Bayes math hoax?

[Philip Thrift]

A science  journal publishes an article supporting Intelligent Design.

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volume 501, 21 September 2020

Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071

@philipthrift

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 7:44 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volume 501, 21 September 2020

Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071

 A science  journal publishes an article supporting Intelligent Design.

I don't see how. If the universe really is fine-tuned (a very big if) then an explanation for that fine-tuning needs to be found, but the God Hypothesis is a very poor explanation for two reasons.

1) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God created the universe.
2) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God came into existence other than to say He has always existed, but if you're  going to do that you might as well just say the universe always existed and save a step.

It seems to me that when a mystery is found, and Science has plenty, a good honest "I don't know" would be a better response to it than offering a theory that is obviously silly.

John K Clark

[Lawrence Crowell]

The issue is whether fine tuning means a fine tuner. A fine tuner is a necessary condition, but probably not sufficient. In the multiverse setting there may be a vast array of cosmologies and one could argue that just as Earth is one of many planets with the right conditions for life, this cosmology is in a Goldilocks situation. It is also possible I think that many of these other cosmologies are off-shell conditions in a cosmological path integral. Cosmologies with larger vacuum energy densities may not be physically real, but quantum amplitudes off-shell from a physical cosmology. This may reduce the number of actual physical cosmologies, and that could mean just one. In this second situation there is some condition in the structure of quantum cosmology that selects exclusively for this cosmology.

LC

[Philip Thrift]

I think the key thing - from the fact this article was published (in a "reputable" science journal)  - is it provides an example (not a good example to follow, but others likely will) of how statistical (in particular, Bayesian) arguments can be used to deduce "design" (in effect, reject Darwinism),-  in the way this article formulates it in its probability model. 

@philipthrift

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 2:16:39 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

I think the key thing - from the fact this article was published (in a "reputable" science journal)  - is it provides an example (not a good example to follow, but others likely will) of how statistical (in particular, Bayesian) arguments can be used to deduce "design" (in effect, reject Darwinism),-  in the way this article formulates it in its probability model. 

@philipthrift

This may point to some extremal principle of complexity. For C complexity entropy is S ~ e^S, and the maximum entropy principle has a corollary with complexity. The evolution of systems may then be such that there is some extremal principle for the complexity of quantum states. 

I said above something wrong. I meant to say that fine tuning is a necessary condition for a fine tuner, which is sort of obvious, but that a fine tuner is not a sufficient condition.

LC

[Brent Meeker]

And we, and the biosphere, could exist without the universe being fine-tuned for us, IF there were a God who do miracles.  A miracle would be evidence for such a God.  So fine-tuning=no-miracle cannot be evidence for a God.  The same facts cannot be evidence both for and against a proposition.

So for fine-tuning to count as evidence for some creator, it has to be a creator who is limited by natural laws, e.g. some super-alien engineers.  Not  a god.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv33YuxM7Gw32q3JYQCzGG%3D1remSnw6i8q0HFCjzSUS_0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

It doesn't really infer anything because it leaves "specificity" as a kind of I'll-know-it-when-I-see-it free parameter.

Brent

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5878ee04-5e19-44f9-9cdb-b5cedfc38cb3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Philip Thrift]

If this article were in an "Intelligent Design" blog or journal, then this wouldn't be significant.

But this  is in a "secular scientific" journal. So I am curious about the backlash.

e.g.

"Dembski, Axe, and Behe come up, and the paper includes essentially a review of just about all ID arguments we’ve heard. This is a secular journal, but does make me wonder about who the editor was and who reviewed it. It is hard to imagine this paper surviving an unbiased review."

Now there's this:

Editor’s Disclaimer

The Journal of Theoretical Biology and its co-Chief Editors do not endorse in any way the ideology of nor reasoning behind the concept of intelligent design. Since the publication of the paper it has now become evident that the authors are connected to a creationist group (although their addresses are given on the paper as departments in bona fide universities). We were unaware of this fact while the paper was being reviewed. Moreover, the keywords “intelligent design” were added by the authors after the review process during the proofing stage and we were unaware of this action by the authors. We have removed these from the online version of this paper. We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

That sounds better, I guess.

@philipthrift

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 12:09 PM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

 >>If the universe really is fine-tuned (a very big if) then an explanation for that fine-tuning needs to be found, but the God Hypothesis is a very poor explanation for two reasons.

1) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God created the universe.
2) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God came into existence other than to say He has always existed, but if you're  going to do that you might as well just say the universe always existed and save a step.

