Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Life's Irreducible Structure (DEBATE THREAD)
CMI ^ | Alex Williams

Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900901-918 last
To: betty boop

I think it needs to be further devlopped the idea that mutaitons ‘might alter info’ or might provide some minor benifit, but in the overall scheme of htings, it would muck up metainfo introducing the kinds of changes that would have happened were megaevolution a reality- Naturalism states that only the useful ones will contribute to megaevolutionary changes, but how? Without muckign up metainfo? I don’t beleive it’s possible, and I think the metainfo issue is the key to why it isn’t possible (that and hte fact that megaevolution faces other impossibilities which we’ll not ocncider for now- just need to develope the issue above more thoroughly)


901 posted on 01/17/2009 2:20:23 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 898 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
...the idea that mutaitons ‘might alter info’ or might provide some minor benifit, but in the overall scheme of htings, it would muck up metainfo introducing the kinds of changes that would have happened were megaevolution a reality...

Get used to disappointment.

902 posted on 01/17/2009 3:13:50 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so very much for your insights and encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!

Under CottShop's scenario, would it be incorrect to say that the "additive" digital information would be simply "noise" at the level at which it was introduced, it lacking a metainfo in place at that level (e.g., a program)?

It would indeed be correct to say that the "additive" digital "information" would be simply "noise" at the level at which it was introduced.


903 posted on 01/17/2009 9:37:20 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 898 | View Replies]

To: All

Here’s a pretty cool video put on by Havard showing why such metainfo is needed- note the vid isn’t about metainfo, but it demonstrates just how complex and structured, and directed our systems are at the microbiological levels- pretty ool video- http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/media.html


904 posted on 01/17/2009 9:44:19 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 903 | View Replies]

To: js1138

[[Get used to disappointment.]]

ID hasn’t dissappointed me yet :)


905 posted on 01/17/2009 9:45:54 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies]

sorry- the video animation is titled: inner life


906 posted on 01/17/2009 9:47:28 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
If one chooses to believe in infinity past despite the accumulating evidence to the contrary, he would be hypocritical to assail those who also hold beliefs despite accumulating evidence to the contrary.

That is correct, but not all evidence is to the contrary. The accelerating expansion has everyone baffled. If it isn't a steady state, all bets are off.

907 posted on 01/18/2009 7:17:18 AM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you can’t reason someone out of something that they didn’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 859 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; betty boop; GodGunsGuts
The accelerating expansion has everyone baffled. If it isn't a steady state, all bets are off.

I wouldn't say that everyone is baffled. I'm certainly not. Nor would I expect geometric physicists (e.g. Vafa, Wesson) to be baffled by it - challenged yes, baffled no.

To put it another way, seen as a geometric problem - dark energy operates as a space/time outdent causing to the universe to expand. Fluctuations in the geometry (e.g. string theory calls for such fluctuations) therefore would cause acceleration of the expansion.

BTW, it was Einstein's dream to transmute the base wood of matter to the pure marble of geometry. CERN is still chasing after the Higgs field/boson, the Standard Model explanation for mass in four dimensions (3 spatial, 1 temporal.) If not found, attention will no doubt turn to the geometric theories which (among others) propose that particles in 4D are actually massless shadows of extra dimensional momentum components or that they are multiply imaged from as little as a single particle in a fifth time-like dimension.

We'll see.

Also, steady state universe physical cosmology went the way of geocentric physical cosmology when the 1960's measurements confirmed that space/time is expanding. Precious few hold to such physical cosmologies.

908 posted on 01/18/2009 9:25:41 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 907 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

I think i might be gettign to hte bottom of this:

There can be no information without an interpreter- no message can come fro m the genes in any meaningful way, without some kind of itnerpreter already inplace to translate hte message, and pass is along in a manner that other genes can understand. This is espcesially a problem IF we are to concider life evolving fro m the bottom up- from chemicals to cells. In order for everyhtign to work right between ALL aspects of simplel ife, there must be a complex interpreter and management metasystem already inplace.

Some are arguing that RNA was the first glimmer of life, but RNA is JUST the message, and while capable of soem fascinating things, can do nothing without there first being a complete, complex, and thorough interpreter and tramsmitter, and ‘boss’ aroudn to conduct hte proper transmissions-.

I ran across this today “”Functional parts are only meaningful under a whole, in other words it is the whole that gives meaning to its parts.”

