[asa] Reference design

> Randy wrote: "All analogies I've heard relate to situations where humans
> are the
> design agent. We have no analogies of cases where non-humans (and/or
> non-animals) are the design agent and we have no basis to extrapolate
> our analogies to such a supposition."
>
> Burgy wrote: "I either disagree or I don't understand you here.
>
> Consider the very real non-human case where a bird decorates its nest.
> We have no problem inferring "intelligent agent" in that case, even
> though the agent is clearly not human."

Burgy, that's why I added "non-animal".

But nevertheless you are right that I still haven't articulated it well. Let
me try again with another perspective, that of a "reference design." I think
I've used the term here before and others may have written about it more
extensively. I think it's a helpful concept to think about.

The term is borrowed from my own specialty of DRAM design. Consider a 2Gb
chip, the highest density DRAM chip on the market today. In less than about
150mm2 there are 2^31 cells that can store on the order of 10^5 electrons
each. These electrons are constantly leaking out and need to be replenished
many times a second. How can one determine at any instant whether the number
of electrons in a given cell represents a "0" or a "1"? DRAM designers use
reference cells. They design about 2^22 reference cells that are sprinkled
throughout the chip. These reference cells are designed as similar as
possible to the storage cells but they have known values of "0" or "1"
stored in them. The similarity is based on capacitive loading, for example,
and should track the storage cell over the whole range of voltage and
temperature operating ranges. When information is read from the chip,
electrons are allowed to flow from a cell and the current is compared with
that from the closest ( or most similar) reference cell. Differential
amplifiers can quickly determine whether that cell was more similar to the
reference cell containing a "1" or to that with a "0".

Most schemes for detecting design use the concept of a reference design.
Consider the bird that Burgy mentioned. If we discover a nest in a tree, we
can study the nest and by comparing it with documented reference designs of
nests typical for certain species, we can identify the species of the bird
that built that nest. It is important to study the nest carefully and to
identify all similarities and differences from all other nests. It could
happen, however, that the characteristics of the newly discovered nest are
similar enough to all those reference designs that we think it was designed
and built by a bird but sufficiently dissimilar from all reference designs
so that we can also say it wasn't done by any known species of bird. What
can we say then? Have we discovered a new species of bird? No. But we
certainly have enough information to submit a research grant to look for a
new species. We can speculate that such a species must exist but until a
member of that species is identified, we haven't discovered it.

In this world, we have a very broad panoply of reference designs for what we
know to be human designed, animal ( broadly defined to include birds,
insects, etc.) designed, or nature designed. We also have enough information
to know that there is a vast spectrum of possibilities in all these
categories that we haven't identified or documented. Part of the joy of
creativity is discovering how to do new designs.

So what do we do when we encounter a new system whose origin we are
investigating? We naturally compare it with all known reference designs.
What if we come up empty in the sense that no comparison is close enough to
give credence to having identified a design source. Yet, there are enough
similarities to, say, designs from human intelligence, that it seems we may
have identified a new "species" of something unknown. These comparisons can
be attempted from various angles. Mike Gene, for example, tries to quantify
the comparison with reference designs by using scales of discontinuity,
analogy, rationality, and foresight. Whatever the validity of these scales
might be, we still have the dilemma of the conclusions to be drawn from a
case where we have ruled out human and animal design possibilities (as is
the case with living cells) and have ambiguous or non-conclusive or
contentious or uncompelling claims of nature-driven design.

Can we conclude from such a situation that there was divine (or some
supernatural intelligent agent) design? I would suggest no for the simple
reason that we have no reference design from a divine being. We simply do
not know what the defining characersitics of a divinely designed system
would be. I would suggest that this is indeed enough evidence to look for a
divine designer (yes, Burgy, it is "possible" and even "probable") but such
stimulation can come from many sources and is not unique. And the looking
would be outside the scope of science. My own view is that the only such
reference design we have is the entire universe itself. But then I have
assumed a priori that a divine being designed the universe and hence cannot
use it to detect the existence of that divine designer. I could also infer
from that reference design that a major characteristic of divine design is
comprehensibility. Hence, I would reasonably expect all subsets of that
universe to be potentially comprehensible.

Can we conclude from such a situation that there was a "non-divine" or
"non-supernatural" or "natural" or "indeterminate" intelligent being that
created such a design? I would suggest no. Such a designer would, by
definition, be subject to the constraints of the basic forces such as
electromagnetic force, gravitational force, etc. Having ruled out humans and
animals and all known physical intelligent entities, can we say we have
discovered a new species? No. Is this justification to look for such a new
species? Well, considering that we are talking about a physical sentient
being that had the capability during the past 3.5 billion years to carry out
nanotechnological manipulation of biochemical molecules, but managed not to
leave any trace of its existence, that search wouldn't take very long before
conceding.

It seems to me that at most our conclusion in such a situation is "we do not
know." Part of our passion for science is to keep learning and understand
more about the design possibilities of this universe. There's a lot more to
be learned.

Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 6 11:20:36 2008