On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 2:16:39 PM UTC-5 [email protected] 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 > > On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote: > >> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 7:30:15 AM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 7:44 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> 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 >>> >> >> 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 >> > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9382fa85-03e8-49c8-b581-c612ba6a47c8n%40googlegroups.com.
