[_ Old Earth _] Intelligent Agency and Randomness

[Drew]

I assume that most readers, even non-Christians, will admit that it is at least possible that an intelligent agent has "guided" evolution. More specifically, I think that there is nothing inconsistent about buying completely into the laws of physics and into the existence of an intelligent agent who "tinkers" with things, without in anyway fiddling with these laws.

To give a decent defence of such a view, one needs to find a "role" for the intelligent agent that does not "trump" the laws of physics. Could the element of "randomness" that we see in nature serve as the "slot" to insert an intelligent agent into our description of nature? I assume we will all agree that our laws of physics give a role to random chance - for example the outcome of certain quantum events are described in terms of probabilities - the laws of physics seem to have an element of randomness written into them at the most fundamental of levels.

Is it not at least plausible that an intelligent agent could "guide the dice-rolling"? Under this situation, the intelligent agent plays a role in the course of events while not violating the laws of physics. One could counter that such "tinkering" would be easily discerned by us - if such an agent were really at work, then the outcomes of these "random" events would not really be random and we would find this out. But what if the action of the agent were incredibly subtle, orchestrating the outcomes of what seem to us to be random events so that certain purposes are achieved?

I have a follow-up post to make in which I want to ask those of you who know something about evolution (I know zilch) about "how lucky" we really are to be here.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Drew:

It is certainly possible, but I don't agree that it is necessarily detectable.

With probabilities, you will always have outliers. Outcomes that are very rare, yet certainly probable.

If God tinkers with these probabilities, there probably would be no way to know. As with your dice rolling....it is possible, but not probable, to roll a 7 a hundred times in a row. If it occured, there is no reason to think it was a tinker, even though the odds of it are extremely low. If it occured often (say at a rate a thousand times more often than it's statistical probability of occuring), then perhaps one could deduce a "hand".

For example, today one ticket in California won the Mega Millions worth $315 million (it wasn't me ). If God tinkered to allow that person to win, there is no way to know that, since there was a probability that someone would win in the first place, although extremely small.

I think that is the crux of the issue, is that the "guiding hand" in indescernable and untestable. And of course unfalsifyable. If it is detectable, but very difficult to do so, it seems like shell game by the hand to "almost" hide his influence, thus implying his nonexistance and appearing to attempt to cover up its existence.

I'm given to think of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy with such ideas.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Actually the ability to detect such tinkering would be possible as all the trillions of possiblities in evolution would be reduced by the pattern that that hand took in tinkering. The fact that probability still fits into Gaussian curves when it comes to evolution shows that there is less of a reason to believe that evolution has been tinkered with.

Unless you posit some omnipotent, omniscient deity who can create the precise set up to determine the outcome, which is problematic in that it breaks several well established principles in physics. Not the least of which is Heisenberg Uncertainty.

If an intelligent agent could guide dice rolls at a distance, then probability would skew toward that which they favor.
But there were times when our existence depends on luck and that luck, if we were omnicient would probably come down to sheer probability.

I have a follow-up post to make in which I want to ask those of you who know something about evolution (I know zilch) about "how lucky" we really are to be here.

Your honesty on that count is startlingly refreshing, I wish more IDers were like you.
We're just as lucky as whatever else would be here if we weren't here.

 

[Drew]

I am interested in what any evolution-knowledgeable people have to say about the following question. Let's imagine the earth at the time just after it has cooled down to the point where complex structures can begin to appear. I believe that this was about 4.5 billion years ago, maybe less. The question is as follows: From that vantage point in time, how likely will it be that any intelligent life (not necessarily "us") will evolve on the planet earth, given that there is no intelligent agent involved in any way?.

You should know that I am aware of the anthropic argument - I fully understand that if the Earth had not yielded intelligent life, there would be no Earth beings to ponder this very question. However, I maintain that my question is unaffected by this matter. And please do not presume to know how I would interpret an answer to my question. All these issues notwithstanding, there should exist an "objective" answer to the question of how likely the evolution of intelligent life would be, on this particular planet, after about 5 billion years.

Of course, I do not expect that anyone will really be able to answer this question. However, I suspect that experts in the fundamental mechanics and processes of evolution will be able to say something in this regard. For example, I would expect that the longer nature has to "experiment" with increasingly complex structures, the more likely it will be that life will evolve.

Returning to the present time, we presumably know something about "what had to have happened" in order for us (or some intelligent life) to be here. Are the mechanisms and processes involved so complex and the "steps" so numerous, that the Earth "got lucky" to give birth to intelligent life after only 4.6 billion years, or was the development of intelligent life pretty much inevitable?

