Paul Nelson, Computer Simulations and .... Gravity.

Evolutionists and Anti-Evolutionists continue to slug it out.

This video featuring a presentation by Homunculus IDer Paul Nelson has stirred up a response from the evolutionary establishment. The relevant links are:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-defends-paul-nelson/    

http://www.uncommondescent.com/news/video-paul-nelson-at-saddleback/     

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/11/it-couldnt-happen-to-a-nicer-guy/

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/a-marshall-mcluhan-moment-with-creationist-paul-nelson/   

Paul Nelson is not just a Homunculus IDer; he is also a Young Earth Creationist. But there are YECs and YECs; As far as I can tell  Nelson is not one of the hardened “heretic burning” religionists exemplified by the likes of Ken Ham and his ex-business partner John MacKay (In fact MacKay is probably lunatic fringe). Nelson, like most of those in the Humunculus ID community (or “HIDs”), seems to be a reasonable and intelligent man; somebody, in fact, that any other reasonable person could do business with even in the face of mutual disagreement; Nelson probably has a YEC background, but he is nevertheless prepared to work with non-YEC Christians.

The argument that Nelson has triggered seems be about the relative importance of natural selection over and against other mechanisms that may drive evolution natural history. I’m not going to comment on this matter because firstly I'm not a biologist and secondly it’s one of those grey areas about degree: Viz: Just how important does the evolutionary establishment claim natural selection to be as an agent of change? Have they overestimated it or underestimated it? Contrariwise just how unimportant is Nelson claiming natural selection to be?  Is he overestimating or underestimating its unimportance? The outcome of this kind of dispute is that it has a tendency to degenerate into a “he said, you said” farce.

Although Nelson is the kind of guy I can respect and moreover I think the evolutionary establishment needs the well-motivated and intelligent criticism (albeit largely negative and destructive) we get from people like Nelson, I still feel that there is something highly unsatisfactory about the underlying motivations and concepts behind Nelson’s attack on evolution. My sense of unease is bound up with the pervasive "God Intelligence did it vs. Natural Causes did it"  paradigm with which Nelson frames the issue. This framing is evidenced by the implicit reference Nelson makes to William Dembski’s explanatory filter.

The explanatory filter is an epistemic method whereby one works in sequence through the possible explanations of an observed configuration starting with "natural causes" founded in law and disorder. (i.e. what the HID community inappropriately refer to as “chance and necessity”). If law and disorder fail to explain the configuration this leaves us with, by default, intelligent causes. Certainly, within the confines of the cosmos the ideas behind the filter are robust:  Law, disorder and intelligence (perhaps even alien intelligence) cover all possible agents of change that we can conceive. But though this may be the case, in a theistic context the filter proves to be problematical. To see this let’s imagine for the sake of argument that establishment evolutionists “prove” their case beyond reasonable doubt. Using the explanatory filter it would then appear that the game is up for theism:  The explanation that “Intelligence (=God) did it” has been displaced in favour of “Natural causes did it”. To salvage their position, however, the HIDs will then tell us that our universe is fine tuned to favour the generation of living configurations and that this fine tuning has the effect of triggering the explanatory filter's default explanation of intelligent agency. But the trouble is that the explanatory filter cuts both ways: It now suggests that if one can find a law and disorder explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, then there is no need to posit divine intelligent “first causes”. But it turns out that law and disorder explanations have their own problems: To cut a long story short we find that attempts to arrive at a complete law and disorder explanation has the potential to lead to a classic turtles all the way down regress: Law and disorder explanations always leave a residue of brute facts that either have to be simply accepted as axiomatic, or as a trigger for another level of explanation accounting for why these particular givens have been specially selected for and not others. The inevitable problem here is acknowledged by Max Tegmark who gets round the conundrum of special selection with his mathematical universe, a weird and disturbing place where every conceivable mathematical object has been equally reified.

Naturally enough the HIDs want to stop this regression process from the outset by unequivocally showing that law and disorder are incapable of explaining living configurations; for if the situation is allowed to get into a multiverse regress it becomes too abstruse for a decisive victory to be claimed by either side. The consequence is that the HIDs have put down a very high stake in favour of intelligence in the “God Intelligence did it vs. evolution did it dichotomy, a dichotomy of thought encouraged by Dembki’s explanatory filter. Nelson and many other HIDs therefore have a great vested interest in discrediting evolutionary theory. They follow a negative approach which by a process of destructive elimination is intended to leave us with the default of God intelligence as the “cause” of life.  In the video I have linked to Nelson refers disparagingly to the wall surrounding law and disorder explanations, a wall which implicitly excludes thoughts of intelligent “causes”. Therefore for Nelson it’s a stark choice between naturalism and supernaturalism intelligence. William Lane Craig’s support of the Kalam cosmological argument comes out of the same stable: He is adverse to multiverse scenarios because they ostensibly attack his “divine first cause” argument by muddying the waters with a potential "natural causes" regress. Craig, like Nelson, thinks in terms of causes rather than patterns amenable to mathematial description. This causation concept of explanation readily leads to a way of thinking that views God’s involvement as the diametrically opposed alternative explanation to natural causes. (See endnote 3)

