On the Limits

by | May 1, 2018 | Uncategorized

ON THE LIMITS OF NATURAL CAUSES

On the Limits

The Limitations of Natural Causes

Materialist contention that life is the result of Natural Causes is based on the premise that Natural Causes account for everything that exists.  The assertion being made here is that his is not true; Natural Causes are capable of creating only a small fraction of the possible states of matter/energy that are theoretically possible based on the laws of physics.  There are three reason provided here that rebuke this assertion:  life is a process that requires logical functionality to work, which Natural Causes are incapable of, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, and logical analysis.

Life is a Process That Requires Logical Functionality

The fact that life is a process is not disputed.  The common definition of a process is “a series of actions taken to actions taken to achieve an end.”  Based on this definition, life is a process at all levels.  All life, taken together is a process because life depends upon life – there is a food chain with recycling.  Each organism has hundreds of processes that control the temperature, digestion, respiration, etc..  The same can be said about each cell with processes like repairing or replacing proteins, cell division, etc..

There are two types of processes, natural processes and intelligent processes.  Natural processes are those that occur as a result of free energy resulting from naturally caused events and result in atoms, molecules, planets, suns, and galaxies.  On earth, they account for weather, erosion, rivers, terrain features, caves, etc..  The “end” achieved is without any intelligent influence save the possibility of an intelligent cause of the laws of physics.

The other type of process is an intelligent process that involves logical actions defined here as Intelligent Work.  Such a process requires the functionality of sensing conditions, called state variables by engineers, the ability to process the information, i.e., to determine action to take based on the state variables, and actuators, the means to apply the needed energy, in the form, time profile t place and orientation specified.  Specified power must be provided for the sensing means, logic functionality, signaling means, and the actuator. This means that free energy, unless it is captured and converted to specified energy by machines, e.g., windmills, solar cells, will not suffice.

Processes require logical functionality because the work they must perform is contingent upon conditions. 

Where Did The Information Come From?

Steve Meyer documents the requirement for massive amounts of information to suddenly appear to account for the Cambrian Explosion in his book Darwin’s Doubt. Materialist have come to acknowledge this fact despite the insanely low improbability, but insist that it must have happened because life does exist, and to think otherwise is unscientific. 

Free Energy

In physics and chemistry, free energy refers to amount of internal energy available in a system available to do work.  Normally this is a temperature gradient in the system. The higher temperature matter, has heat energy available or “free” to do work,   But the energy source could be something different such as a impinging photon or some other particle. Whatever the form, free energy is energy resulting from natural causes that is available at some point in a system to do work. This energy is unable to perform specified work because it is the result of natural events and will not be guaranteed to be the right form, right amount and profile, right time, direction, etc.  

Another reality is that free energy disperses from its source.  This is caused by the bulk properties (e.g. thermal conductivity) that result from the naturally caused equilibrium states (e.g., atoms and molecules). This means that if there is a requirement to provide a given amount of energy at some given point, the energy source would have to located at the exact point needed, and have to be the right amount, at the right time to achieve the required end, otherwise it would impact the adjoining matter.  Natural causes have no method of delivering specified energy.  This is especially true in a cell because the cell is an enclosed space.  The other problem in a cell is that there are thousands of different types of molecules (specified complexity), many with weak bonds, a necessary condition for functional proteins. Heat, the most common source of free energy will impact all of the cell bonds causing many unwanted reactions for each desired action.  The only source of energy that would impact a singular point within a cell1 would be a impinging particle, which, to do the required Intelligent Work, would have to impart the right amount of energy, at the right time, at the right place having evaded all of the intervening matter to get  there.

These problems are overcome in cells by the Intelligent Work performed by the molecular machines in the cell, delivering ATP molecule(s) to the place needed and “firing” it (or them) at the needed point in time.  An analogy in the macro world that we can relate to would be a hand drill that powered instead of batteries, fire crackers.

Embedded Intelligence Is Only ID Argument Science Can Not Answer

by | Apr 19, 2018 | Uncategorized

Embedded Intelligence Is Only ID Argument Science Can Not Answer

Intelligence Had to Come First

The realization that Life is a process, a process requires the use of machines, and machines can only exist if they have embedded intelligent (at least logical) functionality, solves the chicken and egg problem.  Except it is not chicken vs. egg, it is matter/energy vs. intelligence. Chickens and eggs are the same things in different forms, or at different stages.  Matter/energy and intelligence are two separate types of entities.  It takes intelligent work to embed intelligence into matter/energy before life or machines can exist.  The universe, sans intelligence, i.e., all machines, including life and entities created by them, can be accounted for by the laws of physics..  The laws of physics have no provision to create intelligence because natural causes cannot perform a single logical decision. This if falsifiable. 