Now I am aware of the possibility that "other possible histories" of the Earth could have yielded intelligent life and a different kind of "person" would be asking these self-same questions. I also assume that "other possible histories" would have resulted in no intelligent life. Do any of you evolution knowledgeable types have any sense of the a priori likelihood of an outcome with intelligent life by vs an outcome with no intelligent life after 4.5 billion years.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Very interesting question. I, by no means, am an expert or a scientist, but I will share my two cents. I agree that this conjecture is outside the bounds of the anthropic principle.

1. Without knowing exactly how abiogenesis occurs, I think it is difficult to calculate this. While the field has some exciting promise, without a demonstrated and testible method, I think it would be tough to calculate.

2. Drake's equation may give some direction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

The problem is few can agree on the variables.

According to the above site, we are talking about F(l) and F(i), which are currently estimated at:

F(l)=0.33
F(i)=0.0000001

So given a planet with the possibility for intellegent life, that would give you
0.000000033% or 1 in 30,303,030.

 

[Quath]

For the first part, I think we would be able to see a hand in play if God had messed with the randomness too much. For example, if every mutation in our ancestors were always for the better, it would show a clear sign that evolution was not random for us.

However, I could see it set up in a different way. God could have set up the initial conditions of the universe so we would form. So He didn't need to mess with evolution as it happened, just set it up so that the end result would be what He wanted.

For the second part, I have thought about it often. What are the odds of an Earth like planet developing life without an intelligent guiding hand? To simplify this, I just assume life is the first self replicating molecule. The problem is we don't know which molecule was the first. Was it a polypeptide? RNA? Was it formed in the pores of a rock or near a thermal vent? Unfortunately, there is still too much unknown to say what the odds are exactly. However, I would like to point out a few things:

1. We assume life started once. That is a bad assumption. Life could have started many times, but current life could easily overwhelm it since it si more evolved.

2. Amino acids are created naturally. Most of the building blocks are made naturally. To me that hints that life can easily start up.

3. If you know the probability of life starting naturally on a planet, all you have figured out is roughly how far on average life starts up. So say the probability is 1%. If there are 100 million earth life planets in our galaxy, then we expect 1 million planets to have life generated naurally. If you lower the percentage, you just make it less likely. Make it small enough and it may be 1 planet per galaxy on average. Lower it more and it may be 1 out of 100 million galaxies. What is not known is the size of the universe. Currently, it is assumed to be infinite by several variations of the Big Bang. In that case, the probability that life forms in our universe is 100% and it will form an infinite number of times.

Quath

 

[Loren Michael]

3. If you know the probability of life starting naturally on a planet, all you have figured out is roughly how far on average life starts up. So say the probability is 1%. If there are 100 million earth life planets in our galaxy, then we expect 1 million planets to have life generated naurally. If you lower the percentage, you just make it less likely. Make it small enough and it may be 1 planet per galaxy on average. Lower it more and it may be 1 out of 100 million galaxies. What is not known is the size of the universe. Currently, it is assumed to be infinite by several variations of the Big Bang. In that case, the probability that life forms in our universe is 100% and it will form an infinite number of times.

Quath

just an interesting side note, there are roughly seventy thousand million million stars in the known galaxy. that figure is simply what our telescopes can actually see. the bigger/better telescopes we have, the bigger the known universe is. the "infinite" figure may very well be true. to get an idea of how massive that figure is, consider all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth.

stars outnumber said grains of sand. that's a lot of potential.

 

[Solo]

And now one's faith comes into play. One's faith either believes that their is no intelligent creator, therefore this all came about some other way which I will never know,

Or

There is a God, but he had little to do with creating life as life evolved from the inanimate objects that God created,

Or

Creator God is so awesome that he created the heavens and the earth placing life on earth in such a marvelous way that no man will ever know the whole truth of how his word can do such a thing until we can ask him face to face.

The faith that governs my understanding of science and the evidence is the latter.

Others have a different faith. One day we will all be brought to the point of knowing whose faith is true, and whose faith is false.

 

[Drew]

When I began this thread, I was hopeful that we might have been able to identify some way to determine if God (or more generally, any intelligent agent) had "tinkered with the dice rolls". I am now more skeptical about this. As TM has pointed out in his lottery analogy, it is possible that God tinkers with with the outcomes of random events, but we probably will not be able to reliably conclude that this has occurred.