Nelson and Craig have categories of thinking which inclines them to put “natural causes” and “divine causes” on the same logical level thus pathing the way for God and nature to be seen as competing agents of explanation. This fails to do justice to the nature of intelligence, especially divine intelligence. I can best express this with a computing metaphor: It is possible to simulate a computer within a higher level host computer. In fact a simulated computer could be just one of many agents that act within the simulacrum of a virtual world rendered by the host computer. In such a simulacrum the simulated computer would stand alongside and have the same logical level as other categories of causation in the simulacrum. But in this scenario computation is actually the outer embracing context and therefore it is of higher logical level than the particular law and disorder regime rendered within the simulacrum.  Intelligence and computation are closely related; both have a dynamic that involves searching, rejecting and selecting, along with the interim production of partial results. So, if intelligence is anything like computation it too is likely to have an abstract, general all-embracing superset definition. It is conceivable, therefore, that our universe is running on (or "in") an intelligence/sentience rather than a "nuts and bolts" computer.  If a host intelligence is the embracing substrate on which our world is being rendered this means that the schism between intelligence and naturalism prompted by Dembki’s explanatory filter is very inappropriate; this schism is a result of placing law & disorder on the same logical level as intelligence. 

 

Like other HIDs Nelson defines evolution as a dumb process (See here where we find Richard Johns doing a similar thing). But even if the mechanisms of evolution are as the academic establishment would have it, then it is very wrong to call evolution dumb: If evolution is to work its efficacy is likely to be very dependent on the selection of the right physical regime. If evolution works then the aim at a distant functional target (As Nelson puts it) has taken place in the selection of the right physical regime. Intelligence has already been built into the process of evolution and evolution is, in fact, intelligence at work.

But having said that this is not to say that evolutionary theory is sown up.  I’m the first to concede that we may be far from understanding the full set of mechanisms driving evolution. Evolution is a present tense continuous process, but unlike the objects of spring extending and test tube precipitating science the changes it generates are smeared over very large tracts of time. We are like ants crawling over the surface of a huge evolutionary tree (or bush!) trying to reconstruct a highly complex shape.  Our attempts at reconstruction should be admixtured with a certain amount of epistemic humility. But in the polarized and passionate North American political and religious environment the sad fact is that a shift toward epistemic humility is not going to happen.

***

Other relevant links

Nick Bostrom’s computer simulation theory is relevant to this post. A flurry of links have appeared on the subject of a simulated universe. See:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/ 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/sideshow/whoa-physicists-testing-see-universe-computer-simulation-224525825.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html 

 http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847 

I touched on the subject of a simulated cosmos here (with tongue in cheek!):

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/time-travel.html

David Deutsch is good on the subject of Physics and Computation: He is developing a theory of physics that only makes recourse to the constraints on computation, an indication of the superset generality of computation. See here:

http://www.edge.org/conversation/constructor-theory

Gravity
My work on gravity came out of a conception of quantum mechanics as a cellular simulation. See these links

http://books.google.co.uk/books?vid=ISBN0755201442&id=O0rkXJ19DXEC&pg=PR4&lpg=PR6&printsec=8&dq=%22gravity+and+quantum+non-linearity%22&sig=_xC31WVIQ0L3Nsz-QBTJ0jbj_Xo 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzLwnl6qE_yeQ1FpTjJTLUtwMVU/edit?pli=1 

Endnotes
1) A computer needs to be instantiated by some kind of law and disorder regime, but because computation is a concept that is independent of the exact computing model instantiating it, then the precise nature of the instantiating regime of the host computer is not easily accessible to the inner simulacrum. This is because the computer model reifying the host computer is one amongst many possible models and the formal structure of the simulacrum is insensitive to that model. If, like computation, intelligence is a general abstraction this will mean that the nature of the medium reifying the host intelligence is likely to be all but unrecoverable from the inner simulacrum.

2) As with computation one might expect sentience to be reified on some kind of law and disorder medium. The question then arises: Which comes first: Law and disorder or intelligence?  Law and disorder regimes are too simple in structure to be self-explaining – they cannot have the property of aseity.  Since complexity has no apparent upper limit aseity may be hidden in the upper reaches of sentient complexity. It may be wrong  to think in terms of law & disorder causing intelligence, or, vice versa, intelligence causing law and disorder. Law & disorder and sentience  may not proceed one out of the other but of necessity go hand in hand: Viz: Sentience will explain itself in law and disorder terms, but for the elementals of law and disorder to have positivist/experimental meaning the a-priori complexities of conscious cognition are required to host these elementals and give them context.

3) Patterns vs. Causes: In the final analysis our scientific epistemology only ever reveals the pattern of things; that is, science provides us with what is essentially a means of describing the cosmic state of affairs. In fact we find that many of the patterns the cosmos presents us with are amenable to description using algorithms (what I refer to as “law”) and statistics (what refer to as “disorder”) - hence my use of the phrase “law and disorder”. The concept of “cause” is really a special case term that is usually applied when a pattern can be described with a “deterministic” algorithm that computes the pattern in relatively short time. (Although one could say that a quantum event has been “caused” by randomness - i.e. a disordered pattern - this usage would probably be considered as rather strained).  “Causation”, in my view, is very much a subset category within more general categories of pattern description. It is with the foregoing in mind that I am uneasy about William Lane Craig’s and the HID community’s stress on the causal role of God in creation. This view of God favours the assignment of God to the wrong logical category; that is, as an ancillary homunculus source of causation rather than as an embracing substrate.

