As I pointed out earlier, others have shown how ID inevitably points to the supernatural. For instance Wilkins and Elsberry in their paper The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance show thatAbstract: When proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory deny that their theory is religious, the minimalistic theory they have in mind (the mini-ID theory) is the claim that the irreducibly complex adaptations found in nature were made by one or more intelligent designers. The denial that this theory is religious rests on the fact that it does not specify the identity of the designer -- a supernatural God or a team of extra-terrestrials could have done the work. The present paper attempts to show that this reply underestimates the commitments of the mini-ID Theory. The mini-ID theory, when supplemented with four independently plausible further assumptions, entails the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer. It is further argued that scientific theories, such as the Darwinian theory of evolution, are neutral on the question of whether supernatural designers exist.
— Sober
In other words, regular design is based on empirical knowledge which allows us to assign probabilities, whereas rarefied design is inferred based on our ignorance because we have no way to constrain said 'designer(s)'. Sober points out that ID activists have more to say about ID than the mini-ID argumentSo a revision to Dembski's filter is required beyond the first "Don't-know" branch. This sort of knowledge of designers is gained empirically, and is just another kind of regularity assignment. Because we know what these designers do to some degree of accuracy, we can assess the likelihood that E would occur, whether it is the creation of skirnobs or the Antikythera Device. That knowledge makes E a HP event, and so the filter short-circuits at the next branch and gives a design inference relative to a background knowledge set Bi available at time t. So now there appears to be two kinds of design - the ordinary kind based on a knowledge of the behavior of designers, and a "rarefied" design, based on an inference from ignorance, both of the possible causes of regularities and of the nature of the designer
So why was ID separated from this mini-ID argument? Sober concludes that the reasons are to minimize infighting between Christian factions and that by not using the word "God", the mini-ID argument may have a better chance passing the constitutional test. Of course, behind the scenes, ID activists present the rest of the story such as found in the Wedge Strategy by the Discovery Institute.Defenders of the mini-ID theory have a lot more to say about intelligent design, and this is where more contentful versions of ID theory make their appearance. For example, Philip Johnson (1996), one of the main architects of ID theory, endorses theistic realism, "affirm[ing] that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly biology;" he says that this is "the defining concept of our movement." In their widely used ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon (1993, p. 7, p. 26, p. 100) frequently contrast "natural" and "intelligent" causes; this indicates that the intelligent designers they have in mind are supernatural. And Dembski (1998b, p 20) rejects theistic evolutionism, which is the thesis that God used the evolutionary process to produce organisms and their adaptive features. Dembski's gripe is with evolutionary theory, not with divine design.2
— Sober
But while the motives are clear, Sober's approach goes beyond motives and shows that the mini-ID arguments imply the existence of a supernatural designer.According to the Wedge Strategy, "design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian an theistic convictions."
— Sober
Sober argues that the logical conclusion of the mini-ID argument is that human minds exist in nature which are irreducibly complex. If that is the case, then these minds require a natural or supernatural creator. But naturally created irreducibly complex minds eventually require a supernatural designer due to the finite age of the universe.It is not the point of the present paper to discuss any further the motives behind the construction of the mini-ID theory nor to argue that one of these versions of ID theory is the "real" theory of intelligent design. Rather, the goal is to trace out the implications of what the mini-ID theory actually asserts. The mini-ID theory does imply the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer when it is supplemented by four propositions that are independently supported.
— Sober
Four assumptions not part of the mini-ID argument were added 1. The age of the universe is finite 2. Causes preceded their effects 3. The human mind is irreducibly complex 4. Minds which design irreducibly complex systems are themselves irreducibly complex So if these four assumptions are correct then logically it follows that the mini-ID argument requires a supernatural designer(s). Sober concludes thatIf the human minds that now exist in nature are irreducibly complex, then each of them was caused to exist by one or more earlier intelligent designers. Consider one of those earlier designers; either it is found in nature or it is a supernatural being. If the latter, we're done -- proposition (8) follows. So consider the former option. That intelligent designer, if it designed and produced an irreducibly complex mind, must have a mind that is irreducibly complex. If there is a finite amount of time ε such that it takes a mind in nature (e.g., a human agent) at least ε to design and build another irreducibly complex intelligent designer, then the causal chains that connect a later intelligent designer in nature to its earlier intelligent designer cause (also in nature) will have finitely many links. Each such chain, traced back into the finite past, must therefore reach a first intelligent designer in nature. But premise (1) says that these first natural minds, being irreducibly complex, must themselves be caused to exist by an intelligent designer, so the argument leads to the conclusion that a supernatural intelligent designer must exist.8
— Sober
andDefenders of the mini-ID theory need to explain why their theory should be restricted in this way. Perhaps they will want to argue that a supernatural intelligent designer is an eternal and self-sustaining being, and thus does not need a cause external to itself to come into existence or to remain in existence. Or perhaps they will maintain that a supernatural designer is a simple being, and therefore won't exhibits complex features at all. Their answer can't be that their theory is agnostic about the existence of supernatural designers, for as we have just seen, it is not.
— Sober
So how do ID activists respond to the supernatural claim? On ARN we find the following statementDeciding whether the mini-ID theory has supernatural and religious implications is not as straightforward as seeing whether the word "God" appears in the statement "each irreducibly complex system found in nature was designed and produced by an intelligent being." When independently plausible further assumptions are taken into account, the mini-ID theory entails the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer who made at least one of the minds found in nature.
But that's a false distinction as regular design inferences are based on regularity and chance hypotheses not the rejection of such hypotheses. For instance in criminology, intelligent design is inferred from positive arguments such as means, opportunities, mnotives etc as well as physical and circumstantial evidence.From an ID perspective, the natural-vs.-supernatural distinction is irrelevant. The real contrast is not between natural laws and miracles, but between undirected natural causes and intelligent ones.
No it isn't since a natural design inference and a supernatural one are distinctly different in nature.Mathematician and philosopher of science William Dembski puts it this way: "Whether an intelligent cause is located within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question from whether an intelligent cause has operated."