The fundamental reason is that no matter how "directed" random events seem to be, one can always counter with the argument that there are "zillions" of possible worlds, each with its own history. Some of those histories are certainly going to appear to be directed. With so many worlds to choose from, in some "world", the same person will win the lottery over and over again, making people in that world think that this guy is clearly favoured by some intelligent agent.

In short, any history (series of events) that appears "directed" or to be the product of intelligent tinkering with probabilities, can also be understood as being the product of truly random effects. So I am not sure we can make much progress.

I still think that there is no justification to throw out the notion that God does tinker with events that we presently understand to have a fundamental element of randomness. The world we see before us appears to be entirely consistent with such a supposition.

 

[Solo]

When I began this thread, I was hopeful that we might have been able to identify some way to determine if God (or more generally, any intelligent agent) had "tinkered with the dice rolls". I am now more skeptical about this. As TM has pointed out in his lottery analogy, it is possible that God tinkers with with the outcomes of random events, but we probably will not be able to reliably conclude that this has occurred.

The fundamental reason is that no matter how "directed" random events seem to be, one can always counter with the argument that there are "zillions" of possible worlds, each with its own history. Some of those histories are certainly going to appear to be directed. With so many worlds to choose from, in some "world", the same person will win the lottery over and over again, making people in that world think that this guy is clearly favoured by some intelligent agent.

In short, any history (series of events) that appears "directed" or to be the product of intelligent tinkering with probabilities, can also be understood as being the product of truly random effects. So I am not sure we can make much progress.

I still think that there is no justification to throw out the notion that God does tinker with events that we presently understand to have a fundamental element of randomness. The world we see before us appears to be entirely consistent with such a supposition.

The closer one draws to God the easier it is to see him at work. Those that do not know God will not recognize him or his work. Those that are closer to the world than God will see worldly wisdom and not God's wisdom.

Simple.

 

[Heidi]

Sorry, but faith has nothing to do with it. It's all about truth and fiction. It's either true or it's not that there is a God. And one day all will know what it is. :wink:

 

[Solo]

Sorry, but faith has nothing to do with it. It's all about truth and fiction. It's either true or it's not that there is a God. And one day all will know what it is. :wink:

I agree. But knowing the truth is solely dependent upon our faith in Jesus Christ, otherwise believers would not know squat either. :D

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

It's an interesting theological question, whether God would make a universe where everything was predetermined by his choice of events occuring, or by his direct involvement in the universe.
Drew I suggest The Correspondence between Leibniz and Clarke. It's a good fleshing out of the debate in itself.

 

[Drew]

I assume that many of you are familiar with chaos theory. I hope I am correct in characterizing it very generally as follows: In some systems, overall system behaviour can be extremely sensitive to minute variations in independent variables. A classic example I have heard involves a butterfly and a hurricane. Whether or not the devastating hurricane even forms or not can depend on whether or not a butterfly decides to go for a little flight (presumably the formation of the hurricane can depend on whether or not he flapped his little wings).

With this in mind, it seems at least plausible that God (or any intelligent agent) might be able to produce a significant impact on human history through even the most minute "tinkering" with nature (with such tinkering "brought into the loop" at times where the laws of nature "demand a dice roll"). God could play a major role in the history of the world and we could not reasonably expect to figure this out.

 

[cubedbee]

I assume that many of you are familiar with chaos theory. I hope I am correct in characterizing it very generally as follows: In some systems, overall system behaviour can be extremely sensitive to minute variations in independent variables. A classic example I have heard involves a butterfly and a hurricane.

This is correct, although I want to clarify that randomness has no part of chaos theory. CT systems are completely deterministic, there is no aspect of probability, if the initial state is known then the final state can be known with 100% certainty. It's the complexity of the initial state and our inability to completely describe it, not any random variables, which make forecasting impossible.

 

[Drew]

Greetings CubedBee:

I hear what you are saying and do not disagree. However, I would like to suggest that the fact that nature exhibits chaotic behaviour at all adds a certain degree of plausibility to the theory I am proposing (I do not know if you have read this entire thread). I am arguing that a very subtle form of intelligent design can be postulated that does not in any way violate the laws of physics.

I am suggesting the possibility that God "tinkers" with the dice rolls of quantum level events in order to fulfill his ultimate purposes. In the same way that the development of a monster hurricane can depend on whether a butterfly takes flight, so can large scale world events be "caused" (I use this word guardedly) by minute acts of "direction" by God, specifically in respect to quantum level events which we presently consider to be not fully deterministic.