North American Intelligent Design's response to my 27 June & 2 July posts. Part 2

The default thinking of the North American ID community leaves us feeling that it's a choice between Intelligent design and Evolution. But that science's accounts are effectively succinct descriptions which exploit cosmic organization means that the question is not a choice of opposites as the NAID community and some atheists make out. In one sense there is no such thing as "natural forces".

 

In this post I'm going to comment on the following post on "Evolution News" by Eric Hedin:

Physics, Information Loss, and Intelligent Design

This is a continuation of my last post. which followed up the posts here & here. It addresses in particular Eric Hedin's claim to what he believes to be a generalized version of the second law of thermodynamics based on quantum decoherence. 

ERIC HEDIN In an earlier article, I showed that information ratchets do not exist in nature. The most that any mechanistic system can do is to reproduce the information already available within the system. Printing presses reproduce the typeset information placed in the mechanism by human operators. ChatGPT simply accesses and rearranges information originated by humans and uploaded on the Internet. No new information is produced in either case.

In a recent article, I introduced the physical concept of the generalized second law of thermodynamics, as a governing principle consistent with the Law of Conservation of Information, which William Dembski formulated with the claim that natural causes cannot increase complex specified information in a closed system over time. Here, I’ll seek to provide an explanation of the physics behind the generalized second law — a rationale for why natural processes destroy information.

MY COMMENT: As we saw in my last post Hedin did not succeed in showing that information ratchets do not exist in the created order; part of his problem was that he didn't tell us what he meant by "information". However, in the above it looks as though he's thinking of the so-called principle of the "conservation of information". Accordingly, he's of the opinion that unless the mysteries of intelligent agency are invoked God's creation can't create information (although Hedin believes information can be destroyed). Heuristically speaking this rule of thumb often works, but it is not always true; that is, as a catch-all fundamental principle the conservation of information is false as we shall see.

The mechanistic systems we are familiar with do in fact create information in the compelling common sense meaning of the term. A variety of natural systems create complex chaotic patterns whose elements are new to the cosmos and what would by any common sense meaning of the term be new information to human beings. Systems that generate random sequences are by the Shannon definition of the term creating information all the time (See part 1).

It is misleading to claim that computer systems merely rearrange information: They can in a very compelling sense do far more than that: Starting with the relatively simple pattern of an algorithm and given enough time and space very complex patterns can be generated. As far as the cosmos is concerned these patterns may well be entirely new forms: that is, new information. Trivially it could be claimed that for deterministic algorithms the information eventually generated is implicit in the starting conditions: But because any given pattern has at least one simple algorithm which will generate it given enough time and space, then on that basis it would trivially follow that no finite pattern (including finite stretches of disordered patterns) would classify as new information! What we have then is a situation where, whilst it is true that something isn't coming from nothing, nevertheless a lot of something is coming out of relatively little. Ergo, mechanical and so-called "natural forces" create information. 

My conclusion is that it is a misrepresentation to claim that neither nature nor computers are simply "printing" information they already have and at best are tweaking its arrangement a little. But if we allow nature and computers to tweak information, then we can ask ourselves what would be the result of billions of tweaks? The result would in fact be completely new configurations reified from the platonic realm: That is new information, especially so if we are starting from bland and simple initial conditions and relatively small algorithms.

In deterministic generating systems, natural and computational, the information generated can be regarded as implicit from the beginning in the sense that it exists in unreified form in the platonic realm. Hence this implicit information needs to be reified before it can be claimed to be part the real world, and in that sense the information is being created. Natural systems and computer systems are a means doing this. But nothing comes from nothing and these information creating sources have their origins and continued sustenance in God and/or human intelligence. 

As I said in this post and proved here, in parallel computation information is created according to:

Ic = Smin + log (Tmin)

Where Ic is the configurational information content, Smin is the minimum length of the algorithm needed to generate the configuration with a minimum number of execution steps of Tmin. As I have said before it is the slow generation of information with time (The "log" term above) which has given rise to the opinion that information cannot be generated by natural and mechanical means. But the above relation only applies to parallel processing; if the generating system employs a system of expanding parallelism (e.g. a quantum computer) such exponential systems make short work of the log term, a term which then becomes a term linear in time. 