In other words, while ID may be scientifically vacuous, the claim is that it need not necessarily be pointing to a supernatural designer. Remember that ID is argued to replace methodological naturalism by allowing the inclusion of the supernatural. So in other words, the argument is that science is incapable to deal with Intelligent Design without some change. However, at the same time ID activists are arguing that ID is scientifically relevant because it is used by scientists in areas such as criminology, anthropology, archaeology etc.Human actions are a case in point: "Just as humans do not perform miracles every time they act as intelligent agents, so there is no reason to assume that for a designer to act as an intelligent agent requires a violation of natural laws."
Source This argument is based on a conflation between intelligent design and the 'design inference' used by ID activists. While science indeed can detect intelligent design, by using methodological naturalism as its foundation, ID by insisting that MN needs to be replaced, clearly has identified its designer(s) as supernatural. Again this can be deduced from ID activists' claims such as DembskiThe claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID. 1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design? 2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings? 3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances? 4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?
In one paragraph, Dembski contradicts himself by first arguing that MN limits science to natural causes and at the same time arguing that a detective explaining a murder scene somehow invokes non-natural causes. In fact, the detective is using the exact concepts of MN to determine 'intelligent design'. In other words, this is a false analogy. One cannot on the one hand reject MN since it limits intelligent design conclusions when on the other hand scientists using MN do exactly that. TWC (Tom Clark) explores Dembski's argument further:Two main such constraints have historically been used to keep design outside the natural sciences: methodological naturalism and dysteleology. According to methodological naturalism, in explaining any natural phenomenon the natural sciences are properly permitted to invoke only natural causes to the exclusion of intelligent causes. Methodological naturalism is a regulative principle that purports to keep science on the straight and narrow by limiting science to natural causes. In fact it does nothing of the sort but constitutes a straitjacket that actively impedes the progress of science. If an intelligence actually did play a crucial role in the origin of biological complexity, methodological naturalism would ensure that we could never know it. Imagine a detective absolutely committed to explaining by natural causes why Frank's corpse has a knife through the heart and the words "Die, Frank, Die!" etched on his chest. Methodological naturalism requires the same unthinking commitment from science.
— Dembsk
Source The IDEA center provides a poorly argued response namely that all intelligent designers can insert CSI. (Complex Specified Information). But let's first establish that in biology CSI refers to a functional system (specified) which we do not yet fully understand (hence complex). While ID activists are thus quick to jump to the conclusion that CSI requires an intelligent designer, no logical argument links CSI, which is an argument from ignorance, to said 'intelligent designer(s)'. Even worse, it has been shown that high information content can be generated by purely natural processes such as variation and selection, or in other words, unless ID activists can provide a comparable scientific hypothesis as to the origins of a particular system, ID remains scientifically vacuous. Of course, any natural explanation of such a system would by definition make the system non-CSI, hence the argument of CSI relies on the supernatural since that's the only unconstrained explanation that would cause a particular system to remain 'complex' as we are unable to explain it scientifically. In other words when Stepen Meyer states thatDembski has a plausible point about methodological naturalism, also made here. Science needn't define itself as the search for "natural" or material causes for phenomena. In actual empirical fact, in building explanations and theories, science proceeds quite nicely without any reference to the natural/supernatural distinction. Science is defined not by an antecedent commitment to naturalism (whether methodological or ontological),[2] but by criteria of explanatory adequacy which underpin a roughly defined, revisable, but extremely powerful method for generating reliable knowledge. These criteria can themselves be understood as having being selected for (during the more or less spontaneous development of science) by virtue of giving us the capacity to predict and control our circumstances, and by giving us a unified picture of the diversity of phenomena that, as cognitive creatures, we find deeply satisfying.[3] The world that science gives us is what we call nature.
Stephen C. Meyer, Mere Creation, pg. 140 He is simply wrong. Being wrong is nothing to be ashamed about, although some seem to continue to present Meyer's arguments even after they have been shown to be wrong. And that does causes some concern to me. Now the legal side of the argument From the Kitzmiller ruling"Experience teaches that information-rich systems ... invariable result from intelligent causes, not naturalistic ones.
andThe court concluded that creation science "is simply not science" because it depends upon "supernatural intervention," which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable.Id. at 1267. Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas deemed creation science as merely biblical creationism in a new guise and held that Arkansas' balanced-treatment statute could have no valid secular purpose or effect, served only to advance religion, and violated the First Amendment. Id. at 1264, 1272-74.
So now the evidenceIn addition to the IDM itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID's religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer. The courts in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1265-66.
The court merely applied a 'design inference' to the evidence and took it to its logically conclusion.Defendants' expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means "not designed by the laws of nature," and that it is "implausible that the designer is a natural entity." (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700). Second, Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered.Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr. vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005). Turning from defense expert witnesses to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing.(11:8-15 (Forrest); P-429). Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32-34, Sept. 28, 2005).
Om IDTheFuture (sic), Paul Nelson asks the following questionsIt is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID's religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer. A "hypothetical reasonable observer," adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism.Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 531 (citations omitted); Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 624-25. The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas.
Never say never, but unless ID can show how it can be scientifically relevant, and so far it has failed to do so, then such questions are irrelevant. A reliance on the supernatural however seems to lack much of any scientific relevance as 'anything goes' unless we can constrain such intelligent designer. So far ID has much to hope for but little to show for.Ask yourself what follows if Sober is right. I don't yet have an opinion, having only just downloaded the paper this morning (I'll read it at my daughter's orthodontist appointment later today). Does it follow that ID cannot be (a) true, (b) empirical -- that is, carry observational or predictive content like any other good scientific theory, or (c) the locus of scientific research?
Cool, more and more scientists are standing up for good science.No. What follows mostly, I'd say, would be implications for teaching ID in public school science classrooms, a topic on which Sober has been active lately, helping to draft the Berceau/Black legislation defining science as naturalistic for public schools in the state of Wisconsin.
