Thanks to a comment and link from William Dembski a few weeks ago I suddenly became famous (well sort of). As a result of my new found fame a blogger and mathematician named Mark Chu Carroll decided to critique a three part article of mine (from 2002), saying among other things..
MCC -...The paper is a mess. It purports to try to address problems with the second law of thermodynamics in a way that shows that the universe must have a creator. The catch, though, is that his argument for why there's something wrong with the second law is pure rubbish. But I'm getting ahead of myself..
WB- Stephen Hawking claims (In Brief History of time {Pg. 103 pb.}) that there is "something wrong" with the Second Law saying that the law "does not hold always." My efforts in parts 2 and 3 from 2002 were directed toward finding a real Second law that does indeed "hold always" even at the molecular/atomic level. The first section (from 1996) seeks to establish the "absolute certainty" of the Second Law at the cosmic level thereby overcoming (at the cosmic level) -- the problem Hawking is alluding to in his book. An added consequence of this first argument however is cosmological incompleteness. "Part One" of the article was written in 1996 and originally published under the name “Hawking’s Error – Consequences of the Correction” in the now defunct ISJ("Internet Science Journal").
MCC-...His major section is what he calls "The Physical Incompleteness Theorem". It's basically just another version of something vaguely Dembski-ish: an argument that order can't arise from randomness, therefore there must be something that created order…
WB- My initial argument/claim was indeed “that order(constraint) can’t arise from randomness(the absence of constraint).” I also claimed that light (photons) cannot arise from darkness (the absence of photons). What is needed instead is a source of order and a source of light respectively.
MCC- .."By 'pure chance' (talking about strings in an alphabet), most people would probabaly mean a uniform distribution - that is, all possible sequences of characters are equally represented."
WB -- Which (as it turns out) is precisely what I mean. If "all possible sequences of characters are equally represented” by system definition then "monkey shakespeare" (being one of the possible sequences) will be "equally represented" (and is therefore bound {ordered by the system parameters} to appear).
MCC-The only way that the restriction to an alphabet makes a difference is if we're trying to measure the quantity of information represented by the string. And then the alphabet matters - but only in a way unimportant for Brookfield's argument: the larger the alphabet, the more information contained in a random string of characters.
WB - There is no information contained in a random string of letters. "Randomness" is by definition the absence of order/information. The word "information" is based on the root word "form" and is synonymous with the word "order" the opposite of "randomness."
MCC - The entire use of "order" is a fabrication - and the entire argument based on it is wretchedly bad. If you look at Hawkings argument, and translate it into Brookfield's terms: suppose you have an infinite number of infinite sequences of numbers. Most of those sequences will be chaotic - there won't be any discernable patterns or structures. But within that infinite set, there are some sequences that are monotonically increasing; there will be some that consist of lists of increasing subsequences. Most won't - but some will. Brookfield is arguing that in randomly generated sequences - truly random ones - you can't get an ordered pattern, ever.
WB - Luckily, I happen to be actually be Brookfield, so I can explain what my real argument is/was. In McC's example Monotonically Increasing Sequences (MIS) are members of the "system set" (see page #4 fig #1). Given "an infinite number of infinite sequences of numbers" monotonically increasing sequences (MIS) will not only occur, but they are certain to occur. Contra Mark Chu, my claim is not that you can't get monotonically increasing sequences "order" but instead that their frequency-of-appearance will fail to diverge from the uniform probability distribution (randomness). Without a divergence from randomness there is no internal order/information here at all. Such rare internal states may appear to be more ordered than other sequences (to Hawking and Mark Chu) but this is an illusion.
MCC - ..it could be inside an enclosing infinite system, or outside of an enclosing infinite system. But either way, it's totally bogus: it's still based on that awful "order can't come from randomness".
WB - Hawking's monkey shakespeare is an attempt to use endogenous system-level order (that utterly fails to diverge from the uniform probability distribution{randomness})as an example of order (probabilistic divergence) from randomness (non-divergence). So once again I must make "that awful claim" that "order cannot come from randomness." In Hawking's (and Mark's) example "order" has not "come from randomness." Order has not been produced "by pure chance." These rare sequences are predetermined (forced/ordered) to appear by the pre-existing probabilistic structure (order) of the systems in question -- just as jackpots in a fair (random) slot machine are predetermined by the pre-existing structure (order) of the machine.