I will be examining Hedin's so-called generalised second law of thermodynamics below. This proves to be nothing but hand-waving. 

ERIC HEDIN: What about the less physical concept of information? How can we physically explain the relentless loss of information by natural processes? Information seems to be a nonphysical concept, but in our universe, it is stored in specific arrangements of physical states of matter. An intelligent mind can recognize specific arrangements of matter (such as molecules of ink that form letters on a page) that convey a meaningful message. In a different context, biochemists can recognize particular sequences of nucleotide bases in a genome that code for a functional protein.

MY COMMENT:  Firstly, as we saw in part 1, we need not talk vaguely about arrangements of matter which an intelligent mind can recognize as meaningful; Hedin is hand-waving here. The configurations of matter we are thinking of have a very practical meaning: Viz: they are ordered systems which are capable of self-maintenance and self-multiplication; in that sense the functionality we are thinking of is a clear concept. However, one thing we can agree on is this: Such configurations are at once both complex and highly organised;  which means that as a class those self-perpetuating organic structures have a very low statistical weight and therefore a very low unconditional probability. If our cosmos is only a parallel processor, then such configurations would never come about in the life-time of the cosmos if naked chance ruled. To enhance the probability of such configurations to a practical level would require the contingency of the right kind of physical regime to raise the conditional probability of life to a practical level. Where parallel processing is the norm the conservation of information does approximately hold. 

My affirmation that the conservation of probability is a good approximation in a parallel processing context doesn't necessarily come to the rescue of the NAIDs. The irony here is that the possibility of an omniscient omnipotent Creator/Designer leaves them with an unknown. For we couldn't put it past an all-powerful all-knowing Deity to not have provisioned the cosmos with enough information to generate life with a high probability. As NAID William Dembski himself has shown, the conservation of information doesn't of itself rule out standard evolutionary gradualism. We would be very presumptuous to be absolutely certain that the cosmos hasn't been divinely provisioned with the prerequisite information to generate life. But because the NAID community affect to keep up the gloss of being a scientific society and not a theological society their crypto-theism makes them uneasy in admitting the implications of Christian theism which posits at the outset, a priori, the existence of an all-powerful all-knowing Deity: The implications are that some kind of evolution may well have been reified from the platonic world into our cosmos.

*** 

 In my first post of this two-part series, I wrote:

Consider this writer [Eric Hedin] on the NAID website "Evolution News"; he dreams of a principle (in fact he thinks it's been found!) which he refers to as the generalized version of the second law......

In Hedin's first post he doesn't explain this generalized version of the second law but in the post we are considering here he does attempt to explain it as follows:

ERIC HEDIN: According to the traditional second law, under the influence of natural processes, the surrounding environment brings about a transfer of heat from hot to cold, or a mixing of constituents, such as the mixing of molecules of perfume throughout the air of the room. Natural processes will also cause a mixing of information-bearing physical objects with the environment. In quantum computing research, this loss of information to the surrounding environment results in what is known as decoherence, meaning that “information has leaked into the environment in an uncontrollable fashion.”

Linking Information and Observer: All the information that can be known by an observer about a system of any kind is contained within the quantum mechanical wavefunction of the system. My apologies for bringing up quantum mechanics, but its relevance here is that it serves as the link between the information of a system (anything from a single atom to a complex biomolecule to a macroscopic object) and an observer. Unless the wave function of the system is completely isolated from any environmental influence, it will suffer decoherence (loss of information) with the passage of time. In one sense, the wavefunction spreads out into the environment, meaning that the observer will have greater and greater uncertainty as to the state of the system as time goes on. The physical interaction of atoms or photons uncompromisingly causes this effect, with its resulting loss of information.

