Monday, July 25, 2005

Insanity...



We all know that in all matters of mere opinion that man is insane... just as insane as we are... we know exactly where to put our finger upon his insanity:

It is where his opinion differs from ours....

All Democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it. None but the Republicans.

All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats can perceive it.

The rule is perfect: In all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.


-Mark Twain


Anybody that believes that either side of the debate is on this side of science, truth, or even Charles Darwin, is lying to themselves, because politics is what controls this debate, and honest scientists need to be made aware of this, because the distinction is made subtle by the popular trendiness of cutting-edge theory.

I would define a "Neo-Darwinist" as someone that allows their personal ideological bias to influence their scientific mind to the point that they automatically look for rationale that will downplay the significance of evidence, rather than to look for some good first principle for why the implication for anthropic preference might be true. I use the term much in the same way that Lynn Margulis did, as I too consider myself to be a "Darwinist", unlike those "neo-darwinian bullies".

I would define an "IDist" in the same manner, because members of both extremes are equally motivated to perceive the world via the distorted lens of politics, and either would rather die than to budge one inch in the other's direction, in spite of whatever reality may be smacking them upside the head.

Neo-Darwinists will deny this, because they pretend that they are the ones that are in-line with science, ("Lynn just has a beef because we won't completely buy her theory"). That's because they lean-on unproven runaway cutting-edge theoretical speculation for support for their runaway "copernican" belief system, especially when it comes to 'explaining away' cosmological phenomenon that any normal person would be curious about. I'll get into that more in the future, this fact is actually starting to pop-up on IDists websites and in news articles... so it won't be too long before they can't get away it anymore.

-
-
- -
- - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, July 21, 2005

The Entropic Anthropic Principle - how time is maximized

The physical effects of the Big Bang created numerous principles and laws that have yet to be broken in spite of a lot of projections and speculation about the eventual and final fate of the usable energy of our expanding universe.

The inevitable heat death of the universe is one of the more obvious projections of an expanding "entropic" universe, but this conclusion doesn't completely justify the fact that the extremely small positive value of the cosmological constant means the big bang actually resulted in a near perfect balance between runaway expansion and gravitational recollapse, which actually puts the universe about as far away from the tendency toward heat death as you can possibly get, and yet still be heading in that direction. The principle of least action says that it is no coincidence that this near-perfectly symmetrical configuration is also the most energy-efficient means for dissipating energy, because this means that tendency toward "heat-death" is most economically restricted to the most-even distribution of energy possible.

The universe actually expresses a grand scale natural preference toward the most economical form of energy dissipation, so if the second law of thermodynamics is telling us that the entropy of our expanding universe increases with every action, then the anthropic principle is telling us that this will occur by the most energy efficient means possible, since the flatness of the universe is one of the many coincidentally ecobalanced requirements of the principle.

If the second law of thermodynamics points the arrow of time, then the anthropic principle determines that time and work is maximized.

We actually have evidence that the near-flat yet expanding universe is structured so that the entropy of the universe always increases in a manner that tends toward "maximum-energy" and maximum uniformity via the most-even form of energy dissipation possible, given that "nothing is perfect to start with"... so to speak.

Meaning that far-from equilibrium dissipative structures *can* serve as a natural damping mechanism... IF the universe is finite and causally bound...

We have no stability mechanism that explains why an expanding universe doesn't just blow itself apart, and even then, the entropy of our near-flat universe is much less than it should be, given any practical model of structure forming turbulence that occurs with expansion.

Unless far from equilibrium dissipative structures, (like us, humans, and black holes), serve to conserve the expansion process in order to maximize energy. Surely, the configuration of our universe must follow the least action principle.

Quantum mechanics depends very much on Hamiltonian mechanics, and so it isn't inherently able to describe dissipative structuring. This can be done, however, by way of a special master case for the "Lindblad equation", which derives that flatness acts as a natural harmonic damper mechanism that keeps the imbalanced expanding universe from evolving inhomogeneously, so this is the most natural configuration.

This will necessarily maximize the time that the expansion process takes, and that's what a flat universe accomplishes via anthropic structuring.



- -
- - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Doubly Dubious Dembski

I just got done bashing H. Allen Orr in my last entry, and now I get to beat down on Bill Dembski for taking my argument to the opposite extreme end of the fanatical spectrum of losers who intentionally distort reality to their own personal end. The following was copied from Dembski's latest blog entry:

July 19, 2005
Design Principles in Protein Science
The Protein Society’s upcoming big annual meeting (July 30 to August 3, 2005) has a session that should give proponents of unintelligent evolution pause and proponents of intelligent design courage:

Session 1, July 31, 2005, 8:00AM to 12Noon
Systems Biology:
Understanding Design Principles of Protein Networks
Chair: Andrew Murray, Harvard University
Speakers: Howard Berg, Harvard University
Andrew Murray, Harvard University (Sponsored by Chroma Technology Corp)
Roy Kishony, Harvard University
James Collins, Boston University
Adam Arkin, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Ask yourself how design principles from human engineering contexts can be so usefully employed in studying biological systems if those systems themselves are not, as proponents of unintelligent evolution assure us, the product of intelligent design. By the way, Howard Berg, the first speaker listed, is the same person who said that the bacterial flagellum is “the most efficient machine in the universe.”


No, Bill, ask yourself what gives you the right to presume that "design" has to be intelligent in origin? Did you get your flagerantly false idea from Michael Behe’s inaccurate definition for natural process that necessarily excludes a naturally guided process?

