What promotes order in the cosmos?

[QED]

Thinian has raised many interesting points in the Should Creationism be taught in classrooms? thread. I would particularly like to explore this part:

The real question is what promotes order? It can be asked of the universe itself. What defined the set of laws that transformed the ‘quantum foam’ into an ordered universe? No one has any idea. Why would life ever bother to form in the first place? And once its there why should it grow into outlandishly complex forms, unless something encourages it to do so?

6. It is worth pointing out that consciousness is the only known force in the universe that does actually promote order. This is readily observable and teachable and no well-taught science class should leave out this point. Science (as well as philosophy and religion) have never produced a good explanation for what it is or how it does what it does. In my humble opinion:eyebrow:, it qualifies as a fundamental force in the universe in that it cannot be reduced or predicted by any of the other four basic forces.

You ask why life bothers to form in the first place. This dilemma only arises if you insist on looking at it heuristically. Life no more bothers about this than rust does over appearing on bare steel.

Your point about consciousness being "the only known force in the universe that does actually promote order" is incorrect. There are numerous counterexamples in systems far from equilibrium. Phase transitions in solids, liquids and gasses all promote order to name but one example. I would also draw your attention to Genetic Programming in which software is used to simulate the natural environment within which evolution operates. By emulating the raw materials and rules under which natural selection operates, autonomous design can emerge with no decisions made by any conscious operators. This is something that I often have to introduce people to as many believe evolution to be nothing more than a theory. The reality is that, as engineers have found, it also works very well in principle. I find this a very compelling reason to view the principle as the responsible agency for all the "design" we find around us.

[Thinian]

I've used GA's to solve problems, have you? (They're not very good at it.)

When 'conscious operators' create problem spaces, and morphing rules to produce an algorithm that mimics the promotion of order within an artificially created environment, itself the result of consciousness, I think all you've done is prove my point.

I think if you've though about this as much as you seem to have, you shouldd grasp that consciousness is very difficult to escape.

The thing is consciousness is integral in selection process so either its no longer 'natural' or consciousness is part of the natural universe. Its basically just a sementic argument, and those are always stalemates.

[Bugmaster]

I've used GA's to solve problems, have you? (They're not very good at it.)

It all depends on what kind of problem you have. GAs (and other optimization methods) perform poorly when the problem space contains many local maxima -- in which case the GA can easily get "stuck" there. However, GAs do perform better than the alternatives at many tasks, such as designing radio antennae, aircraft wings, and the like.

The thing is consciousness is integral in selection process so either its no longer 'natural' or consciousness is part of the natural universe. Its basically just a sementic argument, and those are always stalemates.

I can name several natural processes that increase order, are well-understood, and are not driven by any external consciousness:

* Crystallization
* Biological evolution
* Planet formation
* Hurricane formation

You may argue that there's still an invisible guiding hand that underlies these processes (and many others); however, we know the mechanisms behind them reasonably well, and they don't include consciousness of any kind.

I should also point out that the statement, "we don't know why certain things happen" does not automatically entail the statement, "a conscious force is making them happen". For example, until relatively recently, people did not know why the sky was blue -- but it did not automatically follow that someone has painted it blue on purpose.

[Thinian]

Of the four examples you gave only biological evolution orders in to relentlessly higher states.

Crystals form only the order implicit in their structure. And if you bombard them with energy, measure the rate at which the energy disapates, repeat. Each time they will give off their heat a little faster.

Planets just fall together, there is little order there, and again if you keep reheating them they dissolve (eventually).

Weather systems over time show no tendency to order themselves into higher more complex systems that have never occured before. They just pendulum back and forth.

And you can't use bilogical systems as proof of order without consciousness when consciousness so clearly permeates the biosphere.

I always find it amazing that people give examples like those as evidence of order when their complexity pales so completely up against that of life.

I'm not inventing an invisible hand. I'm simply observing that where ever the universe is most busily producing complexity consciousness is always there. The more complexity being produced, the more consciousness there seems to be lurking around. As I pointed out before you can willfully ignore this point, hey off you go, but it is way too readily observable to be discounted.

[QED]

I've used GA's to solve problems, have you? (They're not very good at it.)

"Not very good" is a qualitative assessment which is addressed by another page on the site I linked to. This details 36 human-competitive results produced by Genetic Programming. Of course this is just one collection in what is now a widespread and well established field. I don't know if you're aware of it but Genetic Programming solutions are available off-the-shelf for fee-paying customers. Without being too specific I can also personally vouch for their use in military applications.

When 'conscious operators' create problem spaces, and morphing rules to produce an algorithm that mimics the promotion of order within an artificially created environment, itself the result of consciousness, I think all you've done is prove my point.

That's a little disappointing Thinian, although I was half expecting a reply such as this. You're merely pointing at the human engineers involved in setting up a framework within which an algorithm can operate and saying "there you are -- consciousness is a pre-requisite". This is not properly reasoned. Nature provides physical constraints and an abundance of elementary ingredients upon which the simple logic of evolution is able to operate. Arguably the human engineers that are setting up the stage to simulate part of this might resemble the actions a presumed creator-God at t=0 but that's an entirely different argument.

Your argument is that consciousness is an essential ingredient in any design process and I have shown that is not the case. In the case of natural selection we have a simple goal which is not in need of any predetermination. Survival equates directly to persistence. Thus it is entirely to be expected that we will see all around us that which persists.

I think if you've though about this as much as you seem to have, you shouldd grasp that consciousness is very difficult to escape.