 MY COMMENT: Undisturbed quantum systems settle to an eigenstate. An eigenstate is a kind of equilibrium or quasi-static wavefunction with a precise energy; it's analogous to a volume containing a gas which eventually settles to a uniform & precise density and pressure. But when a quantum system in an eigenstate is disturbed (or "perturbed" as it is usually expressed) by interaction with a thermodynamic environment the "coherent" eigenstate becomes mixed with other possible eigenstates: The wavefunction then loses it stasis and becomes a mix of wavefunctions and is no longer stable; to use the standard terminology the original static wavefunction "decoheres".  This decoherence is a particular problem in quantum computing which depends on the stasis of "qubit" eigenstates. 

There is an analogy here with a classical system of two ideal non-thermodynamic bodies orbiting one another in a perfect vacuum under the influence of classical gravity: For an ideal classical system with no thermodynamic randomness such a system will continue in the same state forever. But in the real world any ideal classical system is likely to be coupled to the "imperfect" world of thermodynamics and this linkage would mean the "ideal" system would then undergo perturbations and would randomly walk into another state, if only slowly; from a human point of view the error bars of the unknown then start to widen. These error bars of human knowledge will continue to expand in the absence of information updates that pull us back into the know and keep the Gaussian error envelopes in the vicinity of the actual state of the system. 

The thing to note here is that we have assumed thermodynamics from the outset: Likewise the behaviour of  quantum systems when in contact with a thermodynamic reality tells us no more than we already know; namely, that the world is thermodynamic and that if you want to preserve the integrity and of an array of  binary eigenstates (= qubits) and stop the array  becoming a mix of other eigenstates  by keeping it isolated, you've got your work cut out: Like all real systems a qubit system loses  its ideal state when in contact with the thermodynamic reality around it. 

But decoherence doesn't stop crystals forming or stop the reproductive systems of life working or stop the self-perpetuating systems of life from doing their job. The reason why is because these systems have the physical analogue of information updates that keep these systems within the requisite orbits of self-sustenance: The physical analogue of those information updates are the potential wells or interactional hooks/forces which have a strong tendency to keep ordered systems in place. 

In the above quote Hedin has talked about how a quantum system's interaction with a thermodynamic environment will entail a slow degradation of an observer's knowledge of that system. This is a misrepresentation. In fact, if the observer knows the form of the interactional perturbation, he can then infer how the new mixed wavefunction develops. So, as a consequence of a known perturbation the wavefunction has passed from one known form that is a single eigenstate to another known form that is a mix of a large number of eigenstates. 

All waves states, whether mixed or eigenstates, obey the uncertainty relation:

The square of a momentum value returns an energy value; if this energy value has the precise value pertaining to a single eigenstate then it implies that the magnitude of the corresponding momentum also has a precise value; that is the uncertainty in momentum magnitude is minimized. Therefore, from the uncertainty relation above it follows that under conditions of precise energy the uncertainty in position is maximized. So, when an isolated quantum system interacts with a thermodynamic system its momentum becomes more uncertain, but its position is more localized: In short, increasing certainty in position is traded for greater momentum/energy uncertainty. The lesson is that as a result of an interaction with a thermodynamic system loss of information about the exact energy of the quantum system is compensated by a gain in the information about position. In Hedin's quote above we see that to suite his polemic he has only talked about "loss of information" in energy/momentum but not balanced it with the corresponding and complementary gain in information about position. 

Pure quantum systems are reversible and don't provide Hedin with a fundamental generalized version of the second law: That is, they cannot provide us with that well-know thermodynamic arrow of time where total entropy always increases. It is only the giveness of thermodynamic laws which provide the arrow of time. Moreover, as I've already remarked, in his reference to the loss of information from quantum systems Hedin has neglected to tell us that this is accompanied by a corresponding increase in information. Hedin is simply telling us something we already know about; namely, the effect of thermodynamic systems on quantum systems, systems that are constrained by the complementary uncertainty relation which trades information about one variable for information about another. 

So, there is really nothing at all startling with what Hedin has to tell us. It changes nothing and certainly doesn't provide us with a more fundamental second law than the one we already have. A clue as to the real polemical motive behind Hedin's argument is here:  "My apologies for bringing up quantum mechanics": In bringing up quantum mechanics Hedin has muddied the waters. In that sense it's reminiscent of fundamentalist Jason Lisle's ASC model of cosmology by which he side-steps the age of the universe and like Hedin's reference to quantum mechanics it will confound their benighted followers in their respective communities, especially those who depend on the community's gurus for instruction; it's technical bafflegab which will wow the uninitiated NAID rank and file.