161 Comments
neo-anti-luddite · 13 April 2006
I'm reminded of David Brin's Uplift series, where some of the alien species refuse to believe that humanity could have evolved intelligence on its own....
djw · 13 April 2006
One question I'd like to raise: "How many ID proponents have ever been arrowhead hunting?"
Some of the ID arguement sounds a little like a (young, four year old) arrowhead hunter picking up each rock and asking if this one is an arrowhead.
Blake Stacey · 13 April 2006
I thought of David Brin's Uplift too. Because all good thoughts can be expressed in cartoon form, check out Startide Rising as portrayed by the Unshelved Book Club. I'm also reminded of the ancient philosophical quandary, raised by that wisest of four-year-olds, "Mommy, if God made everything, who made God?"
Miguelito · 13 April 2006
Dembski is wrong. Methodological naturalism can work for intelligent design, if there was something to work with.
For example, we can find primitive stone tools that were used to butcher animals. We can conclude that these stone tools are not naturally occurring because we can find tool-making sites where there are other tools that were used to make them along with piles of discarded fragments that were created during manufacture. We can then conclude that the butchering tools were constructed by breaking apart pieces of volcanic rock. Thus, it is clear that the tools were intelligently designed. And, it is predictable.
For ID, there is no theoretical mechanism by which biology is constructed. If you asked how were we created, an IDiot could only shrug their shoulders. There is nothing to base a prediction on.
_Arthur · 13 April 2006
In the Uplift Universe, the Galactic Civilisation philosophers are not bothered that creatures can evolve intelligence and sentience, but draw the line at spaceships. Only properly uplifted races can aspire to pass the test for true sentience and galactic citizenship or rather, galactic indenture.
We see the same argument with IDers, who sometimes concede that new species can evolve naturally, but draw the line at new *FEATURES*, that only God Himself, under his Designer avatar, can bestow.
Glen Davidson · 13 April 2006
The "designer" isn't necessarily God, but it sure could be. Except, of course, that no human or animal "designs" creates anything like organisms are, and we have no model for aliens except for animal (human) life. So it's a very short trip back to saying Goddidit, which is the whole point of ID anyhow.
The "designer" has to be God because they refuse to apply any of the tests for human and/or animal "design" to their "study of life", knowing that such tests would immediately fail. Then too, we are unlikely to come up with the kinds of malicious and apparently evolved parasitic and disease designs that IDist ascribe to God. But God's ways are inscrutable (this is the belief that underlies virtually all ID claims, and what allows IDists to be so resistant to research), so that's all right, then.
They don't want to "say anything about the designer" because not knowing about the designer fits the old metaphysical views of God. Only God is NOT constrained by our knowledge, beliefs, and capabilities, according to this point of view, so that the very lack of any constraints, predictions, or explanation, points to nothing except God. It's a very slimy business, of course, and they conveniently forget the inscrutability of God as they perform their fact-free calculations, but they must get to their "designer-god", thus they do every time. That their God is exactly the sort of "cause" who is in fact not in the least manner an explanation fits their desires extremely well, since they do not desire an explanation, but only want their God to be the Cause.
To be sure, they are forced to claim that the designer may not be God, but the inscrutability of God is thereby transferred to aliens, time-travels, or angels/demons. In other words, the "alternative designers" must be god-like in precisely the "Causal" but non-explanatory manner that God is portrayed as being. That this is exactly the opposite of science never occurs to them, but lets just say it, they're really very ignorant, perhaps not even very intelligent--at least not in a comprehensive way.
There is a reasonable theological alternative, which is to say that God is inscrutable yet his creation is not. Thus God may "create" in any manner he chooses, including evolution (real evolution, not evolution tampered with in non-explainable ways), and what we see is also what we can understand. Thus science is compatible with God, and incompatible with pseudoscience. Nothing empirical points to the truth of this belief, however it is sanctioned by tradition and Xian philosophy. Indeed, it must be sanctioned by any coherent religion which posits that God may be seen in his "creation", for we must be able to follow effects to their cause if natural theology is to have even a theory of how God becomes knowable to humans (other than mystically). IDists deny our abilities to reason from effect to cause, not only destroying science in their "methods" and in their minds, but also any chance of learning about God through "nature".
Their insistence upon a "designer" who is unknowable through his designs identifies said designer as God, yet it ruins all of the careful theological reasoning that posits God to be visible in his productions. In one sense alone are they correct about God not being the designer, for they have abandoned the ideas that God made the earth and its inhabitants "good" in a way recognizable to humans. Since in fact much is not "good" or competently "designed" in our minds, the IDists must suppose a God not constrained even by intelligence and goodness, indeed, a God with as little regard for "creation" as evolution's entailed predictions model life as being. In their zeal to explain nothing, God becomes the embodiment of uncaring natural processes, and becomes more like a number of pagan deities.
But no matter, by now their motives are more self-driven and egotistical than they are even religious.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
David Heddle · 13 April 2006
PvM · 13 April 2006
k.e. · 13 April 2006
Blake I'll have a crack at the "Who made g_D" question -multiple choice tho'
A.Adam
B.Mary
C.Mom
D.Granddad
E.Anybody Human
The hole in ID and the whole question of an old man turning the wheels of the cosmos to produce order within the minds of primates is this.
Just get everyone to peer review each others views on the definition for ID/Creationism/G@D and sit back and watch the fireworks.
There will never be definition for ID/Creationism/G@D that everyone will agree on.
They can run around in circles for the rest of their natural lives wasting their time and everyone elses and they will achieve nothing except confusing 2 legged sheep plus themselves , that is a rolled gold 100% guarantee.
That well known fact that has been known for thousands of years, if one has been free from religion.
David Heddle · 13 April 2006
PvM,
Now-now, I'm a minority opinion among IDers. (Actually, I am not even a bio-IDer) Just because I freely identify the designer of the universe as God does not mean all Iders must.
k.e. · 13 April 2006
QED
secondclass · 13 April 2006
Tom Clark hits the nail on the head. Scientists couldn't care less whether a phenomenon is labeled natural, supernatural, material, immaterial, whatever. We can call gravity supernatural without affecting our scientific treatment of it one bit. Metaphysical terms serve only to keep the debate going and distract us from the fact that ID has no theory.