Internal to the system, MS and MIS are not order(not divergences) at all. Internally, they are just randomness. External to the system they are synonymous with the system-level order. Alphabet systems (order) and number systems (order) represent system level divergences (order) that are intelligently designed (by humans). In order to understand cosmological incompleteness, external system-level order must not be confused with internal information (order) being expressed in and through such pre-existing systems. Internally speaking, order has not come by pure chance (randomness) only randomness has come from randomness (R-->R). Externally speaking, system level order (including MS & Mis) and their attendant probabilities have come with the establishment of the system (order) -- thus we have order from order (O-->O). What Hawking and Mark Chu want, but have not provided is an example of R-->O (order being produced by chance/randomness).
Real Shakespeare has real meaning and appears in our world and our libraries at a frequency that defies randomness. The simple law of spelling that requires that "U" must always follow "Q" is a divergence from randomness. "Monkey shakespeare" on the other hand, is utterly devoid of any laws of spelling, grammar and syntax etc. Any cosmological model based upon such lawlessness would undermine not only science but our entire technological civilization. Just as with the laws of grammar that are not illusions, the laws of physics are not illusions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I'm sorry - Chu-Carrol and Hawking both seem to have the most correct understanding of Thermodynamics, by this I mean the understanding that is most validated by empirical data and everyday observations. Are you sure you have a better understanding of the theory than Professor Hawking?
His claim that the 2nd law does not apply in every circumstance seems to be very safe and un-controversial. If you could devise an experiment to show that contrary to Hawking's claim the 2nd law does apply in every circumstance then your thermodynamic claims might be proven.
In absence of this proof, it is temptingly easy to dismiss your work.
Instead of publishing tracts like the one Chu-Carrol is critiquing, might I suggest that you do what every scientist who has ever challenged an incumbent theory has ever done - do experiments, collect data, present your theorem and allow people to test your claims by repeating your experiments.
As it is, your theorem is really at best a theory. It's unvalidated conjecture. How could you validate it?
PS. Why not make it harder for people to ignore you by getting your work peer-reviewed? Even if this were a limited review amongst the ID community only, I'm sure you could use this to improve the paper's presentation.
If you truly believe in the work, you owe it to humanity to present your work in a way that can be understood by mainstream scientists.
Hi dobson,
Thank you for your post. I will get to your points after I have posted this disclaimer.
McC -- "That second (mathematical) part is what Brookfield objects to: the use of the statistical combination of microstates to explain the thermodynamic behavior of macrostates."
WB -- Just to be clear on behalf of science; statistical mechanics is extremely accurate in macroscopic systems. Under no circumstances do I support imprecision or the abandoning the use of statistical mechanics in the field. For the record, I heartily support the use of statistical mechanics. In macroscopic systems the chance of Poincare recurrence is hyper-astronomically small. This does not mean however, that statistical mechanics has no possible drawbacks theoretically or is devoid of uncertainty. In order to unite the Second Law of thermodynamics and the Second Law of black hole dynamics, an approach common to both is required. Once a new common conceptual framework for these laws is found then mathematics consistent with these concepts can be applied. While I do indeed study math for its concepts, I am not a mathematician. I am a conceptualist seeking an answer to the problem of GSL unification. At this time I am convinced that the similarity of the laws and mathematics of information theory to the math of thermodynamics is no mere coincidence. I am also convinced that the fact that the laws of black hole dynamics precicely mirror the laws of thermodynamics is no mere coincidence. Under no circumstances is it the intent of the theorist to undermine existing science and its hard won mathematical precision. By definition, theoretical work in science seeks to increase precision and our understanding of the cosmos.
Hi William, They are talking about you on Overwhelmingevidence.com!
:-)
HI Dobson,
Are you sure you have a better understanding of the theory than Professor Hawking?
