointed out.

Consciousness for example, cannot be understood using that methodology.

A great deal of progress is being made here as well.

And you still have offered no alternative methodology.

[Sriram]

This is obviously false. Causation (or lack thereof) is already part of scientific theories, as I have already pointed out.

A great deal of progress is being made here as well.

And you still have offered no alternative meyhodology.

I have no methodology in the manner in which you require it.  For me, subjective insight and pattern recognition is enough as evidence of subtle forces working in my life.  Elaborate methodologies are not required. 

[Outrider]

It is not natural for more complex things to arise from less complex.

There are innumerable instances of this being the case - weather patterns, movements of schools of fish, evolution by natural selection, creation of river deltas by the combination of sedimentation and tidal erosion...

If nothing else, 'nature' appears to be the interaction of five fundamental forces, and yet here you are as a manifestation of those forces deploying 26 letters and a few punctuations marks through a created coding system to convey meaning via a collective electronic reference system around the world whilst still being manifestly, demonstrably, almost painfully wrong.

It is demonstrable that naturally occurring events tend to destroy complexity rather than create it.

Tend to, but not exclusively do. Given enough time.  And a closed system.

It is why all living things will eventually die.

It's actually not, but it is why we have a probably heat-death of the universe to look forward to.

It was a miracle that the first living cell was not killed off by natural forces before it reproduced.

We don't know that the first wasn't, and who knows how many others that followed also died off quickly - we only have evidence that one (at least) survived long enough to establish a self-replicating chain that, subject to evolutionary developments, continues to this day.

The ability of living things to reproduce is evidence of intentional design to combat the natural events which ultimately destroy life and generate ever increasing chaos.

It's neither evidence for nor against an intentional design, in and of itself, it's simply evidence of a system that requires reproduction in order to continue.  The same fragility of data-units and replication that leads to individual organisms dying is part of the mechanism that leads to variation between generations even in asexual reproduction - to try to divide one into motivation and another into technique in the eye of some overseeing designer is to fail to appreciate that they are facets of the same function.

O.

[Maeght]

The absurdity is in your presumption that truly random events are equally probable of increasing information rather than corrupting it.

Straight from creationist websites.

[Stranger]

For me, subjective insight and pattern recognition is enough as evidence of subtle forces working in my life.  Elaborate methodologies are not required.

Then you're very likely to be wrong. People are very 'good' as seeing patterns and intention where none actually exist and very bad at dealing with randomness and coincidence.

[Gordon]

Natural selection can only work on things which have gained advantage by some means.
Which from a secular point of view requires random forces to be capable of increasing the usefulness of information rather than corrupting it.

What on earth has 'secular' to do with evolutionary science?
 

[torridon]

Shallit's argument is entirely dependent on his personal view of what he claims to be "information increase".  The random unguided forces of nature will certainly change whatever comprises the information contained in DNA, but truly random forces will invariably destroy useable information rather than increase it.  Try adding a few random characters to any piece of computer code and see what happens.

That is the principle upon which some machine learning techniques work.  It's also the principle used in computer modelling in theoretical evolutionary biology.  As in nature, there is a selection process involved which tends to favour useful variations and discard the un-useful ones.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You are not getting the point.  You seem to think that this is some good old 'science vs religion' debate.  It isn't.   I have no problem with what science is investigating.

Why would you?

The issue is that scientific investigations are like looking through a microscope.

No that isn’t the issue and no “scientific investigations” are not like looking through a microscope. Science is a method as well as an accumulation of knowledge, and that method simply requires that there be a meaningful way to investigate and explain the phenomena it observes.

That is fine for certain phenomena.

What makes you think there are other kinds of phenomena for which it’s not “fine”, at least in principle? If not for the methods of science, what other method would you propose to investigate and verify your various claims and assertions?

But you cannot insist that you should be able to see the stars also with the same microscope...if not the existence of stars is without evidence, according to you!!

Using stars for your analogy is called begging the question, a basic mistake in thinking. We already know (ie, “know” using reliable methods of investigation and verification) about stars. Your analogy needed to use, say, unicorns as an example of a fact claim that science cannot investigate, there being no evidence to consider.   

How then to explain the things shining n the sky?  Since you can see only bacteria through the methods you employ...you try to explain stars in terms of bacteria. That is ridiculous!

And idiotic. See above. 

Different methods and methodologies need to be employed to study different phenomena.

No problem with that in principle. Your problem though is that you have no such method or methodology to study the various claims of fact you make. Until and unless you can come up with something to do that job, your claims are epistemologically indistinguishable from just guessing. Remember?