Here is a quote from Robert B. Laughlin's A Different Universe" - (Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Up).

A book that I keep returning to, I have found it not only a very good read but also one of the most interesting books that I've read for a long time. I strongly recommend it! It is like a piece of music you want to hear again and again.

I offer this quote for Gary Gaulin to study. Gary is the advocate of a "theory" he spent forty years developing - by writng a Visual Basic program that he thinks is a true simulation of life and billions of years of evolution. He thinks his 'theory' is

**theory if Intelligent Design. It is based on his belief that molecules and cells are intelligent.***the**real*
But let's listen to Laughlin:

QUOTE

Seeing structures like these for the first time causes
even a hard boiled reductionist to pause and wonder whether they might be
caused by some agency other than elementary quantum mechanic It is one thing to
explain ordered crystals of atoms with simple microcroscopic rules, but quite
another to do so with complex lifelike structures and shapes, especially when
one cannot deduce from first principles that these shapes should emerge. But
this common and perfectly reasonable viewpoint is exactly backward. In a world
with huge numbers of parts the unusual thing is
not complexity but its absence.
Simplicity in physics is an emergent phenomenon, not a mathematically
self-evident state from which any deviation is a worrisome anomaly.

It is somewhat easier to explain and defend this
assertion if you substitute the word

*random*for*complex.*Thus you roll a die and the number three comes up at random. This statement means that YOl did not know ahead of time which face would come up, that it is something unpredictable, and that the degree of unpredictability is measured by the number of possible outcomes, in this case six. Then is nothing random about the number three itself once it has been selected. It makes no sense for any particular die face to be "random.' Similarly, it makes no sense for an isolated shape to be “complex” Only the selection of one shape out of many, a physical process, can be complex. When we say a shape is complex we really mean that the physical process by which it forrned is unstable and with a slight nudge could have generated one of many different shapes. Similarly, we say a shape is simple if it is guaranteed to be forrned by a physical process the same way every time, even when nudged fairly violently.
Once you understand that simplicity in nature is the
exception. rather than the rule, it becomes easy to imagine that lifelike
patterns might emerge if the microscopic circumstances were suitable. It is not
possible to

*prove*that they emerge, but it is possible to prove that their emergence is reasonable and does not violate common sense.
One does
so by means of complexity theory, a branch of
mathemathics borne in the 1970s that subsumes the topics of chaos,
fractals, and cellular automata. The strategy of complexity theory is to so simplify
and abstract the equations of motion of matter that they can be solved reliably by computer. This abstraction,
however, is a pact with devil, since the resulting equations so grotesquely
distort things that you no longer have a faithful representation of nature. The
value of complexity theory is thus limited to showing that emergence of complex
patterns is reasonable. It cannot supply predictive models of any natural
phenomenon, and it is certainly not a fundamentally new way of thinking.

A simple
example of such a model is the mountain range fractal. A computerized map grid
is refined again and again, each time assigning a fictitious height to the new
grid point that is the average of eights of the adjacent old ones plus a random
increment that becomes smaller and smaller as the refinement proceeds. The
heights generated simulate the appearance of real mountain ranges so
effectively that they are often used in movies to generate backdrops, …

UNQUOTE

I am reminded of Gary's model of life: Like we can create real life-like models of mountaions and ranges in a computer, and we would create such even if we'd never observed a real mountain; Gary's model of life and evolution is not equivalent with real life and evolution. Look-alikeness is not evidence of identicality.

## No comments:

## Post a Comment