I don't know for sure how our two understandings would match up re-orthodox thermodynamics. My initial concern "Part One" however is Hawking's understanding of order and disorder. He seems to be invoking pure disorder ("pure chance") as a possible source of order ("shakespeare sonnets"). Randomness is a uniform probability distribution (eternally flat). The alphabet is non-uniform in that it is composed of 26 specified "non-uniformities" (letters/mountains). Uniformity can only appear in a distorted non-uniform fashion in a non-uniform medium (an alphabet). The only solution is to increase the alphabet's size to infinity so that the local non-uniformity (quantization) is utterly overwhelmed by infinity. By asking readers to focus on "sonnets" Hawking is asking people to not look at the randomness constantly present but at a fully specified, non-random symbols (letters) and even words. This is an error. While there is indeed (residual system level) order here it did not come about "by pure chance." The system was designed.
His claim that the 2nd law does not apply in every circumstance seems to be very safe and un-controversial.
By definition a statistical law does not apply in every circumstance.
If you could devise an experiment to show that contrary to Hawking's claim the 2nd law does apply in every circumstance then your thermodynamic claims might be proven. In absence of this proof, it is temptingly easy to dismiss your work.
You are perfectly free to dismiss my work anytime you choose. Theory and experimentation is fundamental to science, just as is logic. The methods of science have given us extremely good Second Laws (relativity, thermodynamics). We can interpret the experimental data logically and subsequently unite the laws of physics or we can interpret this data without respect for logic. Hawking's "lit(+) by darkness(-)" "ordered(+) by pure chance(-)" statement suggests that he is -- in this instance -- out of accord with one of the fundamentals of science and mathematics -- logic.
don't know for sure how our two understandings would match up re-orthodox thermodynamics. My initial concern "Part One" however is Hawking's understanding of order and disorder. He seems to be invoking pure disorder ("pure chance") as a possible source of order ("shakespeare sonnets").
I see that you are referring to a quotation which you cited on page 2 of your paper. I think you were wrong to insert the words "randomness" and "order", as these were not what at all what hawking was trying to say. Indeed, the sentiment is very simple: A random sequence generator run for an infinite amount of time will eventually produce any symbol-sequence you care to imagine.
But to dwell on this is to utterly miss Hawking's point: What he means is that any chaotic systems will contain regions that less chaotic. He is hypothesizing that our part of the universe is one of those less chaotic regions.
I think you got a little carried away with the monkeys.
In your paper you make a number of interesting, but totally unsubstantiated claims, for example:
In the typing monkey example, as the size of the alphabet increases to infinity 4 the probability of finding "monkey shakespeare" in any given run, decreases exponentially to zero.
To you this may seem self-evident, but mere mortals might wish that you had shown your calculations. For example, how do you know that the probability of an infinte random-number generator producing a certain sequence has an inverse-exponential relationship with the size of the symbol-set.
An exponential curve, as you know is one with very specific, interesting properties which are much beloved of mathematicians. If you have indeed proved this relationship then it would be valuable, if not I think you should state that the notion is merely conjecture. People might judge your work harshly if you mix proofs and speculation without claiming which is which.
You are perfectly free to dismiss my work anytime you choose. Theory and experimentation is fundamental to science, just as is logic. The methods of science have given us extremely good Second Laws (relativity, thermodynamics). We can interpret the experimental data logically and subsequently unite the laws of physics or we can interpret this data without respect for logic.
William, for now I'm trying to work out just what exactly it is you are claiming. I'm not dismissing your work yet, however after reading your paper it does look like no philosophy, science or math paper I have ever seen in my life.
Are you saying that there is no experimental validation of your theory? This would be very bad news, as human logic can only take us so far. Scientific theories can only ever be proved in so much as they are validated by experimentation. Great theoretical physicists like Hawking and Einstein gave us many theories which were shown to be valid by experimentation. They are great because they were shown to be correct.
Reason and logic alone might work in math or philosophy, however if you wish to work in the physical sciences I'm afraid you will need to propose some means of validating your ideas.
You have made a number of claims, which I am sure you feel have great importance and scientific validity. I'm only trying to ask you to formulate your research in a way that can be understood by scientifically inclined people such as myself.
For example, a user called Stones mentioned your theory here:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Generalized_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
But there is no actual detail on the page - why don't you correct that?
Can I suggest an outline:
Briefly Introduce the classic 2nd law of thermodynamics and the kinds of scenarios it copes with well.
Illustrate a situation where the 2nd law breaks down and does not make an accurate prediction of what happens in reality.
State your own version of the 2nd law and explain why in the situation above and in the general class of situations it makes a better prediction.
