By my understanding, “fundamental physics” does not refer to the state of knowledge at any particular time, which is always going to be incomplete and inaccurate to at least some extent. Rather, it refers to what would constitute a complete and accurate understanding of all physics (regardless of whether such a thing will ever actually be achieved.)
If, once this understanding is (hypothetically) achieved there remains things that cannot be accounted for thru this understanding (e.g. consciousness, ghosts, God), then physicalism would be false.
I would describe it first in terms of it’s basic mechanical properties. This thing goes in here and gets cut like this ect. These aren’t really terms that lend themselves to use of metaphors. Later if someone comes along and finds a code, then, to put it plainly, it is a code and not a metaphor for something like a code.
From what little I know, it seems there is certainly a code involved that acts to convey information within the cell. It’s just not conveying information to us.
Not much of an answer. “It’s” is a contraction of “it is,” by the way.
There you used “cut” as a metaphor! See my point?
Then why did you use the metaphor “cut” in response to my question?
Obviously any literal code is a code, but what we’re finding does not involve any abstractions or symbolism. Therefore, our use of “code” in that context is metaphorical. If you disagree, can you name a human-designed code that does not involve abstractions or symbolism?
It’s not like a code either. It simply isn’t a code, because there’s no abstraction involved.
I find it fascinating that you didn’t really respond to my challenge with anything but a vague metaphor. It’s a very simple question: can YOU use anything other than metaphors to describe any biological mechanism at the molecular level? Yet you’re claiming somehow to know that “code” is an exception to this practice?
From all I know from my decades of experience in multiple fields of biology, there are certainly no literal codes involved. Conveying information without abstraction is not a code.
How, then, have I spent a career acquiring and publishing the biological information from such mechanisms through testing hypotheses?
Nucleic acid and protein sequences - note that the shallow approach of evolution denialists is to pretend that these are the only information around, because they are represented between humans as digital codes. Is that where you’re coming from?
Cell biology - how membrane compartments are transported and sorted. Mountains of information, no codes.
Neuroscience - how hair cells of the inner ear adjust their sensitivity to stimuli. Again, loads of information, no codes.
The essence of a real code is conveying information symbolically and abstractly.
But if there’s anything that can’t be accounted for by physics, then physics is not complete. How can we distinguish between physical and non-physical, material and immaterial? And is this distinction, whatever it is, something we just impose on parts of the world?
I would say there is information in the cell, although as others have pointed out one has to be precise about what one means exactly by biological information.
I’d also say DNA contains coded information but again one needs to define ‘code’
I suspect Vlad is bringing this up because he wants to dig deeper into Stephen Meyer’s claim ( along with other IDers) that information and especially coded information can only come from a conscious mind. is this the case?
Meyer brings this up in just about every lecture and interview he does and I haven’t seen any pushback on it from prominent pro-science types
I’m not really qualified to come up with a better answer. And I don’t feel I am able to come up with any meaningful questions at this time. You guys have given me plenty to read and think about. This all just really blows my mind.
I can’t imagine what it is like for you guys to dedicate a significant part of your life and mind to try and figure this stuff out and then try to teach it to the rest of us. I am not embarrassed to admit that it’s probably a not job I would be cut out for. It’s really wild.
Yes and No. Though I am a creationist, I guess you could say I am equally aggravated at times, with how people on “both sides” deal with the topic of information. So I tried my best to clearly define it in the very first post of this thread, in my own way. Because it seems to me, in what little experience I have, both sides tend to say “this is information” only when they want it to be. Take de novo genes for example.
One side says transcription is an information process but when a new gene arises, then they tend to shy away for the idea that information is being added.
The other side seems to shy away from the idea that transcription involves an information process, but when a de novo gene arises, the say “hey look, this is new information”
As a layman, all I can really say is that this seems kinda of suspicious to me.
I feel bad because you and @Dan_Eastwood and really everyone are making some great points that I just have to think about before I can really acknowledge them. And don’t want you guys to think I am not listening to you.
Those are good questions, and I’m not sure of the answers. How I think about it: There are presently people investigating a number of phenomena (telekinesis, remote viewing, psychic abilities, ghosts, possession by demons) that, if they were demonstrated to actually exist, would at least raise the question of whether there exist “supernatural” or “paranormal” phenomena that cannot be accounted for by the laws of physics. However, if any of these things were shown to actually occur or exist (and I’m not holding my breath on that), the question would still remain: Are these phenomena non-physical? Or do they just indicate we do not yet understand physics well enough to account for them?