Einstein would tell you that the systematic and mechanistic nature of nature means that there is some methodological structure to nature, and to presume that humans and "intelligence", (or even "design"), aren't simply a functional manifestation of this, requires both, an unfounded philosophical leap of faith, and quite possibly even more human arrogance than "free-thinkers" like H. Allen Orr have.

- - - - - - - - - -

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

H. Allen Orr.. Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again)

Man... I never get over the absurdities of fanatics.

Example H. Allen Orr:

The pages of this magazine are not often taken up with reviews of creationist screeds. The stuff is, after all, intellectual junk food, served up with a transparent evangelical agenda. But now and then a reputable, or even esteemed, scientist launches an assault on evolution. These attacks are potentially important and, whether sound or not, are invariably great head-turners. A generation ago, for instance, the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle announced that the theory of natural selection was deeply flawed and could never account for the existence of complex organisms like you and me. Hoyle's objections were frankly silly, reflecting an embarrassing misunderstanding of Darwinian logic. In retrospect, there was only one reason anyone listened: Hoyle was a physicist. And as everyone-including biologists-then knew, physicists are smarter than the rest of us.

But the days of biologists suffering physics envy are long gone. We biologists have discovered the structure of DNA, broken the genetic code, sequenced the entire genome of some species, and, to a remarkable extent, figured out how a little egg turns into a big person (the last in a breathtaking decade). If a Hoyle were to now announce that biologists are deeply confused about natural selection or neurobiology, he'd be greeted, if at all, with a big yawn. There's only one way to shake up biologists now-the attack has to come from within.


He's got that part right anyway, you typically can't tell evolutionary biologists a damned thing, because they've got it all figured out... everybody else is wrong, and are now proven to be more stupid than them... end of story. Yeah, right.

These geniuses KNOW that there is no such thing as "design in nature", even though they can't exactly tell you what that even means, other than to say that they see it as requiring "intent". They somehow have this magical knowledge that supercedes that of actual design designers, and yet they really have no idea how one might recognize an algorithm for "design" in nature if they saw it.

Can you say... pre-conceived ideological prejudice?... It is a fact that patterns in nature are the essence of all math and physics, so if they aren't a valid representation for design in nature, then we truly are children of Chaos, the almighty god of random insanity, which is what the fools would have us believe, given the choice that they don't have, thanks to fanatical activists on the other runaway end of the diametrically opposing ideological spectrum that currently govern the direction of the political tide.

Evolutionary biologists, like Orr, openly scoff at engineers and experimental physicists when these professionals quite often point out to them that they've often discovered, (after the fact), that the stuff that they have designed already exists in nature, and it turns out that they have designed it for the very same functional purpose that arose from some common and practical physical need!

"An engineer said it... so, " nuff said "...

This is a favored expression of evolutionary biologists, and isn't it nice to know that we have these people to tell us that design engineers don't know what design looks like when they see it, or we might actually have to give them their due respect and take a serious look at what they are talking about.


What evolutionary biologists recognize when they look at examples for "design"-in-nature, is right about exactly on par with what Orr said. It doesn't matter what engineers recognize when it comes the this subject, the following is all that matters:

The stuff is, after all, intellectual junk food, served up with a transparent evangelical agenda.

So don't listen to physicists and design engineers that point to examples for "design in nature", because their observational interpretations aren't always keyed into the politics and they might inadvertantly give creationists an inch, for which they would then take a mile. Instead, declare that you know better, even though you're demonstratably less qualified to make a call about it than design engineers are.

Tell me, oh-wise.all-knowing.evo-biologist.god... if design doesn't exist in nature, then just exactly how would you define what engineers do...?

Or are you claiming that engineers aren't a part of nature too?

I've got a little news for you willfully clueless geniuses... that "don't understand the physics." The capability for "design" doesn't just pop-out of humans if the potential for its emergence doesn't pre-exist within physics that constrains the force constants of nature, so it can only be your sheer unadulterated human arrogance that gives you the unmitigated audacity to "believe" that "human-intent" can ever reflect anything greater or less than the sum of expressed bias toward satisfying a pre-existing physical need.

Some web references:
http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.mikel.org/arch/2005/05/the_new_yorker.html
http://radio.weblogs.com/0107946/2005/05/27.html


- - - - - - - - -

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Dembski's Dishonesty

I went over to Dembski's website to have a little chat, but got banished from posting there as soon as I pointed out that proof for design in nature is just that, and nothing more. I first explained that I had a valid point that you would never hear a "neo-Darwinist" putting forth, which got his attention long enough to delay the inevitable, but he gave me the boot when I explained that the only way to prove "intelligent design" was to produce a very old alien space-craft with the blue-prints for human construction hanging from the drawing board, otherwise, it requires an unfounded leap of faith to assume that his proof for design in nature was anything more than that.

Not only that, but he then removed two of my posts in order to manipulate the context to make it appear like I have something to gain by promoting this book... which is a lie, because I have no affiliation with these Dorion Sagan and Eric Schneider, except that they have independently derived one aspect of the same theory that I discovered.

Anyway, I figured that it was time that somebody spoke-up for nature, that isn't dishonestly motivated by the ideological bias that plagues both sides of the debate.

I intend to use this blog to convey the middle-ground truth that lies between the fanatical bookends of the creation evolution debate in order that people will have an alternative to the rightous insanity of both.