> The issue is whether fine tuning means a fine tuner. A fine tuner is a necessary condition, but probably not sufficient.

I don't see why a fine tuner is necessary or sufficient.

 

> In the multiverse setting there may be a vast array of cosmologies

Exactly. And it's no more surprising that we happen to be living in a universe that is compatible with carbon based life then it's surprising that even in this universe we live in a very atypical place. The average place in this universe only contains about one atom per cubic meter, but that's not where we live.

  

 > It is also possible I think that many of these other cosmologies are off-shell conditions in a cosmological path integral. Cosmologies with larger vacuum energy densities may not be physically real, but quantum amplitudes off-shell from a physical cosmology. This may reduce the number of actual physical cosmologies, and that could mean just one.

 

As far as I know there is no evidence for that, but even if it turns out to be true it wouldn't help because then God Himself would be asking pretty much the same question that we do, "Why do I, God Almighty, exist in a universe that allows me to always have existed?". So the God Hypothesis brings us no closer to solving the mystery, it just kicks the question upstairs and tells us not to ask any more questions about the enigma or even to think about it again.

Another problem with the theory, in addition to the two that I already mentioned, is it assumes a universe that has the physical constants ours does is the only one that would allow large scale data processing. But we don't know that, there could be universes that, despite having radically different physical constance than ours, allow for structures of some sort that can process data; structures that have nothing to do with what we would call biology or electronics or even mechanics but can nevertheless use their type of physics to process information and ask "Why are things the way they are?", because I think it's just a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed.

 John K Clark

[Lawrence Crowell]

The problem with fine tuning is when it is used to argue for the existence of a fine tuner. Sure, if there is a fine tuner the world is then fine tuned. Where things go awry is when fine tuning is used to say there must be a fine tuner. The world on the level of quantum physics is Markovian, which means fluctuations at one time carry no information into a future time. There is an interface between that domain as mesoscopic physics where physics is subMarkovian or there is pink noise instead of white noise. In biology this is seen in a selection mechanism. This does not require a conscious entity.

With the universe at large it is possible there statistical set of cosmological states, say the vast landscape of string theory, or the more impoverished domain of swampland, there is a quantum cosmological interference process. This may act as a sort of selection process involving the extremization of complexity. Again there is no need, at least in principle, for there to be a conscious entity that is a fine tuner.

LC

[John Clark]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 4:18 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Editor’s Disclaimer
The Journal of Theoretical Biology and its co-Chief Editors do not endorse in any way the ideology of nor reasoning behind the concept of intelligent design. Since the publication of the paper it has now become evident that the authors are connected to a creationist group (although their addresses are given on the paper as departments in bona fide universities). We were unaware of this fact while the paper was being reviewed. Moreover, the keywords “intelligent design” were added by the authors after the review process during the proofing stage and we were unaware of this action by the authors. We have removed these from the online version of this paper. We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

Good Darwin Almighty! Any publication that is so slipshod that it would allow major changes to an article without the editors noticing could not be called a reputable journal. Science and Nature have on rare occasions made editing mistakes, but nothing as bad is that!  

John K Clark

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/5/2020 1:18 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

If this article were in an "Intelligent Design" blog or journal, then this wouldn't be significant.

But this  is in a "secular scientific" journal. So I am curious about the backlash.

e.g.

"Dembski, Axe, and Behe come up, and the paper includes essentially a review of just about all ID arguments we’ve heard. This is a secular journal, but does make me wonder about who the editor was and who reviewed it. It is hard to imagine this paper surviving an unbiased review."

Now there's this:

Editor’s Disclaimer

The Journal of Theoretical Biology and its co-Chief Editors do not endorse in any way the ideology of nor reasoning behind the concept of intelligent design. Since the publication of the paper it has now become evident that the authors are connected to a creationist group (although their addresses are given on the paper as departments in bona fide universities). We were unaware of this fact while the paper was being reviewed. Moreover, the keywords “intelligent design” were added by the authors after the review process during the proofing stage and we were unaware of this action by the authors. We have removed these from the online version of this paper. We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

That sounds better, I guess.

It sounds worse to me.  It sounds like "Let's keep the real message and intent of the paper covered up."  I don't think the Editor's disclaimer will show up when someone references the paper in the future.

Brent

[Philip Thrift]

Suppose - vs. the edit and editors' disclaimer statement - after the fact of publication - that the article was just removed (erased!) from the journal!

What is not to say the removal of the article would be an example of CANCEL CULTURE?

Conservatives would go nuts.

Free speech (as advocated by the conservative community).

@philipthrift