Not at all. From what I understand of the evolution of the unverse, consciousness is a very come-lately thing. An emergent from the complexities that have been in formulation for most of its history. Your view asks for something we never see - software existing prior to or independently from hardware. For your view to resonate with me you would have to show me an unambiguous example of hardware supervening on software. That this is scarce to the point of non-existence is what should make the material realist point of view the default and passs the burden of proof onto the dualist.

[Bugmaster]

Of the four examples you gave only biological evolution orders in to relentlessly higher states.

You are changing your standards. You are no longer asking merely for complexity, but for "relentlessly higher" complexity, whatever that means.

Planets just fall together, there is little order there, and again if you keep reheating them they dissolve (eventually).

Um... if you keep reheating anything, it will dissolve. Especially life. When you keep reheating life, it's called "cooking" :-)

And you can't use bilogical systems as proof of order without consciousness when consciousness so clearly permeates the biosphere.

It's not clear to me that it does; I'd need to see some evidence. As I said (and as QED is saying), the mechanisms behind biological evolution are fairly well understood, and they do not involve consciousness at all.

I'm not inventing an invisible hand. I'm simply observing that where ever the universe is most busily producing complexity consciousness is always there.

What do you mean by, "always" ? So far, we have one example of this relentless process you speak about: biological life on Earth. So, I guess technically you're right: in all the systems you have observed, complexity always produces consciousness, in 1 out of 1 == 100% of cases. That's kind of a trivial conclusion, though :-)

The more complexity being produced, the more consciousness there seems to be lurking around.

I don't think this is necessarily true. For example, the Internet is incredibly complex, but it's not conscious (though I heard Google is working on it, heh). Galaxies and star clusers are also very complex, but they're not conscious either.

I think what you're looking for is not mere complexity, but computational complexity: the amount of data that a given device can store and process. It can be argued that increasing computational complexity will inevitably give rise to consciousness; I'm personally not 100% sure about this, though.

[Thinian]

I don't think consciousness is an algorithm, its an algorithm maker that operates 'on the edge of chaos'. And it is an essential ingredient in all design processes evident here on the forward edge of time. I should not have said you 'proved' my point, only that the example of the totally consciousness created alogrithms and machines simply is another observable example of consciousness at work. Sorry for the sloppy language. But its tough luck for the position that your taking that the only way you can express or 'prove' it is by applying your consciousness. It's sort of the biological equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (which really pissed off a lot of physicists at the time).

The case that the laws of physics (as we understand them) will create life in the same way that the structure of some atoms will promote crystal growth has yet to be made. Of course you can conceptualise it, but that is not evidence of anything. A definitive case is hard (I think impossible) to make.

That I can believe consciousness is essentially a (the) fundemental force in (of) the universe with no adverse affects (I can't ignore any of the other major theories in the same way), and that, in fact, it make me feel quite empowered is to me the final nail in the coffin of evolution, and I think that mankind (as a whole) will never think otherwise.

But you believe whatever floats your boat.

I think we are done here.

[Bugmaster]

I don't think consciousness is an algorithm, its an algorithm maker that operates 'on the edge of chaos'.

Firstly, if consciousness is not an algorithm, then what is it ? Secondly, what does "on the edge of chaos" mean ?

And it is an essential ingredient in all design processes evident here on the forward edge of time.

That's true, but not very interesting. A design process is, by definition, consciously guided, therefore consciousness is evident in all design processes. However, given a process P, how can you tell whether it's a design process or not ?

But its tough luck for the position that your taking that the only way you can express or 'prove' it is by applying your consciousness.

Why is this a problem ? I'm not sure I follow.

The case that the laws of physics (as we understand them) will create life in the same way that the structure of some atoms will promote crystal growth has yet to be made.

I don't think this is necessarily true. For example, look at Jupiter. It's subject to the same laws of physics that Earth is, and yet it's totally lifeless.

That I can believe consciousness is essentially a (the) fundemental force in (of) the universe with no adverse affects (I can't ignore any of the other major theories in the same way), and that, in fact, it make me feel quite empowered is to me the final nail in the coffin of evolution, and I think that mankind (as a whole) will never think otherwise.

I am not sure what you mean by "adverse effects". Additionally, I understand that denying evolution makes you feel empowered, but that doesn't mean that evolution is false.

I think we are done here.

If you say so...

[QED]

I don\'t think consciousness is an algorithm, its an algorithm maker that operates \'on the edge of chaos\'. And it is an essential ingredient in all design processes evident here on the forward edge of time

If you're going to insist on telling us that consciousness is an essential ingredient in design You really ought to be prepared to explain why we find that we can derive autonomous design from unconscious genetic programs. So far you've only said it's not very good design which is a weak argument. Then you said conscious engineers were involved in the process who I pointed out played an irrelevant role (merely setting up a framework to mimic the natural environment in which evolution normally operates).

That I can believe consciousness is essentially a (the) fundemental force in (of) the universe with no adverse affects (I can\'t ignore any of the other major theories in the same way), and that, in fact, it make me feel quite empowered is to me the final nail in the coffin of evolution, and I think that mankind (as a whole) will never think otherwise.

This is not an argument in support of your claim, it is merely rhetoric that reflects your passionate desire to topple the theory of evolution. In my opinion if proponents of ID are intent on having the world adopt their viewpoint then they better be prepared to offer proper defences of their reasoning and not simply dodge the issues.

[Bugmaster]

If you're going to insist on telling us that consciousness is an essential ingredient in design...

I wouldn't call the work that GAs do "design". I think that design is, by definition, consciously guided -- but I do not think that evolution, crystallization, and other natural processes are examples of design.

But I guess that's just semantic nitpicking on my part...