I'm sure readers would benefit from being able to understand your idea without having to deal with a very hard to read paper.
Hi Dobson,
“But to dwell on this is to utterly miss Hawking's point: What he means is that any chaotic systems will contain regions that less chaotic. He is hypothesizing that our part of the universe is one of those less chaotic regions.
I think you got a little carried away with the monkeys.
The "monkey's" here represent "randomness." The monkeys are expendable, randomness is not. In order to rigorously calibrate information systems and the universe as a whole, a pure, unadulterated concept of randomness has to be employed -- just as say, absolute zero is used as a starting point for the Kelvin temperature scale. Your term "chaotic system" is almost a contradiction in terms. This is due to the fact that "system" refers to order and "chaos" refers to disorder. Suffice it to say that I am discussing a state of *pure* chaos/chance/randomness such as exists at the core of a black hole.
“A purely chaotic region,” by definition of the word “pure” must contain no residual background order of any kind. This means that it contains no letters (order) of any kind, no monkey shakespeare (letters/order), no linear formatting (order) of letters in a row (order) of no numbers (order), no monotonically increasing sequences of numbers (order) in a sequence (row/order). It contains no spacetime framework (order) and subsequently no “regions” (order) of any kind.
Randomness is a uniform probability distribution (over a set of possible outcomes). “A set of possible outcomes” however requires at very least a functioning spacetime framework (order). It is subsequently the utterly “uniform probability distribution” that best describes randomness.
The notion that anything (the universe, DNA etc.) can be “ordered by chance/randomness” is nonsense. “Order(+) by chance(-)” is a self-defeating hypothesis. The empirical (experimental) testing of a self-defeating “push-me-pull-you” hypothesis is not required. The order by chance “hypothesis” is already -dead.
The "monkey's" here represent "randomness." The monkeys are expendable, randomness is not. In order to rigorously calibrate information systems and the universe as a whole, a pure, unadulterated concept of randomness has to be employed -- just as say, absolute zero is used as a starting point for the Kelvin temperature scale. Your term "chaotic system" is almost a contradiction in terms. This is due to the fact that "system" refers to order and "chaos" refers to disorder. Suffice it to say that I am discussing a state of *pure* chaos/chance/randomness such as exists at the core of a black hole.
Chaotic systems do exist. Observe the airflow on an aircraft-wing just as it stalls. The flow is chaotic. This is what scientists refer to as a chaotic system because. It's not a contradiction, or an impossibility - it happens every time an aircraft needs to slow-down suddenly.
System does not exclusively refer to "order" when used by anybody other than yourself. Here are some definitions of the word:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&hs=YM1&defl=en&q=define:system&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Only two of the 20 offered refer to ordered mechanisms. I'd like to draw your attention to the rather abstract definition of "system" in the context of thermodynamics.
By the way, how do you know what exists at the core of a Black Hole? Are you just making this stuff up as you go along? Is this whole blog thing a Skoals type hoax intended to show how gullible ID supporters and their opponents are?
Your speculation about black-holes, just like your mathematical conjecture seems to be plain wrong.
“A purely chaotic region,” by definition of the word “pure” must contain no residual background order of any kind. This means that it contains no letters (order) of any kind, no monkey shakespeare (letters/order), no linear formatting (order) of letters in a row (order) of no numbers (order), no monotonically increasing sequences of numbers (order) in a sequence (row/order). It contains no spacetime framework (order) and subsequently no “regions” (order) of any kind.
When you say "by definition", whose definition of a "purely chaotic region" are you using?
Of course, you are dead wrong about random numbers, as anybody who has to spend much time dealing with random things will happily confirm.
A true random number generator, is one that produces a sequence of symbols with of no discernible pattern or regularity. Even such a random number generator will occasionally produce small sub-sequences that on their own appear significant non-random,
For example a random number generator that produces 1s and 0s will after a about 20 million iterations produce the sequence of 20 1s in a row. Given enough time a random number generator will produce any sequence you care to think of.
If a sequence generator never produced such sequences then we would know for certain that it was not truly random.
If you do not believe me, try an experiment. Hook a good quality binary random number generator up to a counter. See how long it takes you to find one of those sequences that you claim should not exist... they occur all the time.
