How do you explain self organisation in nature?

[eagle]

Some kind of non random influence is decidedly ( and I use that word deliberately) more probable than an explantaion based upon chance alone.

I've asked you before to explain the assumptions which underpin your reasoning and you have declined to answer, so don't expect much of a epistemological debate out of me.

You assume therefore you know and I don't want to waste my time arguing with that kind of closed mindedness.

And how did you work that one out? Where's the actual mathematics? I didn't ask you to just restate your claim.
In any case, some process being non random doesn't therefore equal a god. The process of natural selection is non random.

As for myself, I've never declined to answer any post that I have seen directed at me whilst on BM. If you think I've declined to answer some question then I'd gladly answer it here. Just ask.

Hopefully you can answer my question in return.

-- Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:39 am --

Let's reduce all of that to the base question.

The probability of life evolving accidently is less than the probability of it being created.

The proof of a creators existence is not logically necessary for that to be true.

Give it a read.

I always gave you credit for being more incisive than you seem to appear on this thread.

One obvious riposte to your shotgun approach in explaining the factors behind evolution through accidents is: f(z) = z2 + c where z and c are complex numbers. They explain the various types of behavior that can result (divergence, convergence at fixed points & cycles, and chaos, depending upon the value of c).

Darwin is the blunt instrument used by atheists to bludgeon anyone who tries to think even slightly at variance with the scientific establishment. History is littered with examples of scientists ridiculed during their lives only to be co-opted into the mainstream when their findings can no longer be ignored. This sort of revisionism has occurred time and time again.

 

[ElanJo]

I always gave you credit for being more incisive than you seem to appear on this thread.

One obvious riposte to your shotgun approach in explaining the factors behind evolution through accidents is: f(z) = z2 + c where z and c are complex numbers. They explain the various types of behavior that can result (divergence, convergence at fixed points & cycles, and chaos, depending upon the value of c).

Darwin is the blunt instrument used by atheists to bludgeon anyone who even tries to think outside of the scientific establishment. This is not too different to the approach used by environmental scientists to stifle any opposing views until very recently.

I have no idea what that equation shows, I'm not a mathematician. How does it undermined evolution exactly and what probablity does it give for life having evolved at is is?

As for not being incisive, you'll have to excuse me I've been our for a few. Perhaps my edit (which I made at the same time you posted) is more to your tastes?

And Darwin being used by atheists? Plenty of christians acknowledge evolution. You know why? because Evolution is a fact. The reason I posted the pic is because mamutley is acting like he's completely unaware of its existence. Even if his probablity claim was true , and it was more probable that we were created by some god rather than having evolved, it wouldn't matter in the face of overwhelming evidence that we evolved

 

[Skashion]

I'm reading Dawkin's God Delusion at the moment and I've come across a question I really need to ask and this place is as good a one as any.

Dawkin's basic argument: God is the ultimate 747.

A designer does not explain apparent design because one would then have to explain the designer. That's fine. He attaches it to the anthropic principle, and that's fine. Then he mentions Recipe for a Universe (which I haven't read but get the gist) and proposes that as the evidence is beginning to point towards an an ever expanding universe and not a serial universe with a 'big crunch', we in fact live in a multiverse, thus explaining the Recipe for a Universe's six numbers. He then goes on to say a multiverse explanation is still more simple than God but gives no explanation of why. He simply says that it is. There, for me, his ultimate 747 argument explodes. I'm with him when it's just one universe and one God but I don't know how he can say many universes is more simple than one universe and one God. Can anybody give me a logical explanation of why a multiverse is more simple that one universe and one God?

 

[eagle]

I always gave you credit for being more incisive than you seem to appear on this thread.

One obvious riposte to your shotgun approach in explaining the factors behind evolution through accidents is: f(z) = z2 + c where z and c are complex numbers. They explain the various types of behavior that can result (divergence, convergence at fixed points & cycles, and chaos, depending upon the value of c).

Darwin is the blunt instrument used by atheists to bludgeon anyone who even tries to think outside of the scientific establishment. This is not too different to the approach used by environmental scientists to stifle any opposing views until very recently.

I have no idea what that equation shows, I'm not a mathematician. How does it undermined evolution exactly and what probablity does it give for life having evolved at is is?

As for not being incisive, you'll have to excuse me I've been our for a few. Perhaps my edit (which I made at the same time you posted) is more to your tastes?

And Darwin being used by atheists? Plenty of christians acknowledge evolution. You know why? because Evolution is a fact. The reason I posted the pic is because mamutley is acting like he's completely unaware of its existence. Even if his probablity claim was true , and it was more probable that we were created by some god rather than having evolved, it wouldn't matter in the face of overwhelming evidence that we evolved

My support of Mamulty's position only goes as far as suggesting that the chance and randomness that you point to in evolution can be evidenced as having some form and structure. This position doesn't deny evolution but seeks a mathematical understanding of evolution.