And I think this is quite appropriate in htis discussion. While ‘organization’ at a lower level can accidently take place at a very minor level, the intense complexities of ‘simple life’ is such that I’m afraid Microevolutionary change simpyl can not account for this astonishing complexity.

‘Simple cells’ are so full of complex instructions, right fro mthe very earliest stages of ‘life’, that it simply is unreasonable to think that the metainfo that has all these isntructions inplace arose in a naturalistic manner.

As mentioned, there is no message without the itnerpreter already inplace- Any message without an itnerpreter woudl be ‘noise’, and incapable of accomplishing what it needed to in a complex structure.

Furthermore, there already needs to be the ‘machinery inpalce. You need 3 key htings- The message, the itnerpreter, and the machinery inpalce all at once, otherwise the structure is a useless bundle of chaotic nothing- capable of nothing.


909 posted on 01/18/2009 9:44:49 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 898 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom; Alamo-Girl; Fichori; Ethan Clive Osgoode; GodGunsGuts

I think i might be gettign to hte bottom of this:

There can be no information without an interpreter- no message can come fro m the genes in any meaningful way, without some kind of itnerpreter already inplace to translate hte message, and pass is along in a manner that other genes can understand. This is espcesially a problem IF we are to concider life evolving fro m the bottom up- from chemicals to cells. In order for everyhtign to work right between ALL aspects of simplel ife, there must be a complex interpreter and management metasystem already inplace.

Some are arguing that RNA was the first glimmer of life, but RNA is JUST the message, and while capable of soem fascinating things, can do nothing without there first being a complete, complex, and thorough interpreter and tramsmitter, and ‘boss’ aroudn to conduct hte proper transmissions-.

I ran across this today “”Functional parts are only meaningful under a whole, in other words it is the whole that gives meaning to its parts.”

And I think this is quite appropriate in htis discussion. While ‘organization’ at a lower level can accidently take place at a very minor level, the intense complexities of ‘simple life’ is such that I’m afraid Microevolutionary change simpyl can not account for this astonishing complexity.

‘Simple cells’ are so full of complex instructions, right fro mthe very earliest stages of ‘life’, that it simply is unreasonable to think that the metainfo that has all these isntructions inplace arose in a naturalistic manner.

As mentioned, there is no message without the itnerpreter already inplace- Any message without an itnerpreter woudl be ‘noise’, and incapable of accomplishing what it needed to in a complex structure.

Furthermore, there already needs to be the ‘machinery inpalce. You need 3 key htings- The message, the itnerpreter, and the machinery inpalce all at once, otherwise the structure is a useless bundle of chaotic nothing- capable of nothing.


910 posted on 01/18/2009 9:48:15 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 909 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom; Alamo-Girl; Fichori; Ethan Clive Osgoode; GodGunsGuts

Also, here’s some more peer review material talking about whether or not information could arise on it’s own:

Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285. (PDF, 1.13MB)
Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place. [LINK]

Norwegian scientist Øyvind Albert Voie examines an implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for theories about the origin of life. Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem states that certain true statements within a formal system are unprovable from the axioms of the formal system. Voie then argues that the information processing system in the cell constitutes a kind of formal system because it “expresses both function and sign systems.” As such, by Gödel’s theorem it possesses many properties that are not deducible from the axioms which underlie the formal system, in this case, the laws of nature.

He cites Michael Polanyi’s seminal essay, Life’s Irreducible Structure, in support of this claim. As Polanyi put it, “the structure of life is a set of boundary conditions that harness the laws of physics and chemistry their (the boundary condition’s) structure cannot be defined in terms of the laws that they harness.” As he further explained, “As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule.” Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry. In particular, since as Voie argues, “chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals,” and since “mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations,” it is “therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans.” [LINK]

Theres more well worth looking through on hte site listed above if anyone is interested. Albert Voie perhaps gives a more thorough examination of information for signs and boundaries- which is little lengthy- but makes it clear three key aspects need to be inpalce BEFORE any life can exist- (5 actually do, really, but hte other two are discussed in this thread’s paper)


911 posted on 01/18/2009 10:07:21 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 910 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; betty boop
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights and thank you for the additional information!

And yes, seems to me that your summary of the issues at hand is on target.

912 posted on 01/18/2009 10:15:29 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 911 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
To put it another way, seen as a geometric problem - dark energy operates as a space/time outdent causing to the universe to expand. Fluctuations in the geometry (e.g. string theory calls for such fluctuations) therefore would cause acceleration of the expansion.

