Entropy and Intelligence

[pooperman]

After several posts in a row in philosophy on intelligent design and similar subjects, I wanted to propose something I've been thinking about in this regard. As I see it, the critical problem in the debate over ID (and almost all theological questions) is one of sloppy definitions. In this case the prime culprit is "intelligence

Comments

[xorus]

The first thing I saw in it was, "Hm. Every point is connected to every other." Almost immediately noticed that.

Math adds an entire dimension (one dimension?) to perception of nature.

I've found that my thinking has very shifted over into the notion of "discovering" mathematical (or other) properties and exploring for what I do not yet know, whereas other people want to take their metaphors, preconceptions, values, whatever else, stand on one leg, and try to say the world "really" is as I know it to be

[pooperman]

(Now that was funny!)

Always start those conversations after coitus. Much better that way. Before, just agree and make her feel like she actually swayed you over to her position. They love that shit. (But of course not my wife--she's the exception and I would say that even if she didn't read my journal...)

Towards the end there I might have fallen into the same trap, pushing my theory of life as the consequence of entropy a bit too far into the metaphysical and out of the theory stage, but I drew pretty pictures, so that makes up for it.

[xorus]

Scene: Bed
Act: Cuddling

Alice: Whatcha thinking? *bats eyelashes*

Bob: *sigh* I don't know, it just bothers me... the Austrian school of economics is couched in Methodenstreit and praxeological analysis of economic phenomena, but the Mises and Hayekian forays into time preferenced capital good dislocation through interest rate credit distortion seem to make in fait accompli "time preference" an objective embedded temporal structure, but the underlying matter of time preference occurs in individuals; and, after all, how does the full intermediary capital structure confer a single 'natural' interest rate? It's not even bloody Austrian, babe, it's Wicksellian, Ricardian. And my god, where did all of this equilibrium-or-bust nonsense come from? Sure, there is a tendency toward equilibrium states, but there is nothing about "perfect competition" assumptions within pure marginal utility. You are chasing yourself into a brick wall by supposing coupled differential equations can model macro economic phenomena as you could the thermal

[tiresias2]

Bruce, brilliantly argued. I'm not going to add anything right now, except to encourage you to try to put a bunch of your stuff together and try to start seeking publication. This stuff is lacking no sophistication at all...

Anyway, your writing is very hofstader-like in laying down a sophisticated yet holistic and easily understood description-- if that makes any sense at all.

I want to start writing a book myself after this next year, but you should easily beat me to the punch... My response to this has nothing to do with your post, I realize, but this is solely an endorsement to get you published.. seriously man, if you haven't considered it, you should.

[pooperman]

Wow--thanks! Coming from anyone I would take that as a huge compliment. From you, however, it is a challenge and a curse! In this area (eloquence) I respect your opinion immensely, and such an endorsement (and a comparison to Hofstadter, no less!) may compel me to try my hand at publishing.

I've always had a goal to write a book. I always feel like I need to learn more, get a Ph.D., etc. before I have anything to offer the world.

A GEB-like project, however, would be fun! I think it took Hofstadter something like 15 years to complete that labor of love.

[tiresias2]

Well, at the very least, if you feel you still need to learn more... start putting things together and see what materializes as you go along...

Don't worry about the PhD thing... I think I'm going to try my hand without the PhD too. Let's see if we can beat the odds, eh? I got my money on you :-)

[pooperman]

That's good advice--just get started and see what I have after a time. Funny how much you actually accomplish when you just do it and stop second-guessing yourself.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

[jeffrock]

Intelligence is hard to define because it has different meanings in different contexts. Primarily, I think, it refers to some faculty possessed by conscious beings by virtue of which they are able to reason, compare, intuit and draw conclusions as well as produce things that require creativity and ingenuity (a poem, a sculpture or a mathematical theorem for example) in some sort of continuous and ordered fashion (as opposed to being totally random). The ID argument draws its strength from the fact that (to many) this universe, by virtue of its mathematical laws and ordering, appears to be governed by some sort of intelligence and not by some chaotic and random caprice. (There are other arguments in favor of ID, but this is the main one

[pooperman]

So my pretty pictures didn't sway you, eh

[jeffrock]

Instead of ignoring it like the idealist

What am I ignoring? Do you really think that the success of something like relativity theory, or quantum electrodynamics owes itself entirely to the bias' of the observers?

Entropic forces alone cannot give rise to intelligent life-- there must also be forces at work that produce order instead of eliminating it.

You may be focusing a bit too much on where you perceive our disagreements to be.

That's because our disagreements appear to be fundamental. You seem to think that the universe is rooted in chaos and that any order we perceive owes itself more to the biases of our own perception than the nature of the universe itself. I, on the other hand, believe precisely the opposite to be true-- ie, that the universe is rooted in order and any inability on our part to perceive it owes itself to our insufficient data and understanding.

[pooperman]

Again, you fail to see the potential convergence of our differnt approaches, and instead focus on where we differ.

"Entropic forces alone cannot give rise to intelligent life-- there must also be forces at work that produce order instead of eliminating it.""Entropic forces," to be truthful, is a first step. It is a label to shift the topic of discussion from one poorly defined term, "intelligence," to another, "entropy". Claiming that entropy causes complexity and therefore intelligence sets the stage. Next comes an attempt to better define things like "order", "entropy", and "intelligence

[jeffrock]

Oh yeah, and by "precise mathematical laws" I cite to the fact that, among other things, quantum theory can now make predictions accurate to such a degree that if you wished to measure the distance from New York to LA and achieve the same your measurement would have to come within a hairbreadth.

[pooperman]

What if that measurement was, instead of one hairbreadth, two hairbreadths? Three? Twenty? Please state, with some sort of accuracy, the maximum number of hairbreadths of error in this hypothetical measurment from NYC to LA that makes mathematics "remarkable" instead of just "interesting" or perhaps "ho-hum".

You could have replaced "hairbreadth" with "only dozens of inches" or even "a few yards" and still pretend to make the same statement with pretty much the same amount of rhetorical power.

Hmmm... "Philosophy of Error Analysis"... has a ring to it...

[jeffrock]

Please state, with some sort of accuracy, the maximum number of hairbreadths of error in this hypothetical measurment from NYC to LA that makes mathematics "remarkable" instead of just "interesting" or perhaps "ho-hum".

I don't know. What I do know is that the degree to which-- in QED and in many many other physical theories-- we can predict events with mathematical models (over and over again, independent of the particular observer) suggests to me beyond doubt that the order we perceive is no accident or act of imagination on our part. Please give me a good reason to believe that just because there are instances where people "correct" there observations to make them seem more ordered than really they are, that this is what happens every time we produce such models. Are you going to try and tell me that there aren't really any right angles in the world?

[pooperman]

What I'm saying is that the drive for parsimony is embraced by science. This drive is more than a bias, it is an institution. These aren't isolated "instances where people 'correct' their observations," they are the norm. And, I am not arguing with this notion all the way across the board--as you point out, parsimony works in many different places.

All I am calling for is for us to acknowledge this bias, and keep our eyes open and our minds open to the possibility that parsimony may be causing us to ignore some patterns that are less-intuitive, but more useful, than those that Ockham's razor demands we choose.

[habibekindheart]

I keep you on my friends list so my ego never gets out of control.

*wanders away feeling stupid*

[pooperman]

Did you like the pretty pictures?

:)

[habibekindheart]

It was the pretty pictures that did me in. You said they were MATH and my brain said 'fuck this...bye!'

Otherwise, they would have been pretty pictures. I'm still not understanding why someone would move the dots except to make it more visually appealing ;)

/chuckle