ERIC HEDIN: Some might argue that “luck” could result in an opposite outcome, with interactions causing an increase in information (in biochemistry, this would correlate with increased functional complexity). Why couldn’t this happen? Simply because there are always more ways to go wrong than to go right, when considering whether interactions will result in chaos or increased complex specified information.

MY COMMENT: Yes I think we can go along with that; But let's remember again: The cosmos is no ordinary  "natural" object: It's unwarranted and seemingly out of place contingency is the creation of an a priori transcendent intelligence of unimaginable power and Asiety; who can guess what those so-called "natural forces", created, managed & sustained by such an intelligence might achieve in terms of their ability bring forth organisation?

ERIC HEDIN: An increase in information requires not just one right choice (or lucky draw), but a long sequence of correct choices. Luck might happen once, but any gambler knows that if “lucky outcomes” keep happening against the odds, then the game is rigged. A “rigged game” in nature corresponds to a law of physics — in this case, a law causing information to increase over time by natural causes. Such a law cannot really exist, however, since we already have a law of nature that says the opposite. As I mentioned in a recent article, “Theistic Cosmology and Theistic Evolution — Understanding the Difference”:In our study of science, we have found that the laws of nature do not contradict one another. We don’t have laws of nature that only apply piecemeal.

 MY COMMENT: By any common sense standard and by the Shannon definition of the term both "natural" processes and human designed computation machines increase information  as we have seen. I agree with the above paragraph up until and including A “rigged game” in nature corresponds to a law of physics — in this case, a law causing information to increase over time ........   But because of the poverty of his community's conception of nature Hedin starts going astray as soon as he talks about so-called natural causes. As we have seen he hasn't discovered any "natural law" that contradicts evolution least of all a generalized second law of thermodynamics based on decoherence. His efforts here amount some hand-waving around the idea of an observer becoming less and less certain of a system that as a result of its contact with its thermodynamic surroundings is subject to random walk. He then conflates an observer's information with the objective uncertainties of quantum mechanics, when in fact there is a distinction between the state of an observer's knowledge of a system and the objective state of a physical system itself which according to quantum theory has its own uncertainties; but these uncertainties are not to be confused with observer uncertainties. 

Hedin's argument is no advance on the standard second law of thermodynamics, a law which only bars overall entropy decreases in isolated systems without putting a fundamental bar on local increases in the order of subsystems within the overall system.  This doesn't mean to imply that evolution as conventionally understood has actually happened, but it's clear that Hedin and his colleagues continue to fail to find a fundamental law prohibiting evolution. The spongeam may yet exist and Hedin and his community have failed to see the difficultly of the problem that faces them if they wish to bar evolution on the basis of fundamental physics.

Nature is not natural: Its highly contingent laws, patterns and statistics have and are and will continue to be reified out of the platonic realm by the Divine Will. Yes, it is just possible that God is patching organic configurations  directly into nature ad-hoc style but the nested cladistics of life look to me as if some sort of divinely provisioned process is at work that at least looks vaguely like conventional evolution; perhaps via the conditional information of the spongeam or perhaps something more exotic in the realm of expanding parallelism and teleological laws - the latter would essentially entail  that the cosmos is a declarative system of computation. But Hedin and colleagues have in no way proved their case about those divinely provisioned "natural forces" being blind & ineffectual. Hedin has waved hands around and then simply asserts without proof the old NAID canard:

Such a law cannot really exist, however, since we already have a law of nature that says the opposite.

Hedin must try harder. 

ERIC HEDIN: Imagination and Freedom: Only by the action of non-physical intelligence can the natural process of decoherence and information loss be overcome. Information is meaningless apart from a rational mind, meaning the creation of new information requires more than knowledge. Increased information requires imagination and the freedom to creatively design complex outcomes that convey meaning or exhibit function. (See, “Intelligence Is Unnatural, and Why That Matters.”)