The equation is simply a way of iteratively testing and mapping complex numbers which we can graph. This when undertaken several thousand times results in what is kown as the Mandelbrot set, aka the "thumbprint of god" (this is probably where we Elanjo becomes unhappy!). The equation shows that where we think there is only randomness there is infact a pattern.

Turing suggested that nature and evolution can be explained by mathematics and attempted to explain "morphogenesis" where identical cells suddenly decide to become all the unique 1000's of components of a living organism.

Turing and other scientists & writers including Goethe and others going even further back in history point to Fibonacci phyllotaxis, that is the study of patterns in nature through the use of Fibonacci numbers. Using the same line of reasoning that many investment banks and trading houses use today to understand patterns in the financial markets (are they also delusional?maybe judging by the current issues), they seek to explain how in nature for example in the sunflower the parastichy at the bottom of the flower repeats all the way around. Counting the removed florets, you can see 34 spirals. The steeper spiral is repeated 55 times. What you will often find in the examination of sunflowers is 34 and 55 spirals. When you dont find this you will then find 21 and 34 together, or even 55 and 89. These numbers are adjacent members of the Fibonacci series of 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144...

This pattern is repeated across the whole of the natural world. I am simply trying to reconcile this and other observations with the notion of existence only being the result of unrelated accidents.

By the way I hope you had a good evening.

 

[pee dubya]

Do you think, as suggested by Jim Al-Khalili, that there may actually be a pattern and mathematical basis behind the whole of existence leading to the equilibrium in nature?

I would lean more toward this view than that of life having evolved solely as a result of accidents and would suggest that this randomness you point to actually had some structure.

The linked programme illustrates this by looking at chaotic behaviour with feedback loops resulting in pattern formation. It is suggested that chaos and order are not two separate ideas but two ends of a spectrum of behaviour.

I have to admit to knowing absolutely nothing about maths, physics or probability, but this sort of seems similar to the debate about free will. I'm getting more and more convinced that actually although it feels like we make choices, we were always going to make those choices, and the same thing applies to all living organisms. The only possible random factors which could influence the course of history are external non-biological factors, which i guess is were chaos theory comes in? Not that i've read about it at all. Then again if everything is structured right from the start, it would have been theoretically possible, if you knew enough about everything, to predict everything that has already happened, and also to predict the future.

 

[eagle]

I have to admit to knowing absolutely nothing about maths, physics or probability, but this sort of seems similar to the debate about free will. I'm getting more and more convinced that actually although it feels like we make choices, we were always going to make those choices, and the same thing applies to all living organisms. The only possible random factors which could influence the course of history are external non-biological factors, which i guess is were chaos theory comes in? Not that i've read about it at all. Then again if everything is structured right from the start, it would have been theoretically possible, if you knew enough about everything, to predict everything that has already happened, and also to predict the future.

I would go further and suggest that once people come to a conclusion of the type that you seem to be coming to, that then puts all other minor issues in life in context and maybe provides a sense of inner peace that people have always sought to find, yet have only tried, and failed, via other non productive routes i.e the sometimes destructive pursuit of material possessions at the expense of all else.

Any second now ElanJo will try to torpedo this self realisation for reasons unknown to me.

 

[ElanJo]

I have no idea what that equation shows, I'm not a mathematician. How does it undermined evolution exactly and what probablity does it give for life having evolved at is is?

As for not being incisive, you'll have to excuse me I've been our for a few. Perhaps my edit (which I made at the same time you posted) is more to your tastes?

And Darwin being used by atheists? Plenty of christians acknowledge evolution. You know why? because Evolution is a fact. The reason I posted the pic is because mamutley is acting like he's completely unaware of its existence. Even if his probablity claim was true , and it was more probable that we were created by some god rather than having evolved, it wouldn't matter in the face of overwhelming evidence that we evolved

My support of Mamulty's position only goes as far as suggesting that the chance and randomness that you point to in evolution can be evidenced as having some form and structure. This position doesn't deny evolution but seeks a mathematical understanding of evolution.

The equation is simply a way of iteratively testing and mapping complex numbers which we can graph. This when undertaken several thousand times results in what is kown as the Mandelbrot set, aka the "thumbprint of god" (this is probably where we Elanjo becomes unhappy!). The equation shows that where we think there is only randomness there is infact a pattern.

Turing suggested that nature and evolution can be explained by mathematics and attempted to explain "morphogenesis" where identical cells suddenly decide to become all the unique 1000's of components of a living organism.

Turing and other scientists & writers including Goethe and others going even further back in history point to Fibonacci phyllotaxis, that is the study of patterns in nature through the use of Fibonacci numbers. Using the same line of reasoning that many investment banks and trading houses use today to understand patterns in the financial markets (are they also delusional?maybe judging by the current issues), they seek to explain how in nature for example in the sunflower the parastichy at the bottom of the flower repeats all the way around. Counting the removed florets, you can see 34 spirals. The steeper spiral is repeated 55 times. What you will often find in the examination of sunflowers is 34 and 55 spirals. When you dont find this you will then find 21 and 34 together, or even 55 and 89. These numbers are adjacent members of the Fibonacci series of 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144...