AD · 13 April 2006
shell · 13 April 2006
"it merely identifies 'designed' objects and does not say anything about the 'designer(s)'"
I'm not a science teacher, but I am an English teacher, and I object to their use of the passive voice to avoid identifying their subject.
Rilke's Granddaughter · 13 April 2006
But Dembski's position is based on an illogical equivocation (or at least a slippery definition). He is defining 'nature' to exclude intelligent agency. That's why they harp on the 'intelligent' vs. 'unintelligent' dichotomy so much. Dembski does not consider the actions of the human mind to be natural.
David Heddle · 13 April 2006
Rilke's Granddaughter · 13 April 2006
Curt Rozeboom · 13 April 2006
I've found it interesting to argue against ID from another direction...
1. All design boils down to two principles, variation and selection.
2. Biological evolution uses genetic mutations and selection for survivability from naturally occuring events and is therefore a designing process.
3. Any detection of design must also demonstrate the existence of a designer at the time the design was introduced.
4. Modern biology presumes that RM&NS has always been active.
5. Hence, the unnamed designer that ID requires can also be biological evolution.
6. So ID's design detection theory (if it worked) can be one more piece of evidence for evolution.
UnMark · 13 April 2006
Hey, David, why are you okay with "some other" intelligence evolving over billions of years but not with our own?
And while you're still here, perhaps you can tell us all why your religious interpretation is more correct than anyone elses.
normdoering · 13 April 2006
HvP · 13 April 2006
I'm curious about this quote:
"Professor Behe has written that by ID he means 'not designed by the laws of nature,' and that it is 'implausible that the designer is a natural entity.'"
So why do ID agents, Behe, Dembski et al, so frequently compare ID filters to the methods of archaeology, forensics and all? All human activity takes place quite squarely within the realm of the laws of nature. Humans are beings which create within the confines of natural ability.
If the ID filter assumes that identified materials are "not designed by the laws of nature" or that it is "implausible that the designer is a natural entity" - then we would have to assume that the designers of Mount Rushmore, mousetraps and motors were not natural entities because they regularly claim that such creations are positive examples of design as defined by ID.
David Heddle · 13 April 2006
Bill Gascoyne · 13 April 2006
David Heddle · 13 April 2006
C.J.Colucci · 13 April 2006
Like most normal kids, I spent relatively little time with science, religion, and philosophy, and a lot with comic books. As a result, I'm perfectly happy to accept a universe full of marvelously powerful beings like Superman, Darkseid, Dr. Strange, and Galactus -- any one of whom could easily pull off the kinds of parlor tricks that could convince almost anyone they were gods. So I'm irreducibly complex and Galactus made me. Fine, but if it took a Galactus to make a pipsqueak like me, who made Galactus?
C.J.Colucci · 13 April 2006
It occurs to me that some wise guy is going to answer "Stan Lee."
Hosea McAdoo, M.D. · 13 April 2006
Mine is more of a question than a comment. In many places the fossil bed is miles thick usually with simpler organisms in the lower strata which shouls suggest a lomg term relatively constant process docu,menting change. I understand that there is some amazing ID theory about animals escaping the flood but that really is not my question.
If the sediment bed is miles thick and all these plants and animmals lived at the same time, forgetting the neat layering seen over the span of tens, hundreds or more miles, where did all these animals live before the flood? What did they eat? How could they move in their miles deep society? It must have been tough for our ancestors in this pile of teeming life pinned between a sabre toothed tiger and a Tyranasaurus Rex? How do the IDs explain this anomalie?
Hosea McAdoo, M.D. · 13 April 2006
Mine is more of a question than a comment. In many places the fossil bed is miles thick usually with simpler organisms in the lower strata which should suggest a Long term relatively constant process documenting change. I understand that there is some amazing ID theory about animals escaping the flood but that really is not my question.
If the sediment bed is miles thick and all these plants and animals lived at the same time, forgetting the neat layering seen over the span of tens, hundreds or more miles, where did all these animals live before the flood? What did they eat? How could they move in their miles deep society? It must have been tough for our ancestors in this pile of teeming life pinned between a Sabre toothed tiger and a Tyrannosaurus Rex. How do the IDs explain this anomaly?
Rich · 13 April 2006
FAO David Heddle.
"Minds which design irreducibly complex systems are themselves irreducibly complex"
The point being that if IC is always a product of design (and a designer) then the designer must have themselves been designed. 3 takeaways I can think of:
(1) Proof the designer ISN'T god, as god is eternal...
(2) Big First cause issues
or, just maybe...
(3) IC is a crock of sh1t and it tells of nothing of origins.
Bill Gascoyne · 13 April 2006
Arden Chatfield · 13 April 2006
whheydt · 13 April 2006
_Arthur wrote:
In the Uplift Universe, the Galactic Civilisation philosophers are not bothered that creatures can evolve intelligence and sentience, but draw the line at spaceships. Only properly uplifted races can aspire to pass the test for true sentience and galactic citizenship or rather, galactic indenture.
--
Actaully, in the Uplift universe, the real test is uplifting new species. It's the dolphins and chimps the Terrans uplifted that kept humans from being forcibly indentured as a client species. The is spelled out better in _Sundiver_. (And the cartoon referred to earlier is actually _Startide Rising_, not _The Uplift War_.)
steve s · 13 April 2006
Nope, it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster. How do I know? I have scientific evidence. According to the Intelligent Design Theorists, my intuition counts as such.
Curt Rozeboom · 13 April 2006
Corkscrew · 13 April 2006
Caledonian · 13 April 2006
secondclass · 13 April 2006
snaxalotl · 13 April 2006
secondclass · 13 April 2006
AD · 13 April 2006
Faidhon · 13 April 2006
For what's worth, I think the IDists' "reasoning" is just adorable.