4) How Paul Nelson is viewed at Sandwalk: http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/paul-nelson-is-confused.html

Config Space via Mathematical Impressionism. Part 1

Post 11/03/13 Clarifications added

In my posts on evolution I have often talked about “configuration space”. By “configuration space” I am referring the set of all possible configurations of atoms/particles consistent with our physical regime. In this post I’m going to attempt to give this concept further clarification; further clarification but not complete clarification. This post is an impressionist’s “first parse” based on mathematical intuition rather than mathematical rigor, with the hope that in time a fuzzy picture will eventually give way to something of higher definition. I have doubts, however, that the picture will sharpen up much more because I have feeling that we are dealing with a subject that will not fully reduce to mathematics human beings find tractable; biology, I feel, is destined to remain narrative intense.

***

Given a class of configurations then the mathematical problem can be posed of how to count these configurations. Counting objects requires one to organize these objects into a sequence. In fact many computational problems involve tracking through a set of objects in sequence and this raises the question of how one constructs this sequence. A very natural way of organizing configurations is to juxtapose configurations that are separated by a small increment of change. For example, two binary configurations that only have a one bit difference would be adjacent to one another. This idea of bringing together configurations associated by incremental differences underlines an important fact: The operation of counting imposes a one dimensional sequence on a naturally multidimensional object: Configuration’s separated by small increments of change form a network of objects where each configuration is linked to a large number of near neighbours and not just two neighbours as is imposed by a simple counting operation. It is with this network view of configuration space in mind that I will later be adding a cautionary note when we use my proposed categorization of configurations based on the graph I present and explain below.

***

In the above graph the horizontal axis, S, represents some kind of size dimension of a configuration; for example, for a binary sequence this would simply be the number of cells in the sequence.  The vertical axis, Z, represents the number of physically possible configurations for a given size. Because Z is a number that, generally speaking, is going to be immense I've carried out the common practice of taking the Log of Z. This practice also has the useful side effect of turning products into sums so that the addition of parts to a system is also additive as far as the value of Log Z is concerned.

The line I have labelled  L₀ represents the increase in the total number of logically possible configurations as we increase the size of the system. I have shown L₀ as a straight line because on taking the Log of Z we usually find that Log Z, as a function of S, is approximately linear (The actual expression is often “S Log S” which is approximately linear). Superimposed on this graph are other straight lines, labeled L₁ L₂,…L_n whose meaning I will explain below. 

The line L₀, as I have said above, is the Log of all the logically possible configurations as a function of configuration size S. In fact it is possible to arrange a 1 to 1 map between each point below the L₀ line in the Log Z-S plane and each configuration represented by a unique point below L₀. Thus our graph above effectively counts and arranges the possible configurations by means of this 1 on 1 map.

The line, L₀ enumerates configurations of all types. What we now need to do is to further organise this counting method using the concept of "disorder". In what follows I’m assuming we know what “disorder” means. (I have written a lengthy private paper on this subject, a subject I will not be going into here) . To this end we start by introducing the line L₁, such that the points between L₁ and the S axis map on a 1 to 1 basis to the configurations that are classed as very highly ordered (that is, of very low disorder). For example, simple periodic configurations would classify as highly ordered; a configuration with a repeating pattern such as 10010010001…. would be included in the enumeration defined by L₁.  I have shown L₁  as a straight line that increases with S; an indication that the number of highly ordered configurations increases exponentially with S. 

High order isn't something that suddenly cuts out; rather it fades as configurations become more complex in pattern. To represent this we imagine the Log Z-S plane be divided up into bands using lines L₂, L₃, ….L_n as shown above, where each line is separated from its two neighbours by the same increment in Log Z. The bands bounded by  L₂, L₃, ….L_n respectively represent regions of configurations of increasing disorder. Using this banding system means that the Log Z axis doubles up to give an indication of disorder as well as numbers of configurations.  Therefore, if we take a particular configuration of a given size it can, by virtue of its level of disorder, be placed somewhere below the L₀ line, in one of the regions bounded by the lines L₂, L₃, ….L_n.

The vertical width between the bands demarked by L₁,L₂, ….L_n  is a log value of the number of configurations of a given size in the respective band. Because this value is a logarithm of a configuration count, it implies that when  this value is translated to a literal count by taking the inverse log, it increases exponentially as we move through the bands L₁,L₂, to L_n. This fact brings out an important feature of disorder; namely, that the number of configurations associated with a particular value of disorder increases steeply with increasing disorder. An interesting corollary of the steep increase in configuration count as a function of disorder is that when disorder is at a maximum then as system size increases the number of maximally disordered configurations tends toward the total possible configurations as expressed by  L₀

***

Some Quasi-Axioms

I will be using the Log Z-S plane to consider evolution, but I can’t take this consideration much further without some further assumptions. The following assertions are too high level to be called axioms, but as we are dealing with a very high level phenomenon we can get a good head start by making some shrewd high level guesses as per the 4 points below:

Definition

Living structures have powers of self-repair and reproduction; or using a catch-all term powers of “self-perpetuation”.