This pattern is repeated across the whole of the natural world. I am simply trying to reconcile this and other observations with the notion of existence only being the result of unrelated accidents.

By the way I hope you had a good evening.

Well, trying to understand evolution mathematically, as interesting as it is, is different than suggesting that probablity theory tells us that god is more likely than evolution. I've got no problem with the former.
To use probablity on the past is silly in itself but then you've (not you) also got to acknowledge that you have no data set for comparison since, as far as we know, we only have one universe and one instance of life. Anyone could use something as simple as a deck of cards to show how Mammutly's claim is fallacious

-- Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:11 pm --

I'm reading Dawkin's God Delusion at the moment and I've come across a question I really need to ask and this place is as good a one as any.

Dawkin's basic argument: God is the ultimate 747.

A designer does not explain apparent design because one would then have to explain the designer. That's fine. He attaches it to the anthropic principle, and that's fine. Then he mentions Recipe for a Universe (which I haven't read but get the gist) and proposes that as the evidence is beginning to point towards an an ever expanding universe and not a serial universe with a 'big crunch', we in fact live in a multiverse, thus explaining the Recipe for a Universe's six numbers. He then goes on to say a multiverse explanation is still more simple than God but gives no explanation of why. He simply says that it is. There, for me, his ultimate 747 argument explodes. I'm with him when it's just one universe and one God but I don't know how he can say many universes is more simple than one universe and one God. Can anybody give me a logical explanation of why a multiverse is more simple that one universe and one God?

Considering the argument is directed at the argument from design (an argument that calls for an explanation as to why live in a universe capable of life) postulating a kind of dawinian process with regards to a multiverse, where, depending on the initial conditions of each universe, some harbour life, some harbour things we can't comprehend, some harbour just gas, some quickly 'die' etc. is a more simple explanation/hypothesis, it could be argued, than creating a notion of a persona of unimaginable power capable of creating complex things ex nihilo.

(wow - long sentence! lol)


At least I think that is what Dawkins intentions are, tho I haven't read through The God Delusion myself.

I think a multiverse is the simpler (or more likely) hypothesis than god because to me God is self contradictory, and, as described ("timeless", "spaceless" etc) synoymous for non existence.<br /><br />-- Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:22 pm --<br /><br />

I would go further and suggest that once people come to a conclusion of the type that you seem to be coming to, that then puts all other minor issues in life in context and maybe provides a sense of inner peace that people have always sought to find, yet have only tried, and failed, via other non productive routes i.e the sometimes destructive pursuit of material possessions at the expense of all else.

Any second now ElanJo will try to torpedo this self realisation for reasons unknown to me.

No torpedo from me, tho the idea of a purely determinist universe is anything but a nice idea to me. Lucky for me then that I don't think we live in a purely determinist reality.

PS. just because I hold to standards of evidence and reason it does not mean that I want to torpedo people's dreams or inner well being. Don't you people get bored of these silly little cheap shots?

 

[mammutly]

Probability theory has been used to challenge evolutionary theory for many, many years. Most scholars would agree that the as the mathematical modelling of biological systems has developed, the question has become more complex and is a long way from being decided.

But alas, Elanjo asserts that it is not so, and that an analysis of probability cannot relate to past events.

I suppose there had to be a definitive answer at some point. Never thought it would arrive via BM, but then I supose it was always destined to be so.


bugger.

 

[eagle]

We could view the conclusion as one of Elanjo's commandments. I have not yet counted Elanjo's commandments to be able to assign this one a number.

 

[ElanJo]

Probability theory has been used to challenge evolutionary theory for many, many years. Most scholars would agree that the as the mathematical modelling of biological systems has developed, the question has become more complex and is a long way from being decided.

But alas, Elanjo asserts that it is not so, and that an analysis of probability cannot relate to past events.

I suppose there had to be a definitive answer at some point. Never thought it would arrive via BM, but then I supose it was always destined to be so.


bugger.

I am aware that creationists have tried to use probablity to undermine evolution however I am also aware why they are fallacious.

You cite "many scholars" so let's hear them. List them and their findings.
You've already declined to give an actual probablity to evolution happening tho so I dare say you will decline to cite your sources in this instance also. Prove me wrong.

I havent' baselessly asserted anything. You're not the first to bring up probablity and evolution to me. I don't know about you but I look into people's claims... and when they turn out to be flawed I will gladly tell them why they are so. Once again, just like eagle, you resort to sarcasm and silly cheap shots.<br /><br />-- Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:37 pm --<br /><br />

We could view the conclusion as one of Elanjo's commandments. I have not yet counted Elanjo's commandments to be able to assign this one a number.

Or you could show me how I am wrong.