They say that the "who designed the Designer" argument does not refute ID because, according to Behe's theory, Some non-irreducibly complex (evolved?) entity could have designed our irreducibly complex life.
When you tell them that Behe's theory is bogus, because all his proposed IC systems can, in fact derive from simpler ones, they say this still does not refute ID, because, according to Dembski's theory, the intermediate systems would still possess CSI.
When you tell them Dembski's vague and nefarious CSI theory is crippled by the "who designed the designer" argument, they say this still does not refute ID, because according to Behe's theory, Some non-irreducibly complex (evolved?) entity could have...
Well, you get the picture.
Gotta love those guys.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 April 2006
Hey, I should have expected that Heddle would do a drive-by right after his pals Donald M and FL did . . . .
But now that your'e back, Davey, perhaps you'd care to answer that simple question I've been asking you for lo these many months . . .
Since your religious opinions are just that -- your opinions -- and aren't any more divine or authoritative or infallible than anyone else's, would oyu mind explaining to me why anyone should consider your religious opinions to be any better than mine or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or my veterinarian's or the kid who delivers my pizzas?
Your pal FL didn't want to answer that question, Davey. How about you?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 April 2006
Opera Fan · 13 April 2006
This design debate is, to me, just another form of the "Does God exist" dialogue that has been raging for centuries. To those who would embark on this discourse for any length of time, be sure that you don't exhaust yourselves! :)
Opera Fan · 13 April 2006
And one reason why this debate goes on and on is because "one person's logic is always another's foolishness" (I forget the source of the quote).
Frank J · 13 April 2006
Frank J · 13 April 2006
UnMark · 13 April 2006
buddha · 13 April 2006
W. Kevin Vicklund · 13 April 2006
Actually, Heddle has claimed numerous times that he doesn't want his views taught to everyone. He merely believes that the Anthropic Principle proves the existence of God.
Once we got some terminology out of the way, he is one of the few IDers (not biological ID, though) that I have some respect for. I disagree with his logic, but he is entitled to his opinions. As long as he doesn't force them on others (I don't necessarily consider spirited debate on sites like PT to be a forcing action), I don't have any beef with him, aside from my personal disagreement with his logic.
UnMark · 13 April 2006
Well, in light of that info I apologize for my tone and accusation.
RupertG · 14 April 2006
I wish I knew what ID people believed, and why.
Do they believe that natural causes can create intelligence?
Do they believe in mainstream cosmology?
Do they believe in an old earth?
Do they believe in standard evolutionary explanations of speciation?
Do they believe in standard information theory?
And in all cases, if the answer is 'no' or 'yes, but', exactly what are the differences and what data lies behind them? And if it's 'don't know' (which is perfectly fair; I don't know about biogenesis) why doesn't it matter to ID (and I do know why biogenesis doesn't matter to evolution)?
I've even tried to do a thought experiment where a world is populated with scientists who know nothing of evolutionary ideas, are predisposed towards ID, and who start to unearth the sort of evidence we have found in the past couple of hundred years of scientific work. The trouble is, that actually happened and we know the outcome. I just cannot get into the ID mindset.
Will we ever know what ID people believe, and why?
R
Corkscrew · 14 April 2006
k.e. · 14 April 2006
A small point of pickyness buddha .....missing space
Ex contradictione sequitur quod libet.
Is that a Catholic theological 'throw away line'?
I assume you mean 'a new, contradictory, reading of scripture that is more pleasing to one (i.e. ones own conscience)'.
Teaching a protestant [Heddle] to suck eggs .....nice.
FL · 14 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 14 April 2006
Frank J · 14 April 2006
Caledonian · 14 April 2006
AD · 14 April 2006
Corkscrew · 14 April 2006
MartinM · 14 April 2006
Caledonian · 14 April 2006
k.e. · 14 April 2006
uh oh Lenny's monster
AD just some minor points..... on your projected future , it's the imaginary past, as far as verifying something...... you can do it right now, plant 2 rows of radishes... you know the rest. On what might or might not be verifiable in the future? take a look at 'gravitons' and have a glass of red wine and a cookie.
...does the word 'exist' require classification by belief or existence?
Belief is not existence it is a thought.
It's something I keep in mind.
steve s · 14 April 2006
That's a philosophical question you got going. Accordingly, I made you an AtBC thread to discuss it.
AD · 14 April 2006
Corkscrew · 14 April 2006
Caledonian et al: I strongly suggest we continue this discussion elsewhere, for example here. It's no fun for the rest of the commenters to have to wade through swathes of posts on this issue, when most of them have no interest in it.
Corkscrew · 14 April 2006
steve s: ya beat me to it! Curses :(
PvM · 14 April 2006
Frank J · 14 April 2006
David Heddle · 14 April 2006
PvM, about your second and third points, I have nothing to say, but the first:
1. Naturalism, including methodological naturalism is atheistic and a threat to Christianity
Is not an ID premise. Not only are science and methodological naturalism not an athiestic threat, they are the very tools we use to (as commanded) study creation. They are to general revelation what theology is to special revelation. Far from being a threat to Christianity, they are beautifully integrated therein.
steve s · 14 April 2006
David Heddle, that's the definition of the term "asking for it."
heddle · 14 April 2006
Steve S,
In that case, it's damned if I do, damned if I don't. If I claimed science was an atheistic threat, I'd get attacked--and now you suggest I'll get attacked for saying it's not an atheistic threat.
steve s · 14 April 2006
No, you're going to get deluged for saying that it's not an ID principle that Methodological Naturalism is unfair and atheistic and must be repealed. You will be deluged with people quoting Bill Dembski and Paul Nelson and others saying exactly that.
heddle · 14 April 2006
Since I never read Dembski or Nelson, how was I to know!
steve s · 14 April 2006
If you never read Dembski or Nelson, you really don't need to be 'correcting' PvM on what ID does or doesn't say.