"Axioms"

1. The level of complexity required for self-perpetuation is going to position living configurations in a band intermediate between high and low order.

2. The set of self-perpetuating structures is going to be of “vanishingly” small size when compared to the set of all configurations

3. The larger a configuration becomes (i.e. increasing S) then the greater the improbability of it forming spontaneously; (that is, of it forming without precursors). This looks to be a consequence of the assumption of equal a-priori probabilities amongst configs. In fact the probability of spontaneous formations is likely to be some decaying exponential term that looks something like  "A exp [-B S]" where A and B are constants

4. If we take a given configuration C₁ separated from another configuration C₂ by d changes then the probability of C₁ morphing spontaneously into C₂ is likely to be a decaying exponential of d; that is,      the probability of a “saltation” leap being made from one to the other will have a mathematical form that looks something like the expression "A exp[-B d]" where A and B are constants.  This assumption is closely related to assumption 3.

The foregoing, then, summarizes the model I use and will be using when discussing the evolutionary question.

Fundies, Cultists, Conspiracy Theorists and Right Wing Politics

Below I've posted another of the email shots I receive periodically from  the right-wing magazine, Townhall. I signed up to this magazine  some years ago in order to get an insight into their thinking. This latest email advertised a novel by conspiracy theorist and Mormon Glen Beck. It's another indication of how the conspiracy theorists, the extreme right, the fundamentalists and cult/sectarian Christianity have blended to produce a very toxic mix in American politics. This post is part of my study of conspiracy theory a subject I have touched on in the following posts:

1. http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/conspiracy-and-apocalypse.html 

2. http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/conspiracy-theorists-corner.html 

3. http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/witchs-brew-from-townhallcom.html  

4. http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/right-wing-celebrity-death-match.html  

Especially watch that third link of mine above: It's about an email from Townhall that actually dabbled in the fears surrounding the Mayan Calendar inspired end-of-world rumours, rumours that are rapidly coming up to their sell-by-date of 21st December. Some parts of America look as though they are under the influence of cranks and crackpots.  This is  bad news for the West which looks to America for leadership.  I notice that the German magazine Spiegel is also worried. (See: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/divided-states-of-america-notes-on-the-decline-of-a-great-nation-a-865295.html).  The trouble is that China, a possible successor to America, is too ill-prepared for democracy and the open society to be an acceptable world leader.

******

Glenn Beck is Back!

Get Glenn Beck's "Agenda 21" FREE with Townhall Magazine!

Sustainable development. Population control. One-world government. The United Nations' Agenda 21 is very real and a cause for concern to those who worry about the infringement of national sovereignty and liberty. Exposing the worst case scenario of Agenda 21 through a fictional portrayal of a futuristic dystopia is renowned conservative icon Glenn Beck. In his latest book, just released this week, Beck examines a troubling UN program through a lens that only he could pull off successfully.
Great deal! Get "Agenda 21" FREE with 1 year of Townhall Magazine!

Eighteen-year-old Emmeline is a member of the Republic, formerly known as the United States of America. She lives to serve the UN led program, Agenda 21. There is no representation, court system, president, or individual liberty in the Republic. Creating sustainable, clean energy and producing offspring for the continuation of society are the only goals of the suppressed population. People live under tight controls and are constantly being watched by the Gatekeepers, the overlords of their existence. The disappearance of individuals runs rampant and food and water are strictly rationed. What is this world that Emmeline lives in? Is there any hope? In Agenda 21 Emmeline seeks to find some answers when she is finally pushed too far.
Great deal! Get "Agenda 21" FREE with 1 year of Townhall Magazine!

 If you're a fan of Glenn Beck then you need to read his latest masterpiece. If you read "The Overton Window" then you know how much of a page turner Beck produces. As one of the most read and influential authors and media personalities, Glenn Beck knows how to expose very real possibilities in an imaginative way. "Agenda 21" is sure to be another bestseller and the subject of many water cooler conversations in the coming months.Townhall Magazine has acquired a small number of this hot selling book. For a very limited time you can get the hottest book with the best conservative publication in print today, Townhall Magazine! Order now!
Great deal! Get "Agenda 21" FREE with 1 year of Townhall Magazine!

Don't miss out on this great deal! Order Townhall Magazine today!

Fresh. Intelligent. Conservative. -- Townhall Magazine.

**********
Townhall Magazine is exclusively in print and coverage features investigative journalism, in-depth reporting, heavily researched analysis, interviews with the heavy hitters and powerful exposes--all exclusive to the magazine.

No other magazine offers you this brilliant combination of smart, conservative, in-depth reporting and opinion that truly reflects your values.