Randomness is a uniform probability distribution (over a set of possible outcomes).
That's only one of an infinite set of random distributions.
“A set of possible outcomes” however requires at very least a functioning spacetime framework (order). It is subsequently the utterly “uniform probability distribution” that best describes randomness.
Sorry, I do not understand any of that. Perhaps you would like to explain again how you infer anything at all about the nature of space and time by contemplating a random number generator? In what way does space-time function? Please state your assumptions here.
The notion that anything (the universe, DNA etc.) can be “ordered by chance/randomness” is nonsense. “Order(+) by chance(-)” is a self-defeating hypothesis. The empirical (experimental) testing of a self-defeating “push-me-pull-you” hypothesis is not required. The order by chance “hypothesis” is already -dead.
Order is not positive. Chance is not negative. Nobody but creationists imagine claim that evolution is an 'order by chance hypothesis'. That phrase is just a pseudo-scientific nonsense straw-man. You will find in no biology textbook.
William, I really find it hard to understand your line of reasoning. It's all over the place. In one reply you've spoken about monkeys, space-time, dna, the nature of randomness and a preposterous claim that your theories do not require validation. This is hugely entertaining crackpot stuff, but I've a feeling that you are really out of your depth, scientifically speaking.
I know you like to think of yourself as a "conceptualist", but these concepts of yours lack any academic rigor and are full of unfounded assertions and unstated assumptions. The reason that most people do not take your work seriously is not a "materialist bias" or any vague conspiracy:
It's simply that your claims do not make any scientific sense, and you spend a great deal of time attacking well-established theories by invoking blatant misunderstandings of others.
But, please don't stop!
Hi Dobson,
You are correct in your concern regarding my use of “chaotic systems.” I spoke too freely. The reason that the phrase “chaotic system” is typically not a logical contradiction is that a the “order” signified by the word “system” typically resides in a different domain than the “chaos.” A system (order) can contain constituent internal parts that are free to exhibit order or chaos (randomness) within an internal domain. The problem I have with Hawking’s monkey shakespeare, Mark Chu’s monotonic number sequences etc. is that these are merely endogenous system-level order -- that fail to diverge (either positively or negatively) from the uniform probability distribution (internal randomness). Real Shakespeare produces internal alphabetic divergences (which can be checked empirically by going to the library and statistically analyzing letter and pattern frequencies). Monkey shakespeare is system-level order. Real Shakespeare is externally imposed order that diverges from randomness internally. Hawking has failed to make this distinction clear.
I still do not know what you mean by "Monkey Shakespere", are you trying to talk about the probabilities that random sequence generators produce known sequences, if so could you kindly use more normal mathematical language. It would make your arguments easier to follow.
The reason that the phrase “chaotic system” is typically not a logical contradiction is that a the “order” signified by the word “system” typically resides in a different domain than the “chaos.” A system (order) can contain constituent internal parts that are free to exhibit order or chaos (randomness) within an internal domain.
Not true: Consider the airflow over an aircraft wing. Some regions of that airflow are very linear and some might be chaotic. All the air is one continuous volume and there are no delineated 'parts'.
Chaotic systems are not necessarily random, however they might be indistinguishable from random systems. Your PC's random number generator is a truly chaotic system that appears to be random but is not truly random. We know this because given the same seed it will always produce the same random sequence.
The problem I have with Hawking’s monkey shakespeare, Mark Chu’s monotonic number sequences etc. is that these are merely endogenous system-level order -- that fail to diverge (either positively or negatively) from the uniform probability distribution (internal randomness).
Neither Chu-Carrol nor Hawking have ever made this claim. You've misunderstood it. All they were trying to say is that a random sequence will contain sub-sequences which apparently conform to some kind of pattern. The fact that these exist does not make the random sequence any less random. There really is no controversy here.
William, I feel that you need to study some of these basic concepts that you are speculating about. Most of your mathematical pronouncements that I have taken the time to validate are just plain wrong. I can tell that unlike Mr Chu-Carrol, you do not have any background in mathematics, and as a result you make a large number of basic mathematical mistakes.
William,
It's a pointless exercise. You have problems at the level of definitions.
For instance, the word system has several meanings, among them are:
1. a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole,
2. a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.
When scientists and mathematicians speak of a chaotic system they mean the former; you used the latter causing yourself cognitive dissonance.
