From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 14:52:53 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:

> In article <RBL3TB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >Simple laws plus boundary/initial conditions [give high information
> >content]. The issue is, where do
> >these boundary/initial conditions come from? If they are also solutions
> >of simple laws, then we will have an infinite sequence of laws, which
> >means that the totality of physical laws actually has infinite
> >information content.
> 
> You seem to be neglecting Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which
> says that some of the boundary/initial conditions will be forever
> undeterminable.  Suppose, for example, you have a perfect crystal of
> uranium atoms, and you generate data based on the order in which the
> atoms decay.  Your initial and boundary conditions are about as
> simple as they come, yet they still generate an enormous amount of
> information.

Well, if you want to get into quantum interpretations, I suppose the
argument can never be settled. Of course, quantum scientists are still
hotly debating the meaning of their own theory. Some of tham say there
is no objective reality at all!

We are simply asking: what theoretical reasons do molecular
evolutionists give for supposing that abiogenesis occurred? Then, based
on one very commonly given reason --that given a certain set of initial
conditions, the known laws of physics and a few billion years, it is
"probable" that abiogenesis will occur-- we show that in a model based
on these assumptions, it is not in fact "probable" that abiogenesis will
occur. That's all. The fact that our argument raises so much uproar
indicates to us that there is a great desire to believe that the
"probable" argument is true, despite the serious objection we have
raised. This is an unscientific attitude.

> >But that defeats the program of science by placing
> >forever beyond reach the possibility of finding a unified explanation
> >for the world. Is it not so?
> 
> The program of science is not to find a unified explanation for the
> world.  (I, for one, believe that to be impossible.)  The program of
> science is to keep heading in that direction.

Well, this is your opinion. But there are certainly many scientists
whose stated goal is to find a unified explanation for all natural
phenomena which will utilize the simplest possible mathematical
structure and the smallest possible number of postulates.

Sincerely,
Kalki "the evolution of sarcasm as a scientific method" Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------