Townhall Magazine is taking "conservative magazines" to new heights with its investigative reporting and stories, conservative humor, photography, culture, and commentary from your favorites.
Keep up with Townhall Magazine to get the inside scoop on exclusive interviews and more!

Once Again: The False Dichotomy Zone: God did it vs. Deep time did it!

In my last post I remarked on Uncommon Descent’s Barry Arrington’s tendency to frame the question of creation within the “God did it vs. Evolution did it” dichotomy. Subsequently, I was very interested to see a blog post by Young Earth Creationist Jason Lisle where, as I’d expect, we find that he too promulgates a similar perspective.  Arrington, however, isn’t a YEC as far as I’m aware, but in spite of that the “God did it vs. Evolution did it” dichotomy is seductive enough to lure a wide spectrum of views; in fact the theological categories of some atheists betray a similar underlying structure.

In a post entitled “Deep time- the god of our age” and dated 9^th November Lisle tells us:

However, by their actions, Deep Time disciples do indeed imbue him with personal characteristics and powers that only a conscious being can possess…..Consider (1) Deep Time has characteristics and powers that belong to God alone.  In fact, the parallels are truly amazing!  For example, Deep Time has the power of creation.  According to His followers, he has made stars, planets, and galaxies.  He has made canyons, and mountains.  Deep Time separated the continents and oceans.  He has made all living creatures through his servant – Evolution.  Indeed, Deep Time took the elements of this world, and from that dust he made man.  These are all powers and actions that are rightly reserved for God alone (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 33:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 104:5-8, Genesis 1:9-10, Genesis 1:20-25, Genesis 2:7).

Lisle, of course, doesn’t believe in deep time but he nevertheless holds in his head the folk caricature that portrays the physical processes of deep time as truly creative powers rendering a Creator God redundant. Lisle is probably a fundamentalist by inheritance; that is, he was born and bred into a fundamentalism where he was taught to think of those physical processes as an imaginary pretender to God’s unique position as Creator. In Lisle’s fundamentalist mind the description of radical changes in the pattern of matter (such as gas to galaxies or elements to organisms) using physical algorithms is to render God redundant and to thereby threaten faith. In fact as he says above these are powers only a conscious being can possess. For Lisle it is an either/or choice between God and physical processes.

But there is no rational basis for Lisle’s distorted caricature of physical processes as a god pretender. So-called deep time is neither very deep nor capable of answering the profound questions about ultimate origins. A few billion years is completely swamped by the colossal dimensions of the combinatorial space in which we find living structures located. To locate those configurations or locate the rare physical regime capable of generating them (if such has a mathematical existence) is a task of extreme computational complexity, a task well beyond the resources of pure chance and our deep time.  “Deep time” leaves those questions of ultimate origin untouched. A back handed acknowledgement of this fact is the popular recourse to those multiverse scenarios that attempt (vainly I believe) to take the stress away from having to posit a cosmos that must be endowed with very peculiar and special conditions for it to work. “Deep Time” is certainly no god and cannot even be caricatured as such: Deep time is in fact a mere host that has been impressed with some very unique patterns of behaviour; that these patterns have been smeared out over a relatively short space of time is remarkable. But the fearful Lisle is not going to see it in these intellectually neutral terms; for a marginalized/persecuted YEC like Lisle the claimed output of deep time looks so suspiciously god-like that for him the question of creation is very much framed, as it is for Barry Arrington, by a dichotomy - in this case the specific dichotomy is being expressed as “God did it vs. deep time did it”. *

Another of Lisle’s naiveties is the common YEC misconception that separates out “historical science” (such as evolution) from “operational science” (such as physics):

  Although Deep Time has nothing to do with science, often the science and the stories are interleaved such that it can be difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends! 

YEC’s are unable to deny the success of the hard sciences like physics and chemistry, sciences which deal with present tense continuous processes. But natural history, of course, is anathema to YECs and so they attempt to drive a wedge between history and physics. But as Lisle admits above it can be difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends! There are good reasons for those difficulties of distinction, because all science is at once both highly historical and yet highly contemporaneous: The present tense continuous processes of physics are justified by a history of documented evidences, evidences that are in fact signals from the past. Moreover, new evidence never emanates from circumstances that exactly reproduce the past and so the interpretation of new evidence depends very much on a knowledge of history. Ergo, physics is grounded in history. And historical science is grounded in the present: Events long past leave a present tense continuous trace of evidence that can be used as test material. In both physics and history the logic of the general epistemic problem is the same: Viz. that of endeavouring to infer the form of an otherwise inaccessible structure from a set of data samples. Fundamentalist attempts to undermine “historical science” ultimately subverts both science and history and rides rough-shod over the assumption of a rational readable world.