The only way I could see that question being resolved is by finding a way to account for them by the same physics that applies to everything else exists. Although if dualism is true and these things are non-physical, I suppose the question could be resolved by the development of a new form of science that can be used to understand this non-physical stuff.
As things stand, the concept of physicalism seems to mostly arise in the discussion of consciousness, where the relevant questions are similar to the above, but in relation to something people generally agree actually exists.
It’s fun, too. Thanks for that very gracious comment.
Correct, and those on that side who have done science in the past have quit.
I don’t see anyone doing that, as Information is obviously involved. I’m just pointing out that no abstractions are involved, so any use of forms of the noun or verb “code” are metaphorical, as is (necessarily) so much or virtually all of the language describing biology to other scientists or laypeople, respectively. On what basis do you make that claim?
Back to your use of “cut,” we would never say to each other, “Did you catalyze hydrolysis to create smaller fragments of that plasmid with restriction endonuclease EcoRI?” We simply use the metaphorical “Did you cut the plasmid with EcoRI?”
As a scientist, I would advise you to avoid thinking of this as sides. If you don’t want to, keep in mind that one side produces new knowledge and the other just produces rhetoric.
You shouldn’t feel bad unless you ran away without acknowledging any of those great points, which you haven’t done. I appreciate your candor, as we rarely see that from creationists here.
I think you’re right about this when it comes to IDers. Although there are many ways to think about biological information they tend to go with the more abstract definitions because abstractions subtly imply a mind. When it comes to de Novo genes they deny they exist at all or dismiss them as trivial.
I dont think the pro-science group is trying to obfuscate on information. Its just that its tricky to define it.
Lately Meyer has been making the claim that codes can only come about through conscious action and he gives examples of lots of human created codes that are obviously abstract. Take Morse code for example. Although you could make a mechanical device that could transmit this code you can ask: “where is the code ultimately instantiated?” The association of dots and dashes with letters and words has to come from a human mind. Even if letters weren’t themselves abstract there is no natural mechanism for making the association. You can then ask where is the genetic code instantiated? The answer is within the purely mechanical interactions of enzymes called amino-acyl tRNA synthetases with tRNAs and amino acids. No mind is required. I think Meyer would rebut with the claim that the initial assignment of amino acids to the code would require a mind. I dont think thats the case but we can discuss in another comment
( I’m trying to read previous comments to get up to speed)
Whenever I think about discussions such as this I imagine how the arguments would be presented debate-style in front of a live audience. To say that the genetic code isn’t really a code has a devastating rebuttal: Francis Crick called it a code along with pretty much every biologist since then. That description works in most contexts. But in a discussion such as this where we’re trying to decide if the information and code in living things implies an intelligent designer its important to consider the profound differences between human created codes and the genetic code and Mercer has suggested. I think the genetic code is NOT evidence for an intelligent designer and its actually positive evidence against.
I think its a shame you’re a creationist. The evidence for an old earth and evolution is indisputable. As I’m sure you know there are many devout Christians on this site and elsewhere who fully accept all the evidence and have no conflict with their faith. I think you should keep an open mind to that evidence even if it requires some readjustment of your theological understanding. It could open up a whole new world for you and in a sense you’ll be able to eat your cake and have it too!
I have never, not once, seen anyone “shy away from the idea that transcription involves an information process.” Who on earth have you been talking to?
It’s not that we shy away from the idea that transcription involves information - it clearly does - so much as shying away from the idea that it involves “complex specified information” or “information arising from a mind” or whatever other buzzterm the IDers are insisting on.
Hey, this stuff is hard. Information Theory is generally counter-intuitive to how most people think about information. There is no shame in needing to think about it. NOT thinking about it would be a bigger problem.
But what if there’s a different physics that accounts for them? What’s the difference between non-physical and unknown physics? What makes dark matter physical and souls non-physical?
When I spoke with the paper’s author, she said one thing she found appealing about this conception of the “physical” is that it sidesteps consideration of nebulous ideas such as natural vs. supernatural, and simply defines the physical a posteriori as this particular stuff that consists of specific fundamental particles which are subject to specific forces and specific laws.
If we found that, say, dark matter is actually made up of different stuff that involves different particles, forces and laws (or to which such concepts do not even apply), then it would probably make sense to call it something other than “physical” and the science describing it something other than “physics”, to avoid confusion.
I think that ID has mostly advanced not through the quality of their scientific arguments but through their rhetorical skill. In that sense claiming the genetic code isn’t a code is a loosing position. Its better to point out that codes can arise naturally without conscious intervention and that there are substantial differences between natural and created codes