Lynn · 14 April 2006
Caledonian said, "Can you tell me the difference between something which exists, but cannot be empirically verified in any way, and something which simply doesn't exist?"
One problem with taking this stand is what one might refer to as a "temporal" issue. Unless we are ready to assert that there are no longer blank areas in our knowledge, we must always concede that there is almost certainly a difference.
As a simple example, if the date were 1806, rather than 2006, I'd offer the substance DNA as something which could not at the time be empirically verified in any way, but most certainly did exist.
Now you may counter-argue that nobody in 1806 *claimed* that such a substance existed, but that doesn't save you. And if we advance the clock to the year 1906, you couldn't even make *that* argument, as certainly by that time those practicing the budding science of genetics were ruminating over the existence of some substance which carried genetic information but which was unidentified and not empirically verified.
And later Caledonian said, "It's not a matter of there being no scientific evidence (implication: at the present time), it's a matter of no scientific evidence being possible, ever."
How very arrogant! This assumes that there can't be any kind of evidence in the future that isn't available to us in the present!
Good thing scientists of the past didn't have this attitude.
Lynn
AD · 14 April 2006
Mr Heddle,
I think your problem is just that you wildly diverge from most people who support ID, to be blunt. You might not be supporting what you think you are supporting when you use that term.
Certainly, your view of it is radically different from Dembski, Behe, etc.
You may not feel that way, but also, PvM's comments were not so much addressed to you or your personal conception of ID, hence Steve's response.
Arden Chatfield · 14 April 2006
k.e. · 14 April 2006
So Lynn
Lets take a look at your argument.
This assumes that there can't be any kind of evidence in the future that isn't available to us in the present
Since g_d (just as an example) has not been discovered yet, since there is no evidence now, then there may be evidence in the future?
Supporting an argument by time traveling backwards with information available today, to be logically consistent that knowledge must be lost at the time it was created.
It is like me saying at this moment "a thing is discovered in the future, I don't know what it is or what it does yet but I know it does exist now [in your example] because they found it in the future AND I would like you to test for it now, however I have no knowledge of how to test for it"
A senseless argument.
Life and objective existence just IS (with or without us) and our knowledge of it is separate, as created mental constructs through language and memes (creation in fact and always has been).
Bruce Thompson GQ · 14 April 2006
Since there is confusion between disciplines on what intelligent design really is, perhaps there could be a meeting whose goal would be to produce the
Grand Opus on Design.
It would include ID scientists studying cosmological design including origin of the universe, biological design and origin of life, chemical design, physics design, in other words ID counterparts to all the scientific disciplines. The Grand Opus on Design would lay out a unified intelligent design theory for each discipline, including predictions derived from these theories. This would integrate ID, clarify for each discipline what others were talking about, clarify ID for mainstream scientific community, and would prevent misconceptions like the one currently taking place over the validity of IC.
Within this larger framework and with a set of predictions, ID scientists will have a goal and will be more likely to produce results that can be replicated.
Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)
k.e. · 14 April 2006
No that wouldn't do Bruce, the universe will end in 30 billion years.
To produce a Grand Opus on Design would require a miracle.
David B. Benson · 14 April 2006
k.e. "The universe will end in 30 billion years." I'll have to assume this is some sort of in-joke, since there is no evidence known to me but that the universe will continue to expand for the next 30 billion years and much, much longer...
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 14 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 14 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 14 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 14 April 2006
John Marley · 14 April 2006
HvP · 14 April 2006
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 14, 2006 05:30 PM
An entity that isn't even in principle subject to empirical verification doesn't exist by definition.
Sure about that ... ?
Do you love your partner?
Can you prove it empirically?
Silly, the emotion of love brings about certain responses in people which can be observed. Not only are we trained by experience to look for those behaviors but even the hormonal/chemical symptoms can be tested for.
And then there is this study:
http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=274
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 14 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 14 April 2006
HvP · 15 April 2006
John Pieret · 15 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 April 2006
k.e. · 15 April 2006
yes lurrve and other animals
I recall a quip made by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Professor of Neurosciences and Psychology at the University of California during his Reith Lecture on the BBC.(available as mp3 from the BBC)
A young student MD goes home to his girlfriend and says "I learned today that love is just a bunch of neurons firing in my brain" and she said "See, I told you it was real"
And on neurons...
Take a look at the first few pages of his book
A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness : From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers
Part of page 3
...it has been calculated that the number of possible combinations and permutations of brain activity, in other words brain states, exceeds the number of elementary particles in the known universe. Even though it is common knowledge, it never ceases to amaze me that all the richness of our mental life- all our feelings, our emotions, our thoughts our ambitions, our love lives, our religious sentiments and even what each of us regards as his or her own intimate private self- is simply the activity of these little specks of jelly in our heads, in our brains, There is nothing else...
I would say our brains are a stone age tool hyped up on over learning with far too much room and spare imagination for wingnut ideas promoted by people who for their own self aggrandizement but more particularly just plain self delusion by choosing deliberate ignorance and wanton stupidity, that it is surprising there is not more pseudoscience and other crackpotism out there.
But then I digress.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 April 2006
k.e. · 15 April 2006
But wait there's more
MIRROR NEURONS and imitation learning as the driving force behind "the great leap forward" in human evolution
By V.S. Ramachandran
The discovery of mirror neurons in the frontal lobes of monkeys, and their potential relevance to human brain evolution --- which I speculate on in this essay --- is the single most important "unreported" (or at least, unpublicized) story of the decade. I predict that mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology: they will provide a unifying framework and help explain a host of mental abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious and inaccessible to experiments.
Frank J · 15 April 2006
Sober, who has nicely demolished ID before, disappoints me here. In Note 2, he says that Dembski "maintains that humans are specially created." And he cites a 1995 article (the link didn't even work, but that could be on my end). I'm sorry, but that may be as inexcusable as the IDers' typical tactic of citing Denton's 1985 "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis," while conveniently ignoring his 1998 "Nature's Destiny," which reveals a very different conclusion.