THEREFORE: The only explanation for our existence is that intelligence exists in some form other than matter/energy as we know it.

All of the other arguments regarding natural causes creating beginning life are, from a theoretical scientific point of view, possible. Complexity, coherence, source of information and mechanisms are all valid and true arguments against naturally created beginning life from a statistical and/or logic point of view, but they are not falsifiable.

A demonstration of natural causes performing logical functionality would falsify the embedded intelligence argument posited in the “On the Limits of Natural Causes” paper. I will update the paper to include the falsification differences presented here in the paper, then remove this post.

 

© 2018 Mike Van Schoiack

Intelligent Design News

Proof Statements

by | Apr 8, 2018 | Uncategorized

Proof Statements

Proof Statements

The purpose of this site is to expound this engineer’s study and thinking about what life is from a physics/engineering point of view, and the implications of these thoughts.  The result has some interesting twists so this story will start with the end – the conclusions, then work through the details and thought process. It starts with a proof, actually several logical proofs in one, of some of the principles that result from the line of thinking presented here.

The end point is very simple.  Dead matter/energy is in the realm of science (follows the laws of physics) and live matter/energy is in the realms of philosophy (has embedded functional logical capability) AND science (follows the laws of physics).

This proof is based on the following being true:

  1. Life is a process,
  2. A process requires intelligent work, which can only be accomplished with machines,
  3. Intelligent work and machines require logical functionality,
  4. Natural causes cannot perform logical functions.

It is the view of this engineer that these statements are true and provable.  This raises the argument for ID to a new, much higher level because natural causes can produce a molecule with a tremendous amount of information, but natural causes cannot perform a single logical function.2  Information is a static entity.  A process is an activity, as is life, and a far, far greater challenge to create.  In human terms, it would be the difference between a bird building a nest vs. a human designing and building a working automobile.  It seems to this engineer that this argument needs to be validated by others, and if valid, promulgated.

This argument explains why we are finding life to be so extraordinarily complex:  it takes an incredibility complex process control system to maintain itself in an off-equilibrium state.  This realization cements the idea that logic/intelligence/philosophy is a separate realm from science/physics.  Life is a process with one foot in the realm of science and the other foot in the realm of philosophy.

This engineer suggests that this connection possibly should be designated as a new realm called Actualization.3  Life in a cell, as we know it, from a functional, engineering point of view, can be described as a process control system that holds matter in a specified, off-equilibrium state such that it (life) can exist.  Actualization of life is a process that involves not only the intelligence to design such a system, but the mechanical ability to build it and make it functional.  Natural causes cannot actualize structures that require intelligent work, like houses, automobiles and life; natural causes can actualize a static or dynamic natural equilibrium in matter/energy/space/time, things like atoms, molecules, suns, solar systems and galaxies.

Here is a formal proof of the inability of Natural Causes to create any machine:

  1. Work is defined as a force extended over a distance; 1 joule (work) is the force of one Newton over the distance of one meter.
  2. Logical work is conditional.  The simplest form would be two states:  e.g., Condition A, do work X, Condition B, do work Y.
  3. These conditions, to be performed, must have a directive; a logic based, signal that exists as one of two states at some point in the system as well as a logically determined output to command intelligent work to accomplish the directed need.
  4. The second law of thermodynamics is the observation that matter and energy always seek equilibrium; the point of least potential energy –  the most stable and probable state.
  5. Equilibrium is a deterministic state governed by the laws of physics, not logical information and therefore cannot carry logical input or output signals, or perform any logic function.
  6. Therefore physics alone cannot create logic.
  7. Therefore logic is a separate realm from physics.
  8. Therefore, natural causes have no ability to logically select courses of action, therefore cannot to do logically specified (intelligent) work.
  9. Machines have arrangements of matter and energy whereby energy is expended to hold signals in a state off of equilibrium as needed to implement their logically directed functionality.
  10. Therefore machines can perform intelligent work.
  11. It has been observed that proteins in living cells are in a state away from equilibrium, and become dysfunctional when they fall to equilibrium.
  12. In order to sustain the life of the cell, the dysfunctional protein must be replaced or repaired.  This action must be the result of a logical decision based on circumstances, and therefore is intelligent work.
  13. Therefore, natural causes could not have created at least some of the protein molecules required for our life.
  14. Therefore, physics alone cannot have an explanation for life.
  15. Life has embedded machinery that holds its matter away from equilibrium disallowing natural causes to dictate outcome.
  16. Therefore, determinism, the doctrine that all events are ultimately determined by causes external to the will, are wrong.  Free Will reigns over physics.

