Re: Nature article on ID

Ah, that comment was a bit spartan. But in the landscape of my mind
there was the residual context from a previous mention of something like
this months ago on the list.
But then, not everyone shares those fading images that inhabit my grey
matter. I 'spect that's desirable from both perspectives!

It's not really so much about making evolution possible per se, since
those processes and mechanisms at work in our own environs.
It's more related to the matter of liklihood of particular things
happening.

When the particle physics folks were faced with the challenging task of
experimentally verifying the existence of neutrinos, which had extremely
low probability of actually colliding with something that would both
experience and disclose the event, one of the parameters they could
control beneficially was to make the scintillation liquid volume VERY
large. And that's what they did. They scaled the detector fluid volume
up so that they would be reasonably sure of observing at least one of
the desired events within a reasonable (but fairly long) time frame.
What I'm suggesting is sorta like that.

If I were a divinity-scale creator and wanted to create something full
of design and functionality, and exactly what I wanted, I might just
make the thing outright, direct and precise, according to blueprint.
But if I wanted to embark on some path that might have additional
potentiality, yet unrealized, I might select off the shelf a set of
specially configured precursor parts that can self-assemble in a number
of different ways in my shaker box, giving a variety of results that
approach to different degrees what I wanted to happen.
    If I wanted to evaluate several results at the same time, I would
set up several shaker boxes with identical sets of parts (quite a few
more actually, because the probability of a given configuration emerging
would probably differ from another, and I'd get a bunch of duplicates
with only an occasional occurrence of the lowest probability configuration).
    If I were interested in optimizing the speed of assembly and/or
evaluating collateral damage to the parts during the assembly process, I
might set up still more units with a variety of operating conditions,
vary the number of parts in a shaker, and try a number of different
shaker conditions.

Suppose that I'm now satisfied with this crude experiment and want to go
about creating something much more ambitious in a developmental
environmentwe I choose to call a universe. The developmental setting
with its starting conditions is to have immense potentiality. That
potentiality must ensure that at least one product of the natural
materials and processes (starting conditions and "rules") eventually
(within the context of "time" to be built into the universe) meets some
particular set of end-product success criteria. In order to give the
greatest possible potentiality, I have to give great latitute to the
development capacity I plan to embody in this universe.

In short, I want to start peeling away constraints I impose in the rules
or initial conditions. But every time I peel off a constraint, I reduce
the probability of achieving my desired outcome(s) in time frames that
are consistent with the other aspects of my universe design (and the
time aspect of my universe is important for some reason).

I can, of course, relax the requirements on the end product. I can
loosen the specifics of the physical implementation I require, and yet
still require that the desired functionality is realized.
I can also simplify and minimize the number of building blocks and make
them more useful. But the real problem is that if the end result I want
ultimately requires a very very complex configuration of these building
blocks, and the assembly processes available have a great deal of
randomness built in, then I need to do something absolutely spectacular
about multiplying the number of the equivalents of the "shaker boxes".

This translates into mixes of elements, fluids, environmental
conditions, time, and the baseline set of random processes that bring
these into juxtaposition, and those that occur as a result of the
justapositions.
Moreover, the evolutionary processes are serial in nature, these
parameters need not be constant, and the developmental paths are yet
more complex because of these variabilities.

The long and short of my notion is that one test tube is not enough
experiment space to achieve the desired result, given some level of
loosening of developmental constraints; nor is one puddle, geothermal
pool, cave, laboratory, ocean, planet, nor even the variety of
conditions attendant to a solar system of planets orbiting an
energy-supplying star, stretched over their natural lifetimes. So lets
multiply the experiment space by 100 stars. A little progress. Let's try
100,000! Ah, more progress. 100 billion - Now we're starting to make
significant progress.

But the universe size we experience, .....that's another story. Perhaps
that's the real required (HUGE) "experiment" necessary to achieve the
desired outcome.

And that's my point. If you require that some low probability
circumstance occur, your best bet is to increase the potentiality for
the event to occur - increase the number and conditions of the reaction
vessels.

If one wants life (maybe even more than once?), perhaps it takes a
universe this size to make sure that it happens.

You see several of my particular perspectives on creation embodied in
this expanded discussion, but that's what I had in mind with my earlier
statement.

Regards - JimA

Iain Strachan wrote:

>
>
> On 5/1/05, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net
> <mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net>> wrote:
>
>Iain, re the last sentence, I think that might be where the immensity of the universe comes into play. JimA
>
> Not quite sure what you mean here, you'll have to help me I once saw
> a kind of ID argument about the scale of the universe being as it is
> to support life, but I can't remember the details. Are you saying
> that a huge universe has something to do with smoothing out the
> "fitness surface" (ie avoiding cliffs) which has to be explored in the
> evolutionary process? If so can you elucidate what it is about the
> scale that makes evolution possible?
>
> Iain
Received on Tue May 3 12:34:27 2005