Lisle’s thought life is impeded by a set of flawed stock arguments and concepts repeated endlessly in YEC circles. These he can’t or won’t think round; to question or review those stock arguments and concepts will smack of compromise and spiritual failure. In fact the chief polemical weapon in the fundamentalist’s armory is less reason than it is a deep resource of spiritual invective that is ready to use to impugn the consciences of Christians who question the YEC tradition. The following quotes speak for themselves:

Disciples of Deep Time worship him with reverence and awe.  They may deny this with their words, but their actions indicate that they do cherish this god above all others.  This makes sense: if indeed Deep Time does have the powers and abilities that his disciples attribute to him, then he should be worshiped…..Since Deep Time is so contrary in nature and actions to the God of Scripture, it is disappointing that many Christians attempt to honor and serve both of them……. It’s not that modern Christians want to give up the True God.  Rather, they simply want to add another god, one who is contrary in nature and actions to the Living God…... Remember reading of Baal?  Baal was the Canaanite god of weather and thunder.  The Israelites often fell into Baal worship, in violation of the First Commandment.  Elijah pointed out their absurd inconsistency in 1 Kings 18:21, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.”  It was illogical for the Israelites to attempt to serve two contrary gods (and immoral).  Are we any different today when we try to add other gods to Christianity? No man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24).  …..Those Christians who want to believe in Deep Time along with the biblical God are being dreadfully inconsistent.  They may claim that they serve the Lord alone, but by their actions they reveal that Deep Time is their primary god, and the Lord is secondary. 

According to Lisle Christian scientists like John Polkinghorne, Chris Isham, Ken Miller, Denis Alexander, Simon Conway Morris, John Lennox, and Francis Collins, (not to mention many Uncommon Descent contributors) are worshipers of a strange god who is contrary in nature to the living God. Lisle is accusing them of violating the first commandment and therefore of being little better than idolaters and worshippers of Baal; in fact Lisle implies that deep time is their primary god! Given that God is probably the most important thing in the life of these scientists we begin to appreciate how deeply a YEC is prepared to insult the faith of other Christians.

But to be fair to Lisle we need to put this sort of invective in context. Lisle is very much part of a minority, a minority he perceives as persecuted and having to fight discouragement:

Textbooks that fail to acknowledge the supreme lordship of Deep Time are not likely to be used, or even published.  Those who wish to work as professors must swear allegiance to Deep Time and His servant Evolution if they want to be hired……It can be discouraging to see so many Christians attempting to serve the pagan god Deep Time.  It often feels like the Christians who truly stand on God’s Word are so very few.  But we should remember that Elijah was discouraged as well.  In a time when he was afraid for his life, and thinking that he was the last faithful believer he cried out to God (1 Kings 19:14).  But the Lord responded, “Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.” (1 Kings 19:18).  Think of this the next time you are discouraged about the rampant compromise within the Church.  How many more Christians has the Lord kept for Himself who have not bowed the knee to Deep Time?

Lisle does try hard to be logical and scientific, and his personality type favours a rational faith. But he is limited by the strictures of the inscribed-in-stone 6000 year time frame of fundamentalist Christianity, a stricture impelled with the kind of threatening spiritual language that we have seen above. Lisle is stuck with the legacies of his past; a born and bred YEC he is now trapped. Status and loyalty binds Lisle to his flock of admiring followers who look to him as a champion against the encroaching philosophy of profane science. Therefore Lisle is unable turn his back on them without a great betrayal apparently taking place. It is probably too late for Lisle to change; his boats were burnt long ago. Thus Lisle finds himself very much locked in to a reactionary and anachronistic cultural minority not unlike the Amish. But for the Amish a self-imposed separation insulates them from the grief and aggravation that comes through intercultural contact. But this is not an option for YECs who are committed to doing all they can to convert Christians to their 6000 year time scale, But if they are making such little headway with Christians what hope do they have with secularists? No wonder Lisle is discouraged!

Fundamentalists like Lisle are apt to regard those who are not with them as being against them and in their spiritual conceit they see those who are against them as necessarily also against God. Not surprisingly then for the marginalized fundamentalist evil appears to lurk round every corner and they view the world beyond their cultural boundaries as totally depraved. Consequently, a profound distrust colours and pervades their perception of their social surroundings and this makes them susceptible to the paranoia and false dichotomies of conspiracy theory. (Also see here) For fundamentalists the creation question is also cast into the mold of a false dichotomy: Either one accepts  the YEC view of God as a magician who speaks creation into existence or one is in danger of entering the eternal fire for believing  nonsense about creation somehow being able to create  itself!

Addendum 01/12/12: Fundie 'Elder Statesman' Breaks Rank!

An indication of the isolation of YECs comes from a video posted on PZ Myers' blog (A very useful source on  the state of American fundamentalism). In this video we find Pat Robertson, an "Elder Statesman" of American right wing Christianity, disowning Young Earth Creationism. This is what Robertson says:

If you fight revealed science, you’re going to lose your children! And I believe in telling them the way it was.

As far as I'm aware Robertson is influential so this looks to be good news. But then given the number of pathetic "prophetic" gaffs he's known for this could be a  mixed blessing.

Note 9/03/13  The following is a quote I have recently picked up from a fundamentalist:  "....the big bang is a secular idea to try to explain the universe without God! ". In this fundamentalist's mind those who believe in big bang are, as we have also seen in the case of Lisle above, being accused of setting up an alternative to creation by God. This straw man is being wrongly foisted on Christians who accept established science and who see the cosmic story as simply a description of a natural history rather than the god pretender portrayed in these fundamentalist's distorted caricature. The "God did it vs. Naturalism did it" is a dichotomy that is very much centre stage in the fundamentalists mindset.