It is advisable to learn what a scientific term means before attempting to build an argument.
Hi Oleg,
Thanks for visiting, and thank you for your connected comments.
Perhaps I can put it another way. The monkey's accidental "sonnets" are not sonnets at all. To call them "sonnets" (order) is to commit the gamblers fallacy. Each letter is a fortuitous disconected random event. There is no connection between letters. Without any connection there is no "Shakespeare" as the word is understood in our culture. There are no "sonnets" as that word is understood in our culture. No "order" as that word is understood in our culture. The same analysis applies to March Chu Carroll's accidental MIS. Thus order has not been produced by randomness.
Hi Dobson,
Thank you for all your suggetions
WB-A "set of possible outcomes" however requires at very least a functioning spacetime framework
(order)."
D- Sorry, I do not understand any of that.
Beyond the event horizon there is only one "possible outcome" --singularity. Beyond the event horizon there is not a "set of possible outcomes." This is due to the breakdown of the spacetime framework, as described by the orderly equations of general relativity.
Dobson,
Neither Chu-Carrol nor Hawking have ever made this claim. You've misunderstood it. All they were trying to say is that a random sequence will contain sub-sequences which apparently conform to some kind of pattern
I think you might be starting (?) to get it here. If they only "apparently" conform to some kind of pattern (but do not due to dis-connection) then the (internal-to-the-system) order is not real and order has not been produced by randomness (the opposite of order).
Beyond the event horizon there is only one "possible outcome" --singularity. Beyond the event horizon there is not a "set of possible outcomes." This is due to the breakdown of the spacetime framework, as described by the orderly equations of general relativity.
Woah!!!
Hold on a second - we were talking about random number sequences and chaotic systems (okay, you were talking about monkies - i've no idea why).
Now You seem to be talking about "event horizons" - what the hell do black holes have to do with some basic maths about random numbers?
I'm sure you think that it all fits together in some grand scheme, but you've never actually explained how.
I think you might be starting (?) to get it here. If they only "apparently" conform to some kind of pattern (but do not due to dis-connection) then the (internal-to-the-system) order is not real and order has not been produced by randomness (the opposite of order).
I really do not understand what point you are trying to make here? This seems to be the old "order cannot come from chaos" canard - are you trying to say anything more than this?
That opinion is demonstrably wrong: Chaotic systems can contain apparently ordered subsystems. All hawking has done is proposed that we are fortunate enough to live in a relatively low-entropy portion of the universe.
No design is necessary. Contemplation of black-hole physics is not required.
I know that you are trying to defend your paper which you believe to be a profound work of important philosophy, but unfortunately it's still a muddle: Chu-Carrol was right.
You've borrowed bits of physics, maths and information-theory none of which you truly understand and you've commingled it with a sort of vaguely new-age nonsense. Unfortunately what you've built is a load of untestable conjecture with no discernible utility.
I wonder, what's the point of it all? Where is all this leading? Why bother write this nonsense if no serious scientist could ever take it seriously?
I'm truly perplexed!
Hi Sheb,
Sorry that you are perplexed.
what's the point of it all? Where is all this leading? Why bother write this nonsense if no serious scientist could ever take it seriously?
Ultimately, I am attempting to improve conditions for the human race. It is all leading (hopefully) to the unification of physics and a global democratic ID pleasurian society. Given the culture war that is raging my efforts may indeed be "pointless" but I don't think so -- at least, not entirely.
I have put forward a theory that the universe is a manifestation of order. Seminal to this theory is the notion that order(structural specificity) actually exists and that it is the opposite of randomness (here defined as the absence of specificity). Critical to this analysis is the idea that randomness being the opposite of order cannot function as a source of order (no "order by pure chance" -- see title).
A black hole represents an ideal example of disorder (in my theory) and should then by translation (of "randomness" to "entropy") contain extremely large amounts of "entropy." If however, the black hole's core is our purest form of disorder (and disorder is dependent only upon the mass) then what is really becoming disordered at this level? I am claiming that it is the space-time-mass framework that is being disordered/randomized here.
