# Mini-thought experiment about the nested hierarchy

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [May 9, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139 "2019-05-09T19:30:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 9:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/22 "2019-05-09T21:18:01Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> Science doesn’t need to prove any of your science-free woo is false Bill. You need to demonstrate your “common Design” claims are true. Since you haven’t demonstrated **any** sort of Design in biological life, let alone common Design, looks like you failed again.

The assertion kid strikes again 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@scd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/scd)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 10:19am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/23 "2019-05-10T10:19:58Z")

</div>

since there is nested hierarchy in designed objects then nested hierarchy in biological objects cant prove common descent.

 ![bbbbbb](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/1/13e6b254e2c900ab6e53ce445aba09ba369d5fb6.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 10:53am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/24 "2019-05-10T10:53:19Z")

</div>

![1370539886395](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/9/9e8f23d381fb0abb69af3edaf51d5adb2b248034.gif)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 2:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/25 "2019-05-10T14:55:12Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> What is the point of any of this if you will neither read nor reply to responses?

He’s showing he doesn’t flounce off like an irresponsible pixie by flouncing off like an irresponsible pixie.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 2:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/26 "2019-05-10T14:57:25Z")

</div>

> [@scd](#):
>
> since there is nested hierarchy in designed objects . . .

You need to a list of features to go along with your tree. I have also shown you multiple times how features of automobiles break that nested hierarchy. You are beating a dead horse.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@scd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/scd)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/27 "2019-05-10T15:04:56Z")

</div>

i also showed you that we can find the same thing with evolution, with many cases of non-hierarchy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/28 "2019-05-10T15:07:27Z")

</div>

Then that would falsify design as you have already stated that design would produce a nested hierarchy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@scd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/scd)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/29 "2019-05-10T15:12:06Z")

</div>

so its also falsify common descent by that criteria.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/30 "2019-05-10T15:15:03Z")

</div>

For the genes coming from bacteria, yes. For the genes shared with other animals, no.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/31 "2019-05-10T15:24:33Z")

</div>

As an IT professional, I’d just like to point out:

> [@pnelson](#):
>
> Look at the file structures of your computer, or whatever device you are using to read this. Nested hierarchies.

Wrong. They contain many cross-linking shortcuts that break the nesting.

> [@](#):
>
> The Library of Congress classification system? Nested hierarchy.

Artificially so. There are many works that could be classified on multiple places, and which are classified purely subjectively.

> [@](#):
>
> Almost any data storage system one can conceive? Nested hierarchy.

Completely and utterly wrong. Relational databases aren’t nested. Nor are stacked data, graph databases, flat files, Cloud storage, distributed code repositories, tierra programs, binary data, and many, many others.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pnelson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/pnelson/32/876_2.png) [@pnelson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/pnelson)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/32 "2019-05-10T15:38:38Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Completely and utterly wrong.

Ouch, ouch, OUCH – that’s pretty wrong. I appreciate the corrections.

Given what you wrote, you’ll be interested in this:

[http://acacia.atspace.eu/Tutorial/Tutorial.html](http://acacia.atspace.eu/Tutorial/Tutorial.html)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/33 "2019-05-10T15:56:50Z")

</div>

Hey, look. He momentarily decloaked. He _is_ reading this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/34 "2019-05-10T16:04:43Z")

</div>

There are two sorts of nested hierarchy classifications done by humans.

1. Arbitrary divisions and subdivisions of a continuum. Consider the geologic time scale, with its division into eons, eras, periods, and ages, or the divisions of igneous rock types by composition into felsic, mafic, and intermediate, with finer divisions within each.

2. Recognition of real patterns in nature, as in biological classification.

And of course there are plenty of systems that are neither. The periodic table is at least two-dimensional, for example. Life naturally fits a nested hierarchical system as other phenomena do not. Other methods of biological classification have been tried — quinarianism, for example — but they don’t work well. And this is what needs to be explained. Nominalism is not an explanation but a denial that there is anything in need of explanation. It doesn’t work either.

So how do we explain the real, discoverable nested hierarchy of life? I think we all know how.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/35 "2019-05-10T16:40:21Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Then that would falsify design as you have already stated that design would produce a nested hierarchy.

While scd is wrong, yours is not a good argument against his claim. Technically he did not claim that design would _necessarily_ entail a nested hierarchy, merely that designers _can_ produce nested hierarchies. As such, countering that some attributes of the sorted entities in question don’t yield a nested hiearchy doesn’t constitute a falsification of his claim.