Since you aren't baffled. What exactly is dark energy?

CERN is still chasing after the Higgs field/boson, the Standard Model explanation for mass in four dimensions (3 spatial, 1 temporal.)

The latest I heard was that the rebuild will only allow the station to operate at 2/3's power, permanently. Which according to Maladroit is not enough to produce the Higgs Boson.

The Standard Model is a kludge, but it is an experimentally produced kludge : ) The results are real. If the Higss Boson does not exist, that does not invalidate the Standard Model (just our explanations for it). It is very possible that Gravity is not a force.

If not found, attention will no doubt turn to the geometric theories which (among others) propose that particles in 4D are actually massless shadows of extra dimensional momentum components or that they are multiply imaged from as little as a single particle in a fifth time-like dimension.

Are you saying that particles are mass-less?

Also, steady state universe physical cosmology went the way of geocentric physical cosmology when the 1960's measurements confirmed that space/time is expanding. Precious few hold to such physical cosmologies.

No, expansion is a steady state. It is the acceleration that is not a steady state, or do you consider the acceleration constant? That seems to be the million dollar question isn't it?

913 posted on 01/19/2009 9:43:55 AM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you can’t reason someone out of something that they didn’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 908 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; betty boop; metmom; GodGunsGuts
Since you aren't baffled. What exactly is dark energy?

As I said before, dark energy is a space/time "outdent" - the polar opposite of a high gravity region (dark matter, black holes, planets, stars, etc.) Some have theorized that the reason gravity is so small by comparison to the other fundamental fields is that it is inter-dimensional. Looking at the issue from particle physics instead of geometric physics, that would make dark energy regions negative gravity.

Are you saying that particles are mass-less?

That is a very real possibility in geometric physics.

No, expansion is a steady state. It is the acceleration that is not a steady state, or do you consider the acceleration constant? That seems to be the million dollar question isn't it?

"Steady state" is a specific theory in physical cosmology which means an infinite past and infinite future. That has been debunked by the CMB measurements.

Your use of the term is more generic meaning that you expect the expansion of the universe to be a constant.

In geometric physics - particularly string theory - the geometry fluctuates (e.g. strings vibrate) and therefore the geometry of the dark energy regions would also fluctuate causing acceleration of the expansion.

The Standard Model is a kludge, but it is an experimentally produced kludge : ) The results are real. If the Higss Boson does not exist, that does not invalidate the Standard Model (just our explanations for it). It is very possible that Gravity is not a force.

The Standard Model - like Newtonian physics or Euclidean geometry - would not be pitched but extended and revised, e.g. supersymmetry.

914 posted on 01/19/2009 9:59:10 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 913 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom; LeGrande
I ran across this today “”Functional parts are only meaningful under a whole, in other words it is the whole that gives meaning to its parts.” ... And I think this is quite appropriate in this discussion.

Me too, CottShop!!!

Niels Bohr put it this way: "A scientific analysis of parts cannot disclose the actual character of a living organism because that organism exists only in relation to the whole of biological life.” [Emphasis added.]

In working out the ramifications of Williams' IC/AP model, we do well to keep Bohr's observation in mind. And then Alamo-Girl recently supplied another potential clue — that the model needs to be understood in terms of Shannon information theory.

In short, I apologize for not acknowledging your past two excellent posts CottShop. But you've raised issues that are so engrossing for me that I've been working on them and so not writing to you. :^)

One of these days and hopefully soon I'll have a more extended reply. But I'm not sure where to put it, here at FR. It seems to me that the sponsor of the current thread has walked away from it. So it's just Alamo-Girl, thee, and me as far as I can tell....

Anyhoot, thank you ever so much for your extraordinarily sound analysis and reasoning WRT our present problem, and for sharing your thoughts with me!

915 posted on 01/19/2009 4:07:43 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 909 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; CottShop
I'm so glad you brought Bohr to the table, dearest sister in Christ!

And I'm thrilled to hear you are working on an extended reply!

But may I suggest you post it as a new article instead so it'll get more attention? Perhaps after the big distractions that tomorrow will bring...

916 posted on 01/19/2009 9:08:13 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

If ya do- definately ping me to the article- definately itnerested in this stuff


917 posted on 01/19/2009 9:56:14 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Certainly, dear CottShop!


918 posted on 01/19/2009 9:56:57 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 917 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900901-918 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson