It's a complex subject which I don't fully grasp. Here for what it's worth is a paper from an I.D perspective on; Information Theory and Biology; by Robert J Marks. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/ ... 8_others01

Marks raises the most common objections, so I guess there isn't much unpacking needed. The idea of bounded evolution has been shown false. The issue of entropy is one that johnson has explained many times on this forum.

If there's anything in particular that appeals to you in Mark's papers, point it out. I'd be more than happy to dig deeper. Perhaps create a new thread, since this one is loaded now.

Hi Interbane, Thanks, I think I was just responding to something Dexter said.
You seem to think that nature itself can produce information. So you start from simple organisms and by evolutionary paths more information accumulates.These are technical fields for me. If you have life I can see how things can change and allow this.The question is where does the information come from to even begin such a process? How could non life create a code to direct the creation of life?
I don't think the simple cell to man hypothesis is true.I see a kind of evolution with limits. Could inert matter create this kind of information? I don't think so.
You have the paradox of inert,unthinking matter,even if you make it a long process, producing intelligent human beings.And when we look at the complexity of the human body and cells now, the functioning is multi-complex and directed. It looks purposeful in its coordinated working seemly to keep us living,breathing and thinking functioning people.
But the theory, forbids purpose,foresight, and goals. I don't think pushing it back to primeval simplicity really deals with these problems.
It's philosophically implausible and while no expert,I think it doesn't provide sufficient evidence to substantiate all it's claims. You can get all kinds dogs,but getting from a dog to a donkey would be another matter.I wasn't really intending to get into all this. So I wouldn't bother with a separate thread for now.

The question is where does the information come from to even begin such a process?

If you understand what information is, it's less of an issue(a single grain of sand can be information). What you're asking is hidden behind wrapping your head around the concept of information. Try a different approach. All that's needed for life to arise is a way for a set of proteins to replicate. So, imagine you have 4 proteins, and they are linked together to form the 4 digit code of the simplest life form. Individually, the proteins are "sticky", a chemical property that alters when the proteins link together. Along come 4 more proteins, of the same sort, but individual. They stick, one by one, to the sticky side of the original protein chain. After all 4 new proteins have stuck, we have two identical protein chains stuck together. The proteins stick together more strongly in their chain than to the other chain, so when they are jostled strong enough, the two chains split. Suddenly, we have two chains of 4 proteins, each capable of replicating through natural laws.

After you have a few trillion or quadrillion chains, and each chain is able to have other new proteins stick to the ends of the chain(making 5 bit chains or more), you have evolution, with information increase included.

But the theory, forbids purpose,foresight, and goals. I don't think pushing it back to primeval simplicity really deals with these problems.

The theory doesn't forbid purpose Flann, you're reading into this in the wrong direction. Understanding is built from the ground up using proper methods, not from principles downward. That there is no purpose to evolution is a conclusion, not a starting principle. It is a conclusion because the entire process is known and well understood to be entirely mechanical. There is simply no need for any intentional agent to tweak the process for the results we see all around us. This is true at the same time that none of the scientists who believe in evolution would say it is simple, whether in a primeval or any other sense.

You have the paradox of inert,unthinking matter,even if you make it a long process, producing intelligent human beings.And when we look at the complexity of the human body and cells now, the functioning is multi-complex and directed.

Over a thousand years ago, this same argument was applied to the solar system. It was so incredibly complex in it's machinations that men knew it had to be driven by a purposeful agent. With increased understanding, we know this isn't the case. A thousand or more years later, we have a much more complex problem in life. But for all it's complexity, it still does not hold true that a purposeful agent is required.

This tendency is well known and well understood. See the wikipedia article to begin with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection

Ive read through Carrier's chapter on the two leading Multiverse hypotheses.
Smolin I believe is his favorite because according to him there is more evidence for it and has only one ad hoc presumption (which I seriously doubt).

Although intriguing, it must ultimately be rejected for several reasons.
One reason being what evidence could ever be collected that would rule out ANY multiverse hypothesis including Smolins?
Falsifiabilty has been a key component of scientific. Arguing against it in this instance is clearly done to advance it. It is always be good practice to allow for falsifiabilty just in case inconvenient facts start popping up that begin to seriously challenge a hypothesis.
I dont agree with arguing falsifiability away here. I simply dont and im not yet clear if Carrier does in this instance.

Any observation and measuring needed could only be done in this universe and no other. Direct evidence (what Carrier harps on about so much with gusto) for a multiverse is therefore impossible.

What happens on the "other end" of a black hole is enormously speculative as well.

Any multiverse hypothesis is also subject to an infinite regress (which one was the first and what caused that?)

The multiverse Smolin hypothesis is designed to solve the fine tunning conundrum.
If you dont want God, you had better have an infinite number of universes.

You're right about the fragile status of Smolin's idea and CIT. But I'd point out, the method used to support them isn't necessarily scientific. Notice that Carrier places science second on his list. The top spot is logic, truth rules between ideas. When dealing with the edges of knowledge, the last method on the list is the only one that applies with any strength - that of inference.

So asking that the theory be testable doesn't mean we can't sort it by it's merits. All it means is that we can't sort it using science as the primary method. Most of us use methods 3 and 4, our own experience, and expert testimony. Constant calls for evidence and falsifiability and good and necessary, but don't apply to all knowledge equally. Smolin may present his idea as scientific(I'm not sure), but we must judge it by other methods until someone works out a way to test it. Until then(if it ever even happens), we're left to less trustworthy methods.

Ad hoc assumptions. I keep calling them post hoc for some reason. That's what I get for listening to the book rather than reading it. I agree with you that we're left to trust Carrier's words on how many ad hoc assumptions are necessary for each explanation. Although I agree with everything he's said, I'm still skeptical to the core. I'd like to see the list. Until then I'm not convinced.

http://www.booktalk.org/post131668.html#p131668

Interbane wrote:

Robert wrote:The core goal of Christianity as expressed in The Lord’s Prayer is that the will of God should be done on earth as it is in heaven. Recasting this prayer by recognising God as allegory for the anthropic order of the cosmos provides an epistemic basis for an ethic of effort to find and achieve a path of universal human flourishing.

Why not study virtue ethics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics “Virtue ethics emphasizes the role of one's character and the virtues that one's character embodies for determining or evaluating ethical behavior. Virtue ethics is one of the three major approaches to normative ethics, often contrasted to deontology and consequentialism.”

Against this definition focused on character, virtue ethics presents an individualistic approach to ethics, with the idea that ethics amounts to how an individual seeks to achieve excellence.

To me the basic question for ethics is how the world can be made a better place. Within the virtue framework, this means how an individual can understand and apply the logic and purpose of an optimal theory of change aimed at improving the world.

World issues are socially transformative, and have an apocalyptic scale and urgency in terms of risks of planetary conflict and collapse. My ethical stance is that widespread cultural assumptions need to be questioned as part of promoting a transformative paradigm.

I see Jesus Christ as the great model for a sound transformative ethic, inverting the values of the world in favour of a deep understanding of reality, in a selfless focus on the good of the whole.

Carrier seems to completely miss this recognition of Christ as a model for human excellence. An obsession with the failings and errors of the church and the impenetrability of the Bible appears to blind him to the question of how the morality of the Gospels can inform a modern rational perspective.

I respect the three main philosophical strands of ethics, focussed on virtue, duty and consequences. But I question whether there is broad recognition of the alarming dangers of conflict and collapse facing the world, and of the need to open up a transformative apocalyptic conversation within a secular materialist framework, recognising the useful platform provided by Christianity.

Interbane wrote: I've seen some of Carrier's disrepspectful rhetoric. But I've also seen you harpoon ant and flann harder than I ever would.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com. ... riers.html
provides a fascinating conversation about Carrier’s dyspeptic tendencies. I certainly am not that florid. Ant regularly trolls for response, presenting a vague religious agenda based more on propagandistic attacks on atheism than any positive claim of his own.

I do have disrespect for belief in the supernatural, as I see it as an obsolete residue from an earlier phase of cultural evolution. Discussion about religion needs a reconciliation with science, and this is not promoted either by Carrier’s opposition to religion or by ant and Flann’s apparent opposition to science. It is actually possible to have respect for religion while holding that dominant aspects of religious ideology are in need of change.

Still, the amount of room our worldviews leave for dialogue is not an indicator of whether or not that worldview is correct. That would entail a fallacious appeal to consequence.

I don't get the fallacy here. A worldview with no room for dialogue would just be tyranny or madness. Respect for others is a key value.

I respect the three main philosophical strands of ethics, focussed on virtue, duty and consequences. But I question whether there is broad recognition of the alarming dangers of conflict and collapse facing the world, and of the need to open up a transformative apocalyptic conversation within a secular materialist framework, recognising the useful platform provided by Christianity.

So, you're saying we should take christian ethics and see how it applies to climate change rather than modern ethics? How does that make any sense. Is the wisdom better? I know you disagree with the target of focus, but most people have already turned 'reduction of carbon footprint' into a virtuous pursuit. I enjoy debating ideas with you. How about one of these two books:

http://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Adaptatio ... 0262517655
http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Moral-Sto ... y_b_text_y

provides a fascinating conversation about Carrier’s dyspeptic tendencies. I certainly am not that florid. Ant regularly trolls for response, presenting a vague religious agenda based more on propagandistic attacks on atheism than any positive claim of his own.

You are that florid Robert. Your greatest hits are just as pronounced as Carrier's, but your target is slightly different. I posted a link to Massimo's blog yesterday or the day before, in the Conclusion. http://www.booktalk.org/topic17828.html

I have avoided Carrier's work due how he comes across. (I've been a fan of rationally speaking forever).

A worldview with no room for dialogue would just be tyranny or madness.

Not so. If the worldview were the most truthful and most moral, yet left no room for dialogue...

It depends on what you mean by leaving no room for dialogue. We're discussing the worldview aplenty. I agree with what Carrier has to say regarding morality and politics, though it's hardly comprehensive. If leaving no room for dialogue means that most everything has a resolution within the worldview, then it is not a bad thing. I have thousands of posts attempting to explain the ideas in this book, of what I think is true. There is room for correction in my worldview, if I'm shown to be false(which you've done a number of times).

If leaving no room for dialogue means we scream and yell at the idiots, as Carrier has been known to do, then I agree. Take his ideas, perhaps, if not his attitude when he's at his worst. It's human nature to be arrogant when you're at the top of your game.

Interbane wrote:You're right about the fragile status of Smolin's idea and CIT. But I'd point out, the method used to support them isn't necessarily scientific. Notice that Carrier places science second on his list. The top spot is logic, truth rules between ideas. When dealing with the edges of knowledge, the last method on the list is the only one that applies with any strength - that of inference.

So asking that the theory be testable doesn't mean we can't sort it by it's merits. All it means is that we can't sort it using science as the primary method. Most of us use methods 3 and 4, our own experience, and expert testimony. Constant calls for evidence and falsifiability and good and necessary, but don't apply to all knowledge equally. Smolin may present his idea as scientific(I'm not sure), but we must judge it by other methods until someone works out a way to test it. Until then(if it ever even happens), we're left to less trustworthy methods.

Ad hoc assumptions. I keep calling them post hoc for some reason. That's what I get for listening to the book rather than reading it. I agree with you that we're left to trust Carrier's words on how many ad hoc assumptions are necessary for each explanation. Although I agree with everything he's said, I'm still skeptical to the core. I'd like to see the list. Until then I'm not convinced.

I like Carrier's list. Yes, I am aware of the position scientific methodology holds on it.

What is the evidence that the human abstractions of math / logic accurately (or nearly) model a plethora of universes?

If Smolin's hypothesis is correct - that universes are subject to their own evolutionary development - then there possibly are other universes that are at a higher evolutionary development than ours. Those universes might be more hospitable to life (ours really isn't - I agree). Would our logic and math be the most effective method of reasoning there as well?

He mentions Paul Davies a couple of times in the book.
Paul Davies is someone you should take the time to read. He asks deep questions about time, space, and our current obscure definition of what actually is "life" (side note: Paul Davies is not an atheist. He is more of a deist/pantheist).

Carrier, in his discussion of life in our universe, did not pause to question if our understanding of what constitutes "life" is fully understood. Paul Davies discusses this at length in one of his books (I forget which one it is)
Have we defined Life properly?

Carrier, towards the end of his discussion about multiverses, sounds as if he actually pantheist.
He sure sounded like one to me for a while .

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Naturalism holds that our universe was not purposed or planned.
Carrier says I think, that the principal 'purpose' that could be deduced,were one to talk of purpose is not the facilitating of life and intelligence but the production of as many black holes as possible. Their 'purpose' is to produce even more universes with as many black holes as possible and so on, ad infinitum.
Thanks Richard, That would explain everything.
I think quantifying the interpretation of 'purpose' numerically, though consistent on a materialistic scale is not weighing values well.I know he doesn't believe it has a purpose, but it suggests a strange philosophical approach to value.
The multiverse does away with the 'anomaly' of our existence nicely.rendering it null and void,philosophically. Don't forget those zillion other universes neither purposed or planned.
He will then derive truth and ethics from science,which is supposed to tell us how things work.We are just a chance product of the multiverse doing it's thing.

Flann 5 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here. Naturalism holds that our universe was not purposed or planned.
Carrier says I think, that the principle 'purpose' that could be deduced,were one to talk of purpose is not the facilitating of life and intelligence but the production of as many black holes as possible. Their 'purpose' is to produce even more universes with as many black holes as possible and so on, ad infinitum.
Thanks Richard, That would explain everything.

It's just a "brute fact" that our universe both has and "feeds" black holes.