george murphy wrote (Sun, 11 Nov 2001 20:45:46 -0500, in part):
> GLM & PR indicate attributions.
>
> PR:
> An example of randomness in elementary events: which one of the N bases
> in a given DNA gets hit by a cosmic ray or decaying radioactive atom,
> producing a mutation. An example of a coincidence: two specific
> mutations essential for an evolutionary path occur at about the same
> time in a given piece of DNA.
>
> GLM:
> "Randomness" in this sense would be predictable if strict
> Laplacian determinism were valid &
PR: I don't have your competence in physics. So I don't want to try to
discuss in detail the theoretically possible connections between quantum
events, chaos processes, and what we, on the observational level, call
randomness. However, experimental/observational science will not be able
to trace these events and processes beyond the observation of
randomness. I don't know how God determines which one of the N bases
gets hit, or whether a given mutation evades all DNA repair mechanisms,
or which one of several embryos survives, etc., and there are many more
"random" events until a mutation is fixed in a species. Is it known that
every type of such hidden selections (not natural selection!) is
reducible to quantum uncertainty and chaos, as you state? As far as I
know, Laplacian determinism is not much more than a supposition.
> GLM: coincidences of this sort are phenomena of low probability.
PR: Again, observational science can trace, at most, the probability of
fixation of one given mutation in a species, its possible correlation
with other mutations, and the selection coefficient of the intermediate
if it existed in a living organism. Since the probability of a single
mutation is never beyond what can be reasonably expected, I find it
helpful to consider the probability of such coincidences in an
evolutionary path _not_ subject to intermediate natural selection. If
the cumulative probability of such a path falls below 10^-80 (e.g.), the
concept of God having directed the series by selecting the coincidences
seems helpful, as the probability isn't just that of a single event
(which we know to be quite high). I don't know whether the complicated
network of quantum uncertainty and chaos events behind this process,
hidden from scientific view, needs to be considered, and at which stage
God did something unusual, and what. It doesn't change the outcome, at
the limit of scientific observability, of randomness and coincidences.
The difference between my first example and the second one is that in
the first one a single quantum event may suffice to decide the outcome,
but certainly not in the second one.
> GLM: Both may be
> important but from the
> standpoint of physics can both be reduced to the quantum or chaos
> categories.
>____________________________________
> PR:
> My proposal only involves these critical events relevant for biology.
> Others may possibly have
> occurred in cosmology (cf. the anthropic cosmological principle). I
> suppose events not critical for
> anything may be left to genuine chance (cf. my paper "How has life and
> its diversity been
> produced?" PSCF 44/2 (June 1992), 80-94).
>
> GLM:
> I find such a proposal vaguely troubling, though I can't easily
> put my finger on the difficulty. If
> some wave packet collapses are "left to chance" then we've dropped the
> principle of sufficient
> reason. Perhaps we need to. But then to say that God determines the
> results of some of these
> collapses means that there is a sufficient reason for the results of
> those measurements. Thus God
> could provide a reason for all the other measurements, but doesn't.
PR: Again, the principle of sufficient reason is a philosophical
supposition, not a requirement of logic. But even if it were true, it
wouldn't follow that God would have to "provide a reason" for _all_
measurements. If we look at it from a theological viewpoint, God may
decree that a certain mutation happens, in a second case he may decree a
spectrum of possible mutations, and in a third case he may just do
nothing, having decreed the mutation mechanisms with their stochastic
properties at the beginning of life.
> OTOH, having God engineer the results of all measurements -
> especially if this is done
> directly & not in cooperation with any hidden variables - would return
> God to the position of the
> absolute controller of all events, though now as the power behind the
> throne instead of the absolute
> monarch.
PR: I don't feel such an absolute control of all events would be
scientifically, theologically, or philosophically required or helpful.
__________________________________________________
>
> GLM
> We can't talk about God "using" chance. Chance is not a
> particular mechanism but a
> statement of our lack of knowledge. As I noted before, to say that the
> results of wave packet
> collapse are "due to chance" means that they happen literally for no
> reason.
PR: See above.
__________________________________
>
> GLM:
> Theodicy is a legitimate but secondary theological activity. We ought
> to be quite hesitant about
> "justifying God", which is what the word means. Note, e.g., the way
> Paul responds to such
> questions in Romans 9:19 - "Who are you to question God?"
Agreed. Peter
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 13 2001 - 09:06:59 EST