While Dembski may have used the weasel words "specially created" in 1995, do we really know that he ever thought that modern humans are a product of independent abiogenesis? Or if he thought it then, changed his mind since? Or could he have just been referring to human souls, in which case he would be in full agreement with his theistic critics? We may never know for sure, but what may be much more revealing than an 11 year old vague reference is the fact that Dembski has been fully aware for years that Behe has no problem with common descent, but never once challenged him on it. Furthermore, in a 2002 article Dembski seems to be fully aware that he is switching definitions when he noted Behe's acceptance of common descent and Carl Woese's rejection of a caricature of it. And in a 2004 article, he is clearly playing word games with "modified monkey" vs. "modified dirt." If there were any evidence to support "modified dirt" Dembski would be all over it; there would be no need for a "design" diversion. Even if he thought it merely a hypothesis worth considering, he'd be challenging Behe, if only to diffuse the charge that IDers don't act like real scientists (who challenge each other at every opportunity).
I don't get it. Why do so many defenders of evolution strain so hard to make us think that IDers personally believe classic creationist accounts? Wouldn't it be better - and more honest - to warn potential ID sympathizers that IDers are not necessarily promoting an honest belief, but may be covering up what they know are fatal flaws and contradictions in the various creationist accounts? Potential ID sympathizers are likely very forgiving of any "sneaking in God" strategy, as they mostly think that the court rulings banning creationism and ID from public schools are very unfair. But they won't be so forgiving if they suspect that IDers may be deliberately covering up what they know are failed, contradictory (and theory-free) accounts of how that design is implemented.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 April 2006
k.e. · 15 April 2006
Frank J I would have to say that Classical /neo-creationism is no different in as much as it just recycles the same old so called creation 'science' stuff that Lenny rolls out for our edification now and then. The Dover 'text book' OPP was clearly shown to be a cut and paste Creationist text.
If Behe and Dembski et al. accept evolution and say so, then their case for introducing religion in science classes explodes so they must keep up a smoke screen to sell their books.
Dembski would have been roasted on the stand in Dover if he had made the mistake of testifying because he freely mixes religion and science loudly and proudly in all his pontificating so he is a lost cause for the DI and they know it.
No other scientist has come up with a theory for 'intelligent design' because most would know by now that it is just a socio-political engineering fraud and I am sure that a reputable scientist would check and double check before even wanting to associate with such a disreputable bunch of rogues.
Naturally that still leaves disreputable rogues, but bring them on, I love the smell of burning schizoid Berserkzian mathematicians in the morning.
k.e. · 15 April 2006
Bah ...Lenny posted while I was cogitating sorry for the double up
HvP · 15 April 2006
Lenny Frank, your conflating a few different things here.
Having someone tell you they are in love, observing their behavior, observing the effects of that state, measuring the chemical/hormonal effects, taking note of their emotional tendencies while in that state - all constitutes emperical observation of a human emotional state.
You can emperically test the belief in God. It is a fact that a large number of people have this belief. And it can be emperically demonstrated that this belief plays a large role in their behaviors and emotional responses. But you are still just testing human thoughts and emotions. You aren't testing anything outside of the person. It can be emperically proven that the emotional belief in a God does exist. Is that what you wanted?
Love is defined as an emotion. Emotions are defined as feelings. As such, the only proof required to define the existence of an emotion like love would be a statement of feeling and the observation of those human behaviors that entails. Love exists as an emotion within the person. You aren't testing anything outside of the person.
If your definition of God is that God is simply a human emotion or feeling then I would agree that many people have "felt" God. But that isn't how God is defined. It's defined as some sort of individual intelligent consciousness, seperate from mere mankind and omnipresent throughout the universe. We have NO evidence to support the existence of such a concept.
I cannot demonstrate that animals feel love because they cannot provide feedback about their awareness of their own emotional state (I think we can agree that an individual must be self-aware in order to "feel" the types of emotions we humans take for granted). That doesn't mean they can't feel love. It means I don't have enough evidence to determine that they do. But it doesn't matter because I have plenty of evidence to determine that love does exist as a human emotional state.
As for God, all we've got is a widespread statement of belief. If you feel like defining God as nothing more than a personal emotional belief and the human behaviors that go with it, then by all means be my guest. But that means that it has no powers beyond human thought and it stops existing when no one believes in it anymore.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 April 2006
Arden Chatfield · 15 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 April 2006
As an aside, I find it quite humorous that all the fundamentalist atheists immediately assume that anyone who questions them, must be a fundie theist. Just as all the fundie theists assume that anyone who questions them, must be an atheist.
They are, as I've always said, just two sides of the very same coin, and have far far more in common with each other than either would like to admit.
Odd, isn't it.
PvM · 15 April 2006
As far as I have been able to trace (2004), there seems to be no overlap between the DI and the Pacific Science Center. So either this is a relatively new issue or it is overblown. Without further data, it will be hard to pursue this and I reject the application of a design inference where absence of evidence somehow triggers any particular inference beyond "we don't know"
Frank J · 15 April 2006
HvP · 15 April 2006
HvP · 15 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 April 2006
HvP · 16 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006
Anton Mates · 16 April 2006
k.e. · 16 April 2006
A rose by any other name....
The Polynesian Cook Islanders have no word for "Love"
Love Food.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006
HvP · 16 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006
Anton Mates · 16 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006
Anton Mates · 16 April 2006
Anton Mates · 16 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006
Anton Mates · 16 April 2006
WaveyDavey · 17 April 2006
Something just occurred to me. In the Science of the Discworld book, and argument was made about it being Turtles all the way down. Is a consequence of ID that its designers all the way up ? ? ?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 April 2006
normdoering · 17 April 2006
AD · 17 April 2006
Or, perhaps, another commonly referenced black and white mammal...
normdoering · 17 April 2006
Stephen Wells · 17 April 2006
I would love to hear the dinner-table conversations in the Flank household.
"You know, I think I might be hungry. But since I have no empirical, objective standard to measure that- only my own say-so - I would be completely unjustified in eating lunch."