Footnote:

* In his post Lisle attempts to press home his argument against deep time with a moral argument about the dispassionate cruelty of physical processes. This is essentially a question bound up with problem of evil and suffering, an issue I’m certainly not touching here except to say that it is as much a problem post-Adam as it is pre-Adam. 

The False Dichotomy Zone.

Religious fanaticism vs. a cool head

When Barry Arrington took over from William Dembksi as moderator of Uncommon Descent that blog took an intellectual down turn. Arrington sees the evolution debate very much in the frame of the “God did it vs. Evolution did it” dichotomy. Arrington, it turns out, is a fine example of the polarized naturalism vs. supernaturalism habits of mind that dominate the American debate. What brought this small post of mine on was a post by Arrington that typifies his views. I’m not going to a spend my time systematically working through Arrington’s article exposing his philosophical naiveties except to provide this link which deals with the God did it vs. Evolution did it dichotomy. (See also here)

I don’t particularly want to make enemies of Uncommon Descent; a lot of worthwhile posts and commentary can be found there and I am an open ear when it comes to criticism of the mechanism of evolution as it is currently understood. However, there are some contributors at Uncommon Descent that have thoroughly alienated me. American ID appears to have become bound up with the very dangerous political polarization we see in that country. Fanatical commentary emanates from high places, such as, for example, the denouncement of evolution as Lies straight from the pit of hell. With this sort of fulmination the musty smell of irrational fundamentalist zealotry hits you straight away; it comes straight from the seething cauldron of authoritarian, sectarian and cult religion. It gives me the creeps.

Coping with White Space

In the video above atheist Sean Carroll explores the implications of his ulterior metaphysical vision of ontology, an ontology he believes to be all embracing and exclusive, in affect defining the boundaries of all he thinks has been, will be and is. This kind of ontological exclusivism is a common metaphysical interpretation of physics. Although I’m a great fan of the coherent highly integrated world that physics paints, I wouldn’t say that I’m so taken by it as to make it the basis of an all excluding metaphysical ontology, a metaphysic that doesn’t dare speak its name for of fear of being recognized as such.

Nevertheless there is plausibility in Carroll’s philosophy, a philosophy which is an arguable construction any reasonable person may feel they can place upon human experience and the human predicament. But plausible is not the same as rationally obliging, and in my opinion one can dissent from Carroll’s views with a clear scientific conscience in spite of the insistence of some secular fundamentalists to the contrary. The sort of ontological exclusiveness Carroll espouses looks suspiciously like a way of coping with the white spaces at the edge of knowledge by circumscribing it away.

I would not only question Carroll’s ontology but also his epistemology. There is a delicate balancing act to be maintained in the negotiations between institutionalized science and the wild card of human experience. If either is allowed to dominate the other intellectual pathology is a consequence. For example, there may come a point when the political entrenchment of institutionalized theories is so great that it is impossible for experience to inform them any longer, as Galileo found out. Conversely experience can lack the rational framing that it badly needs for its correct interpretation – something that I can personally testify to having seen what happens so often in evangelical Christianity. As regards this balancing act I find Carroll far too institutionalised to be an objective observer.

Video Content

Near the beginning of the video Carroll tells us triumphant tones:

In our thousands of years long quest in understanding the universe and how it works.. …we have finally figured out what the rules of the game are.

My Comment: May be or may be not; I can’t be this bullish myself. I construe Carroll’s scientific triumphalism as a reaction against the religious fundamentalists with their quack “science” who are very much abroad in America. Anomalies, in particular, have a way of eventually opening up into huge paradigm shattering vistas. And who knows there is still plenty of room in physics for anomalies to crop up! Physics is yet a fully integrated and exclusive system.

Carroll tells us that the (relatively) easy part of science is that of determining the rules of the (physical) game but the hard part is applying those rules successfully. This is probably true. However, I think we need to bear in mind that there are two types of rules: Viz: a) The local rules of a cellular system ontology. b) The non-local rules of an ontology constrained by global constraints. Currently physics is almost exclusively based on a cellular ontology, which is probably why the ideas of Nobel Prize winning physicist Ken Wilson apply. But what if non-local rules exist? Could we easily detect them?

Your friend says “I’ve always been partial to the green cheese hypothesis; I think the moon is made of green cheese”

My Comment: Carroll commences the easy work of refuting this idea from the point of view of physics, a physics which allows us “ahead of time” to contradict such arbitrarily constructed hypotheses. But this is as easy as shooting a rabbit that’s just been pulled out of the hat. Life is much more difficult if the rabbit has been spawned in the hedgerows and knows the ways of the wild: The moon landing conspiracy theory is also absurd, but it is a lot less easy to refute with just mockery alone. This is because it is not an arbitrary creation and didn’t appear “just like that” out of a hat. Rather, it has a history with causes deeply embedded in the current social malaise, a malaise of disaffection that generates a strong emotional rationale for this kind of conspiracy theory. Moreover, it doesn't do anything so obviously radical as to posit a very explicit break in the laws of physics (Unlike the green cheese “hypothesis”)