Chaotic systems can contain apparently ordered subsystems
But not comprehensively disordered systems such as black hole cores. The problem (cosmologically) is getting a universe out of the initial black hole (in violation of the second law of black hole dynamics). While Hawking has done some great work (Hawking radiation in particular) his "monkey shakespeare" example is highly misleading.
Hi Dobson,
Order is not positive. Chance is not negative.
Structural constraint (order) can indeed be logically and scientifically considered a positive and utter lack(-) of constraint (lack of order / pure chance) can be considered its opposite. My main point here however is not that "order" is positive and that "randomness" is negative but that "order" and "chance" (randomness) are opposites -- I.E., one is the absence or negation(-) of the other.
..and a preposterous claim that your theories do not require validation
This is false. What I said was that "the empirical (experimental) testing of a self-defeating “push-me-pull-you” hypothesis is not needed." It defeats itself. On the other hand, the empirical testing of competing, logically sound hypotheses often is required.
If you present a "hypothesis" that your room is being illuminated (+) by darkness(-) or that your coffee is being blackened(-) by whitener(+) there is no need to empirically test these claims. They are not logically sound. The same applies to any claim that the universe became "ordered by chance." "Order" and "chance" are logical opposites. The claim is self defeating.
When a person claims that something became "ordered by accident" or "ordered by chance" they are really refering to background level of residual order that (given enough time) got the ordering job done. Poincares Recurrence is the result of just such residual constraint(order). Were those recurrent gas molecules ordered by chance? Of course not. Were they ordered by the residual constraint imposed by the second box? Yes indeed.
Dobson,
"..Most of your mathematical pronouncements that I have taken the time to validate are just plain wrong. I can tell that unlike Mr Chu-Carrol, you do not have any background in mathematics, and as a result you make a large number of basic mathematical mistakes."
It would be really handy if you (or anyone) would point out where (and what) these alleged mistakes are so that I can correct them.
My curvature tensor figures for an infinite mass black hole were checked prior to publication (with the head of a relativity department at a major secular university)
I suppose I could address some more of this...
Mark Chu.
If you look at Brookfield's argument in detail, in fact, he's making a type error. He's arguing that because the "alphabet" isn't the set of natural numbers (or perhaps integers) that the string can't be pure chance.
Huh?
If we were talking about all possible strings of natural numbers, and then we restricted the outcome to random strings of 1 through 26, then we wouldn't be looking at pure chance - because we would have altered the probability distribution from a uniform distribution over the integers to a uniform distribution over the range 1-26, with a probability of 0 for anything else.
The problem is that randomness (a *uniform* probability distribution) cannot appear undistorted in a *non-uniform* 26 letter pixilated system. The result of this is that people keep mistaking letters (non-uniformity/order) for randomness (uniformity). This is known as a "resolution problem." The simple way to overcome a resolution problem is to increase the resolution - to infinity if possible.
Hi Mr. Brookfield,
Mark Chu-Carroll has responded to this post. (He didn't know it existed until recently.) You might want to read his response.
Thanks for the info Hermagoras.
Mark Chu "so, once again, I wonder... Is there any lower limit to the stupidity of what Bill Dembski will endorse? This moron, this scientifically illiterate jackass who piles together heaps of steaming gibberish, and presents them as "scientific research"
I should just mention that I have a philosophy of respect for all others to which I hold (to the very best of my ability). I am grateful to Mark Chu for the content he has provided (concerning Poincare Recurrence) but I consider certain other comments of his to be quite unnecessary. My level of "stupidity" is quite irrellevant. The question I would ask is "am I using whatever intelligence I have to the best of my ability for the good of science and humanity?"
Mark Chu-Carroll claims, that I am claiming that "order isn't order unless Billy says it's order!". I respectfully disagree. I am instead claiming that “’order’ isn't order” unless there is a divergence from the uniform probability distribution (randomness). The fact that I disagree with Mark (wrt randomness) in no way implies disrespect toward Mark or anyone else. For many years I have been concerned about the disrespect that people show towards one another and I have no intention of adding to the problem by being disrespectful.
Crank Carroll is a fool who should not be given the time of day.
Funny thing is he is trying to release a new book he authored called Code in the Cloud.
Crank Carroll is no mathematician and no software developer.
The following link should enlighten you:
http://knol.google.com/k/mark-chu-carroll-who-is-a-crank-calls-me-a-crank
Post a Comment