His mistake is at least twofold. One is he incorrectly believes that the objects in his tree naturally sort hierarchically, the other is he doesn’t appear to understand the difference between an imposed and arbitrary sorting, and one the data naturally sorts into. That is why he thinks showing an imposed hierarchy removes the need to explain why biological organisms so readily sort into essentially the same one by multiple independent attributes and methods, and therefore he doesn’t understand why the nested hiearchy of life really is evidence of common descent.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/36 "2019-05-10T16:47:31Z")

</div>

> [@pnelson](#):
>
> Look at the file structures of your computer, or whatever device you are using to read this. Nested hierarchies.

Imposed and rather arbitrary. It’s not like the actual attributes of the files can be used to reproduce the hiearchy. Take line 20 from every file in every folder, then use the sorting algorithm of your choice to make a tree. Does it reproduce the actual file system structure? Very unlikely. Take line 21, does it reproduce the file system structure? Probably not. Does it yield the same or a highly similar tree to line 20? Probably not. File dates? Probably not. File names? Probably not. File sizes? Probably not. File extensions? Probably not. I don’t need to go on.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/37 "2019-05-10T16:47:35Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> Technically he did not claim that design would _necessarily_ entail a nested hierarchy, merely that designers _can_ produce nested hierarchies.

They can also produce non-nested hierarchies, and the number of possible non-nested hierarchies far outweighs the nested ones. Therefore, there is no reason to expect a nested hierarchy from design.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![faded\_Glory](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faded_glory/32/7167_2.png) [@faded\_Glory](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/faded_Glory)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 5:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/38 "2019-05-10T17:42:58Z")

</div>

Allow me to quibble. The geological time scale is no more arbitrary than the division of a 24 hour period in day and night. There are real distinctions between the classified units (even if sometimes the boundaries have a degree of fuzziness), and there is nesting because much of the classification stems from paleontological developments, which themselves of course are a consequence of nested evolution.

Take the Mesozoic - this is basically an Era bounded by two major mass extinctions, and was recognised by the distinctive fossil content of the strata laid down during that time. Within that Era, further subdivision in Periods again stems originally from observed paleontological changes.

The divisions in the geological time scale are not arbitrary, they reflect real underlying changes in the biosphere.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 5:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/39 "2019-05-10T17:59:31Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> Imposed and rather arbitrary. It’s not like the actual attributes of the files can be used to reproduce the hiearchy. Take line 20 from every file in every folder, then use the sorting algorithm of your choice to make a tree. Does it reproduce the actual file system structure? Very unlikely. Take line 21, does it reproduce the file system structure? Probably not. Does it yield the same or a highly similar tree to line 20? Probably not. File dates? Probably not. File names? Probably not. File sizes? Probably not. File extensions? Probably not. I don’t need to go on.

Try this with the operating system of compatible computers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pnelson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/pnelson/32/876_2.png) [@pnelson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/pnelson)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 6:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/40 "2019-05-10T18:38:52Z")

</div>

De-cloaking again…

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Nominalism is not an explanation but a denial that there is anything in need of explanation.

I’m a nominalist with respect to a single (terrestrially) universal nested hierarchy. But are there genuinely discoverable patterns at lower scales? You bet – the living world is not a bloomin’ buzzin’ anarchy.

But notice that the replies to my thought experiment (including yours) availed themselves of some heaping servings of evolutionary theory to get around the anomalous molecular data. That’s my real worry: that the “discoverable hierarchy” isn’t so much _discovered_ as _selected_, from a much larger and messier ocean of data where hierarchy isn’t the main signal.

Here’s a slide from a talk I gave a few months ago; one can substitute “nested hierarchy explained by common ancestry” for UCD (i.e., universal common descent):

 ![39%20PM](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/4/462c4c6ce1cf6cdaeb3304db1b230ff77fd6e95b.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 6:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139/41 "2019-05-10T18:49:48Z")

</div>

> [@pnelson](#):
>
> That’s my real worry: that the “discoverable hierarchy” isn’t so much _discovered_ as _selected_, from a much larger and messier ocean of data where hierarchy isn’t the main signal.

Since it was originally “discovered” by Lavoisier and co, decades before Darwin put pen to paper, the idea that the hierarchy is “selected” because of a belief in common descent must be bunk.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mini-thought-experiment-about-the-nested-hierarchy/6139.md?page=3)