The non-physical aspect of our intelligent minds can succeed in producing information because an intelligent mind can imagine a meaningful outcome and act to separate the components of a complex system from their natural mixed state into specific arrangements that actualize that outcome.  This takes work, meaning it requires energy, but not energy alone, since without the guidance of a non-physical mind, energy cannot succeed in increasing information in a closed system.

MY COMMENT: Philosophically speaking I disagree with the typical dualist dichotomy of the physical vs the non-physical. Firstly God created one world (Colossians 1:15ff) and the only substantive dualism I would propose is God vs. everything else. But in any case what gives the so called physial world meaning is that its laws so perfectly organise experience and thinking that a rational solid world presents itself to perception: That is, the physical world is an unintelligible and incoherent idea without the a priori assumption of the presence of a conscious intelligence somewhere. So, yes, information is meaningless without positing a rational perceiving conscious mind. This idealistic philosophy sees the physical world is an aspect of mind and a world created by the Mind of God at that. So, we should not be surprised if that world displays "unnatural" and miraculous properties; science is less a way of "explaining" those properties than it is a way of describing those properties. It is mathematically inevitable that those properties will be highly particular and contingent. 

Clearly the so-called physical world is manifestly & intrinsically miraculous: Decoherence doesn't stop crystal formation and it doesn't stop organisms self-perpetuating and multiplying. These systems work because nature is carefully crafted by God everywhere and everywhen. Whether God has patched living configurations directly into nature over billions of years or has provisioned it with enough information in its laws and fine-tuning to evolve life, or has used an exotic declarative system with expanding parallelism and teleological constraints is the question that has yet to be unequivocally answered; it certainly has not been properly addressed by the NAID community. In fact, if they persist with their "intelligence vs blind natural forces" dualism they will continue to think there is nothing to address. 

Hedin's notion of natural and mechanical systems as printer-like-devices which simply passively pass on information is rubbish.  Mechanical systems and natural systems (which includes human beings) are constantly creating new forms; that is, new information. In spite of the constancy of reproductive templates each human individual is a unique creation where new information has entered the cosmos. That the mechanisms of the cosmos constantly bring forth new information out of the platonic realm should be no surprise to anyone who believes in a sovereign Christian God. But this is something those who affect to present themselves as a purely scientific community with a degenerate view of "natural forces" are loathe to admit. 

ERIC HEDIN: Intelligent design remains the only explanation consistent with the laws of physics for the increasing information content of living systems throughout life’s history on Earth.

 MY COMMENT: Notice here that Hedin makes a distinction between Intelligent Design and the laws of physics:Yes, I agree that an a priori  Intelligent Creator (complex enough to have Aseity) is the only way of making sense of the mathematically necessary contingent bias of the cosmos. In the light of this perception I'm not going to rush to conclude that the physical world is some kind of ineffectual demiurge creator only capable of creating chaos: In assuming their position the NAIDs have taken on board the mindset of our times which frames the question of origins as a God vs. impersonal physical forces dichotomy, an exclusive or between God and physics: In this polarised context atheists are anxious to prove the creative efficacy of those "natural forces" and conversely the NAIDs are committed to proving that those natural forces are "blind" agents.

The NAIDs have also committed themselves to the gnostic notion that human intelligence is a ghost in the machine and cannot be simulated by algorithmic means or be a particular application of the God provisioned material package. I think the reason for this aversion to the idea that humans are an application of the material package is this: If human intelligence is an aspect of the clever use of matter (matter which embraces those enigmatic quantum properties) and we accept that human intelligence is able to create information then it would clear the way for us to propose that other applications of matter, whether some kind of evolution or computation can also create information.

But I know of nothing that the NAIDs have said which means one should commit oneself at all costs to their dualist and quasi-gnostic views.  In so publicly opposing evolution on the basis of the gut-feeling that it elevates natural forces to a god-like demiurge status they have effectively swallowed atheistic categories and have dug themselves into a hole from which they seem incapable of escaping.