 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
Where did the code come from?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
It cannot be a random code. If it was random it wouldn't be a code. And why would one code be "good at self replication" and not another? There is no advantage to a code unles it is translated. How did the translation mechanism come about and how did it know what it was translating? The translation and the code had to exist together or there is no selective advantage to one over the other.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
Lincoln,
It's not random. If the universe exists, it has to exist in a defined state (at least down to the quantum level). That state doesn't have to have a purpose to any conscious being, but it still has that state. Portions of that state which are more well suited to continue to exist will have the best chance of continuing their existance. When/If a portion of this state interacts with another in accordance to the laws of physical interaction, and creates what intelligence would define as a code in retrospect, then it is a code. It doesn't have to be formed by an intellligence. |
But the code has to have a purpose to the machinery that translates and uses the information. Whether that information is read by machine or a being there still must be a meaning somewhere. There must be cooridination between code and translation mechanism. How is the DNA effectively divided into triplets? Answer that question and you will see what I mean. The laws of physics cannot do this without direction. A biological system is the epitome of chemical laws under direction. The laws are USED by the information just as a computer uses the laws of physics as they are directed by an intelligent programmer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I've got to go to bed. See you all later...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
But the code has to have a purpose to the machinery that translates and uses the information. |
No it doesn't. There are countless numbers of "codes" that don't serve any purpose other than that they exist. Every particle stores information, it's always been there. When a translation mechanism evolves, it will draw upon that information. If it's going to be successful, it will draw upon relevant information. Otherwise it will fail and won't be around any more, or at least not be as successeful in an evolutionary sense.
quote:
Whether that information is read by machine or a being there still must be a meaning somewhere. |
Of course, that is what information is... meaning. In any particle or structure there is information. Without a method for extracting that information it is still there.
Take water for instance. Our developement of chemistry and atomic theory didn't change the makeup of water, only our ability to access that information. Now we can find trace minerals, test for pH levels, and even know the atomic composition of water molecules. That information has always been there, but it was though intellectual evolution that we developed systems to be able to access it.
quote:
There must be cooridination between code and translation mechanism. |
There will be percieved coordination (assuming an observer) between successful code and translation mechanisms. If the mechanism doesn't translate the code correctly, than it won't be seen as a translation mechanism at all, assuming it even survives to be observed. That doesn't mean that the code couldn't exist without the translation, or vice versa. I can write a program that takes input from a device... but I don't necessarily have to have a device to take input from for the program to exist. It's just it won't work right without it.
quote:
How is the DNA effectively divided into triplets?
Answer that question and you will see what I mean. |
I'm not very proficient in biology or chemistry, so I'm not even sure what you are talking about. From what I do know, these chemicals follow physical rules in how they interact. If I'm wrong about this, it would be very interesting to know how chemical bonds form without following the laws of physics.
quote:
The laws of physics cannot do this without direction. |
I'd like to see a proof on that. Chemistry allows for very good mathmatical analysis, so a mathmatical proof should be possible if it's true.
It's not really what I was addressing though, as if God (or ID as you seem to be suggesting) does exist then he/she/it is part of the structure I was talking about, and what he/she/it does is governed in the same manner as everything else. If this has become an ID debate, I don't really care to continue. It's possible there was an ID... it's possible that that ID was me, just I forgot. There really is no purpose to the argument unless you can show some sort of scientific evidence as to the nature of the ID, and how it functions.
quote:
A biological system is the epitome of chemical laws under direction. The laws are USED by the information just as a computer uses the laws of physics as they are directed by an intelligent programmer. |
I think you're just looking at this backwards. Information has no purpose of it's own, it doesn't use anything, it gets used. A function which uses information can have it's own purposes, which would be defined by the nature of that function. A biological system functions due to it's chemical makeup. That chemical makeup is governed by laws for chemical interaction. Any chemical structure that can possibly be formed, can be formed if it's required environment is available. Like I said alluded to above, it could be that some intelligence set up the environment a certain way, or it could have occured naturally. Either way, the specific environment is a requirement, in the ID case, the ID is superflous. The ID just adds unecessary complexity to understanding how the structure came to be. Doesn't prove the ID doesn't exist, just that it's not necessary for the structure to exist.
A computer doesn't "use" the laws of physics, it is bound by them. It is the laws that are the direction, even though laws have no purpose (as in desire) of their own. Things which develope in a manner which will allow them to function within the bounds of those laws will be those which survive. In this manner, the laws are the designer, just not intelligent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
OK. Let's start from known science. As I pointed earlier (and as SD just pointed out) science does not allow free-will. There is no mechanism in science with allows one to move away from the outcomes decreed by physics. According to science all your actions are predestined to happen by the initial conditions.
Now, some people argue that quantum mechanics allows one to overcome this, because it allows outcomes which one could not predict before they happen. This is not true. Quantum mechanics allows different outcomes to happen with different probabilitied (eg. outcome A with 70% probability, outcome B with 30% probability) but the outcomes themselves are perfectly predictable. |
Only in theory. Seeing how scientists are having difficulties figuring out how a blob of several tens of atoms will behave, this prediction is by no means certain.