Logic and intelligence are not in the realm of physics.  Machines performing functions (processes) joins these two realms because they obey the laws of physics and perform logical functions.  Machines are able to perform logical functions because they have embedded matter/energy in a state of non-equilibrium.  A process must be able to monitor existing conditions, use logic to determine action required to perform the required task(s) to achieve the desired outcome and to command actuators to the work  This requires continual consumption of energy to power the logical processing in addition to the intelligent work being performed.  This distinction is a difference between matter/energy reacting to natural causes (use only available free energy) vs. matter/energy performing intelligent work (require on-going energy consumption to perform the logical functionality required).

The argument that Intelligent Design should not be taught as a possible explanation for beginning life in schools because it is not science is correct in one sense: Intelligent Design is not 100% science, it is part logic which is in the realm of philosophy.  But this begs the question of the fact that life is a merger of physics and logic, or philosophy.  The proper understanding of life requires the study of this merger which invokes intelligence, in the opinion of this engineer.  Any proof related to natural causes and life must invoke the necessity of logic functionality in the life process.   Philosophy, the realm which intelligence and logic reside, is a realm not governed by physics, rather it is governed by intelligence. 

It is the opinion of this engineer that even if the term “intelligent design” is not used in education, the concept that physics and logic are two realms and that physics alone cannot produce life should be taught.4.

The rest of this page will summarize the conclusions and provide supporting information by posts and other referenced information. Diagrams are used to tie the concepts being discussed together.  Thinking of life as a process invokes the need for some new terminology.  In addition, more specificity of some existing definitions is needed.  For this reason, some posts are devoted to definitions.

An attempt is made to make the concepts involved understandable to anyone by using analogies that one can relate to the macro world we all are familiar with that apply to the micro world as well.

 

Intelligent Design News

by | Apr 8, 2018 | ID Topic

Engineer vs. Scientist

Figure 1. Fake Physics?

There are a number of definitions for an engineer.  The one I like the best is this:5 

Engineer:

noun:  a person who designs, builds or maintains engines, machines, or public works.

synonyms: Originator, designer, inventor, developer, creator.

verb:  Design and build (a machine or structure)

I always thought of an engineer as an applied scientist. The term “design” is typically conflated with “build and test. They are two separate phases of an engineering project to an engineer.  Design involves creating the concepts and documenting them such that a prototype can be built.  The building includes constructing a prototype, testing, and making design changes until the device performs its function as planned.

Similarly, a scientist is defined as:6

Scientist:

noun:  a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

The difference between an engineer and a scientist is that an engineer has to make something work.  To work, the object designed has to follow the laws of physics and chemistry; not theory, or possibilities.  Often, thinking purely in theoretical terms blinds one to common sense and/or other theory that is overlooked.7  The scientist deals with possibilities; the engineer must deal with the impossibilities.  

When Steve played the video at his book release party, I really didn’t know what to expect as I thought that secret chemical reactions that make life function would be revealed.

What I saw instead was tasks being performed by molecular machines. Impossible!  How could such complexity exist?  Inside a cell, impossible squared! I spent my life designing and building much simpler systems. I knew that the video was a vastly simplified representation. The complexity of all the process control details that must exist is staggering.

In a very real sense, what I was witnessing was magic. To this day, I do not believe those in the field of biology realize the complexity of what must exist in the cell.  Process control requires sensor, signal processing (think computer) functionality and actuators. It has to acquire the energy and matter required.  It has to get rid of the waste.  And reproduction???   ?

I truly believe that only engineers who have been involved with complex process control systems can appreciated the complexity that must exist in the cell, One does not realize the level of detail, the number of overlooked, or misunderstood issues, the wrong science or calculation that will cause failure.

Intelligent Design News