We don’t understand turbulence, weather, high temperature superconductivity, cancer, consciousness, economics…

My Comment: Note that “consciousness” appears in this list – it’s being categorized as a phenomenon to observe and explain, just like the weather: But where do I go to observe some consciousness? Don’t tell me a person’s brain, because all I ever observe there is a combination of a neural activity and emergent behaviour.  If “consciousness” is just a way of talking about a complex emergent aggregated phenomenon, then what’s the analogous term for that aggregated phenomenon we call the weather? Weather is a system composed of a huge number of particles which exhibits emergent behaviour such as storms, but it is wrong to conclude that storms are to air and water molecule as consciousness is to neurons. The conundrum of consciousness is that although human beings are a cluster of emergent behaviours that is not the same as consciousness. One doesn't observe conscious cognition; rather it is conscious cognition that does the observing; it is the beholder and not the beheld. Carroll can’t have it both ways; either he should simply ignore consciousness, or if he wishes to recognize it as something significant (as he has effectively done above) he shouldn't include it in his phenomenon list; in which case this would be an admission that consciousness doesn't classify as a member of the class of phenomena.

 You can’t bend spoons with the sheer force of your mind. There are no forces of nature which allow you to do that…Astrology cannot work; there  is no force that can extend from those stars to my little birth place…. We already know ahead of time that they cannot be right because the claims they are making are not compatible with the laws of physics as we know them

My Comment; Fair enough but only if we feel sure, “ahead of time”, that the cellular model of physics is all embracing and exclusive!

There is no life after death…That’s because there are no particles or forces that could contain the information in your brain after you die…that’s not compatible with the laws of physics as we know them. We don’t need to look carefully at past life regression studies or anything like that; the claim violates the laws of physics

My Comment: I suspect Carroll may be trading here on the connotations of the words “laws” and “violation”. The laws of physics don’t know themselves to be literally “laws” that cannot be “violated”; rather they are mathematical constructions describing patterns consistent with our observational experiences to date; this latter take, which uses neutral words like patterns in place of emotive words like laws or rules, doesn’t allow us to form statements with negative connotations such as “A violation in the laws of physics”.

Physics comes with an implicit understanding of the set of circumstances to which it applies: Viz: For all O then P , where O is a set of observational/experiential connections and P is the claim that physics ultimately “explains” O. The big question here is this: Are we to regard “O” as covering all possible experiences or just a subset of experience? At this point a philosophical leap has to made: For example, we might assume that the ontology physics handles (i.e. objects called fields) is inclusive of all there can be and that therefore “O” must cover all experiential connections. Accordingly, it might be argued that there is no observational evidence for O that isn’t explained by physics.  (This is what I mean when I refer to Carroll’s ulterior ontology). But in saying that we are, in fact, making a universal statement that is subject to the test of experience; that is, ultimately it is experience that is used to negotiate with a statement like For all O then P. Ergo, sufficiently compelling claims of occult experience are always on the agenda for analysis whatever Carroll likes to think ahead of time.

Having said that, however, we must recognize that “occult” claims are usually liminal in nature and therefore Carroll can hardly be blamed if he feels “ahead time” that these experiences are not compelling enough to warrant further investigation. Moreover, Carroll has a huge stake in the scientific establishment and therefore may be motivated by the all too human trait of desiring to draw a line round what can be defined as authentic experience, thus paving the way, ahead of time, for dissenters to be accused of the scientific equivalent of heresy!

There is no ghost in the machine. What you are is a collection of atoms obeying the laws of nature.

My Comment: I don’t believe in the ghost in the machine myself, but Carroll’s second statement here is blindingly obvious, and yet at the same time omits the blindingly obvious. It is clear that any observation one makes on a person will only ever reveal the third person perspective of matter aggregates in motion; that and emergent behaviour.  It is also obvious, and this is what Carroll is missing, those observations which are the data samples for our physical theories about human behaviour cannot be meaningfully divorced from the conscious cognition that is the assumed agent and underwriter of these samples. Ergo, third person narratives always entail an implicit and irremovable first person perspective. However we couch it, whether in first or third person terms, conscious cognition is always lurking in the background as the source of the data samples that are the rationale of all theorizing.

 I am myself very comfortable with the idea that conscious cognition can “explain itself” in the third persons terms of atomic motions in the brain. But in spite of that we never approach a another person is if they are just a collection of atoms or even a collection of high level stories that are simply a convenient way of talking about the emergent behaviour of that collection of atoms. Rather, a parallel story of conscious cognition is the empathic construction we make and associate with those third person observations on neural atoms; we know what it “feels like” to be that configuration of atoms and fields. It is this dual story of the first and third persons that flaws Carroll’s category system which places “weather” together with consciousness cognition. Weather may be a convenient way of talking about a huge collection of particles, but all said and done it is still a third person perspective and as such it is not a logical analogue of conscious cognition; the latter is in an entirely different logical category altogether. The stories of the first and third person perspectives cannot be reduced to one mother; they are two parallel perspectives that arise when conscious cognition makes observations on conscious cognition.