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Even more damning, is that there is no mechanism with QM for changing these probabilities, so you still lose control over the outcome. |
Still, uncertainty implies non-determinism.
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
So if we accept physics as it stands, we cannot have free-will. |
Depends on the definition.
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Therefore if we have free-will, we must have a 'soul'. |
Again, depends on the definition of freewill. Since science mandates the future to be one big cloud of probabilities, freewill can be seen as the ability to choose from one of the possible futures.
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
From the admission that we have a soul, it is a small step to accepting a God....... |
Not necessarily. First of all, freewill does not entail "soul" as I argued above. Even if I cede you the point that there are souls, it is a very huge leap to an infinite, personal being.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
OK, question. describe me a creature that has a free-will, how will it behave? Generally speaking, what is this free-will you're talking about ? could you describe it? |
OK, since there is still confusion about what constitutes 'free-will' in the above and in UR's recent post, lets try out a thought experiment.
Imagine a really clever (and very well funded!) scientist knows the quantum state of the universe (I realise this isn't possible but that isn't the point - bear with me). He then goes away and makes 10^10^10 (or whatever) universes in exactly the same quantum state. He also sits down and works out the quantum mechanical evolution of the system, which tells him that is x% number of universes you do action y etc. If there is no free-will, he should be able to calculate and predict the exact number of the test universes which will end up in a given configuration, and there is nothing that you (as part of each test universe) can do to affect that outcome. However, if you have free-will, then by definition the universes become non-predictive and he will get the number of universes in state y wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
I agree that to accept freewill there has to be some sort of soul. Freewill can only operate on a level that is not physical. If it is physical, then it is bound by the laws which govern physical interaction, and not free at all.
Of course, whatever a soul consists of would be bound by the laws which govern spiritual interactions... I can't see any room for freewill to exist. The only way you can break out of causality is to introduce a truely random (ie. non-predictable even in the face of omniscience) element, which even if it could exist can only add randomness to the equation, which isn't freewill either.
|
I agree with the first paragraph (obviously), but not entirely with the second, although I see where you are coming from. The realm in which the 'spiritual interactions' take place would have to be non-predictve on a level more profound than just a random element to the equations. Because as you say, free-will requires control of the 'soul' or whatever on these random choices. So there must be a component at least
which is truely not governed by any physics equation. Of course I have absolutely no idea how that could be (and I suspect we never will). But us not understanding how it would work does not mean it cannot be there.
quote:
Originally posted by SD
Even if at levels beneath the quantum there is no predictive ability and it is non-deterministic, how can something like our brain control it?
|
I would suspect that it would work in a rather simply way. Perhaps the 'us' in the non-predictive realm could in some way influence the collapse of wavefunctions in the physical brain, maybe slightly altering the probabilities of collapsing to certain eigenfunctions. This would allow true free-will by altering the universe away from the predictions made in the thought experiment above. It would only need a very small effect to change the outcomes since our choices are no doubt made up of thousands (millions?) of qm wavefunction collapses in the brain.
BTW, on the chemistry/biology/physics argument, I agree with Ramo. Biology and Chemistry are effective theories of physics. If we could calculate the physics dynamics of the systems we could make the same predictions as biology and chemistry make. It is just impracticle to do this, so we construct approximations of the physical systems and call these approximations biology and chemistry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
123john321
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bkeela
I believe in extremely limited freewill. We have the power to choose what cereal we eat for breakfast, or the type of transport we take to work. But we don't have control over the really important things in life, like our sexuality, or our eternal destination.
Bkeela. |
Last time I check, you did have control over you sexuality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Here are some more scientists (who believed in creation and not the fantasy of materialism) for UR and Cybergnue that "must be stupid".
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:23
|
|
Lincoln,
I wasn't sure which way you meant, sorry to have misread. In my post I also touched on how an interpretive system, and the data it interprets, aren't necessarily linked in their formation process. DNA would be useless without the means to decode it obviously, but that doesn't preclude DNA from being produced by another system, or the system working with information other than DNA. They just wouldn't produce anything of value most likely.
It doesn't mean that some intelligence needs to match them up, they do that by themselves if the conditions are right. Environmental factors just need to be such that both will be developed naturally in the same time frame. That environment could have happened through pure chance as far as we know, it also could have been set up by an intelligent designer. As we have no testable information on an ID, there really isn't any way to prove or disprove that there was one.
Religions accept this for the most part, and that is why they are founded on faith. If there was verifiable evidence of an ID, then there wouldn't be any need for faith (outside the 'I accept this because it's holds up under testing' type), and Religion wouldn't be needed because of it.
My point is basically this: Data exists with or without a means to extract/translate/whatever it, and a system can exist with or without a source of data to work on.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2002 06:33
And I like your new signature. I didn't know that Michael Faraday and other founders of scientific fields were "stupid". I learn something new at Apolyton every day...
|