I don't think HvP's argument is that hard to grasp. If you accept the reality and the humanity of other people - which everyone does who isn't solipsistic or sociopathic - then there's plenty of empirical evidence for the feeling of being in love, as a common and widely experienced emotion, and there's plenty of evidence for belief in god(s) also. Now, if we accept that love is an emotional state, then we can happily declare that love exists (in the same sense that music, blue, and mercy exist). But going from "belief in god exists" (empirically verifiable) to "god exists" is like going from "love exists) (verifiable) to "Cupid exists." And I love my wife very dearly, but I don't believe that any little winged psychopathic archer is involved.
In the above paragraph I'm using "empirical" and "verifiable" to mean that we accept evidence in roughly the same way that we do when driving cars, talking to people, or preparing dinner. You can't logically prove that that oncoming car exists, but are you going to try to drive through it?
Flank's scepticism has already reached the Cartesian-hyperbolic level at which point nothing is provable; Descartes had to invoke an ontological proof to get out of that. Hyperbolic doubt is pointless because you can't live by it. Me, I'm more Baconian. "The senses are very sufficient to see and certify truth; though not immediately, yet by comparison, by help of instrument, or by producing and urging a phenomenon not perceptible to the sense to some effect perceptible to the sense." May not be an exact quote, I don't have my Advancement of Learning to hand.
Anton Mates · 17 April 2006
Henry J · 17 April 2006
Re "Something just occurred to me. In the Science of the Discworld book, and argument was made about it being Turtles all the way down. Is a consequence of ID that its designers all the way up ? ? ?"
Would that be a side effect of their hot air, causing them to rise?
Did I say that?
Henry
William E Emba · 17 April 2006
From a physical point of view, there seems to be a minimum time, the Planck time. Of course, if there's correspondingly widening parallelism, this wouldn't be a limitation. But the speed of light would still provide a limit to how much parallelism could be fitted in a short enough period of time. Oh, wait, now I remember, the DI disproved Einstein, after one of their fellows read an article in The New Yorker! So, it's God or Turtles or Star Trek!!
Ooh. My brain hurts. Keeping up with these thinkers is hard work sometimes.
Anton Mates · 17 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 April 2006
Ah well now I see that all the fundie atheists are jumping in, since it appears (to them) that I maight be mildly sympathetic to that "god" thingie.
And like the fundie Christians, they simply cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with any of their religious opinions. (shrug)
Let me say, one more time, for the hard of hearing:
*ahem*
I do not accept or assert the existence of any god, gods, goddesses, or supernatural entities of any sort whatsoever.
None. Not a one. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Every single one of them, without exception, is a creation of humans.
Now that we have that out of the way, would someone please point to an empirical way to detect "love" (other than "I can *feel* it")? I'm still waiting.
normdoering · 17 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 April 2006
Hey Norm, go beat up some theists or something.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 April 2006
HvP · 17 April 2006
HvP · 17 April 2006
And that's the last time I'm going into all that.
I'm just repeating myself anyway.
Readers can judge which claim is more logical.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 18 April 2006
William E Emba · 18 April 2006
From the point of view of Sober's analysis, I was commenting on a mathematical loophole in his argument. You are often an alternative to one of his assumptions, which is irrelevant to the strength of Sober's argument.
On the other hand, there are proposed cosmologies where the Big Bang is part of some bigger picture. There have even been computations of how many bits of information could be sent by a Universe Creator in a robust enough manner to survive the Big Bang. Not too many.
Anton Mates · 18 April 2006
William E Emba · 18 April 2006
In brief, then, Sober's argument boils down to ID, if valid, is proof of God or Turtles or Star Trek or Galactus.
Anton Mates · 18 April 2006
PvM · 18 April 2006
In Deconstruction examined, Kipli shows how DaveScot's attempt to rebut Sober fails on many grounds. Well worth reading as it is another reminder of the scientific vacuity of ID.
William E Emba · 18 April 2006
Henry J · 18 April 2006
Anton,
Re "existence of the Planck time doesn't necessarily imply a true lower bound;"
Wouldn't it? Seems to me that anything depending on the same subatomic processes that we depend on would be limited to a minimal number of Planck times.
Henry
Anton Mates · 19 April 2006
Henry J · 19 April 2006
Anton,
Re "AFAIK there's no rule saying that only one subatomic event can happen per Planck timespan, or anything like that."
Hmm? I thought that's what the term "Planck time" meant. A minimal physical event would move a particle one Planck length, taking one Planck time to do it.
Henry
Anton Mates · 19 April 2006
Henry J · 19 April 2006
Re "A minimal physical event describable by general relativity, perhaps, "
I thought the limit here was from quantum mechanics. For one thing the uncertainty of a particle's location is at least one Planck length, since a particle wavelength can't be less than that.
A wave with a Planck length as its wavelength would have an uncertainty of position greater than its own wavelength - i.e., it's uncertain whether or not it even exists? Also any particle whose wavelength is anywhere near that small would have a huge (for a sumbatomic particle) energy content.
And yes, a physicist might help clarify the matter (er, so to speak).
Henry
William E Emba · 21 April 2006
Essentially, the Planck mass is the mass of a black hole so tiny that its Compton wavelength equals its Schwarzschild radius. The conceptual idea of a black hole involves trapping mass within the Schwarzschild radius, but such trapping is apparently meaningless when the location of the trap is more uncertain the size of the trap itself. Planck time is then the time it takes light to cross a Planck distance. Roughly speaking, the time it takes a mini black hole to decide to capture or not capture a passing photon.
What actually happens at the Planck scale is unknown. QM says give up the idea of spacetime defined in simple xyzt coordinates on this scale, but whether what takes its place could be used for high speed processes and computations is unknown. Indeed, there have been serious suggestions that computation on the Planck scale could violate Church's thesis. If true, a Planck computer, while not able to operate faster than light, would be able to do arbitrarily fast computations, even some infinite computations, in a way that no finite machine could.