Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

[celeste]

Tayga,
The Hermetic model is NOT bottom up. "As above,so below", is as top down as it gets. Interesting that Newton translated,and KEPT that model. His laws of motion are based on it. An object continues in it's state of uniform motion unless something OUTSIDE acts on it (not because all the particles inside the object collectively cause it to move).
In ancient times, people managed to figure out that single large scale events (often in the heavens), caused the large number of smaller scale events. For example,even without a great knowledge of botany, or solar physics, they still managed to figure out that the sun rising made the flowers open, not that flowers opening caused the sun to rise. The rising of the sun with Sirius, brought the Nile flood, not that Nile flooding caused the sun to rise where it did. There never has been an exception observed to this top down rule. Careful here. We THOUGHT that at least with radioactive decay, we had a small scale event that happened like clockwork, that could perhaps cause larger scale events. Even here we recently realized that decay rates themselves are affected by the larger scale electric field in which those particles sit.
So where did the bottom up idea come from, if we didn't need it to explain a single real world situation? It was one of those great untestable thought experiments. You've heard this one: "If we knew the exact position and momentum of every particle in the universe, we could determine every larger scale future event from that." Of course, we don't know for sure what the smallest particle is, and with the uncertainty principle, we can't even know the momentum for the smallest particles we currently see. How do we solve this?
Another thought experiment! Let's say we start with the smallest scale events, which thanks to the uncertainty principle, must for us remain random and chaotic. Can we begin to see patterns in these systems, which will be the cause of any larger scale structure or function? Let's call this idea "emergence". An example you will see here is the idea that a school of fish can take on a larger scale behavior based purely on how each fish reacts to the other fish, and it's environment.
The idea that they gloss over, comes with the fish reacting to the environment. That IS the below reacting to the above. Let's be specific here. A school of fish may split in half as a shark approaches. Can this behavior of the school really be best explained bottom up, or top down. If we tune out the shark, can we get an accurate count of fish in the school, see how each is swimming, an predict that the school will split? No, the cause does not lie there. On the other hand, we can watch the shark swim towards the middle of the school, and predict that the school will soon split into two. And we can make this prediction without even knowing how many fish are in the school. It's the shark at the top, that causes the behavior of the school as a whole.
It's interesting how backwards we have become. If ancient people thought that they could control some weather event (large scale behavior above) by some sacrifice they made (small scale behavior below), we would call that superstition. When we in modern times think that all the small scale events generate the large scale events (emergence), we call that science.
If only Newton or Hermes were here to bring us back to the truth: As above,so below.

[VelisEtRemis]

The only thing I see as utilizing top down organization is living organisms.

[tayga]

As above,so below.

Great answer, Celeste, and you've caused me to re-inspect my argument. The ultimate cause in Hermeticism is definitely at the top. Everything is mental; in the mind of the ALL. I suppose I was trying to describe the appearance of the evolutionary imperative as coming from the bottom up and the Hermetic argument is of total involution preceding evolution.

But that is in no way similar to an emergent property of dumb matter.

The whole quote is "As above, so below; as below, so above." but that's meant as a guide, I think

[VelisEtRemis]

I think the quantum mechanic insistence on universal mind is quite flawed!

[tayga]

I think the quantum mechanic insistence on universal mind is quite flawed!

I don't think there's any association between QM and universal mind, is there?

[jtb]

It occurred to me last night that the alternative to Intelligent Design is Dumb Luck.
jtb

[VelisEtRemis]

There are those who are attempting to relate QM and universal mind...it is pretty Interresting stuff.

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Q ... cale=en-US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM&sns=em

[tayga]

VelisEtRemis, from our recent exchanges I get the impression that you're interested in investigating the possible connection between consciousness and basement-level physical reality. Me too. I find QM a very dissatisfying match for causal consciousness, though. All that spooky action at a distance, unknowable-ness and pure chance seems anathema to a universe where consciousness operates.

That's why I asked whether you have heard of Sorce Theory. I've only recently discovered it myself but this looks like a theory of physical reality that undercuts QM and explains its observations, removes the mystery of entanglement and answers tough questions like how forces operate. Not only does it exposes some suprising assumptions we make but it also supports the aether concept which keeps appearing in discussions of electricity and magnetism.

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/

[VelisEtRemis]

Tayga,

Source Theory, from your link denies action at a distance. I know Einstein called QM spooky for this, but he did not think his gravitational theory incorrect for using action at a distance either. Electric, and magnetic phenomena, and QM demonstrate action at a distance. So what was his problem with this concept.

Action at a distance is just as real as material reality in my view. The particle, the field, and the force acting through space are all integrated into one truth, and not one is less substantial than the other. This action at a distance is undeniable. Particles themselves do not have a truly concrete existence either, they are identical bumps in the field, there is no unique electron...they are all exactly identical. A particle itself is chimera.

Einstein used the warping of space by matter to explain gravity, and light propagation through space with some very peculiar results. Since then, since he already used space compression, other scientists have attempted to explain the other forces by creating undetectable dimensions to explain the other forces. String theory does this, it invents seven extra dimensions to account for all the unknown forces and make them workable in the theory.

I like QM Theory.

I think if science was to go back to the two only fundamentals, space and energy, and work up from there it would save the idea of three dimensional space, and account for all four forces as particular states of the two fundamentals, space and energy.

[squiz]

Living proteins and nucleotides have no activity or life in them except when surrounded by the coherent organization of the aqueous environment in which they exist. These organizations are electrical in nature, based upon the principles of hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity.

No doubt electricity is involved, however the key player is information. It is information that is doing the organizing. Chemistry and physics is the expoited by the genetic code. Even a simple protein of 150 amino acids has been calculated as a 1 in 10^75 odds of forming by itself. Electricity by itself cannot accomplish this. The cell is a network of molecular machines, to call it the work of an organised aqueous solution is against everything ive learnt.
Single nucleotides actually break apart in water.

The most clear demonstration of this is the formation of the non DNA transcriptive protein collagen which dominates the protein content of the body. Collagen is mostly formed by the three hydrophilic amino acids, glycine, lysine, and proline. Collagen self assembles in the aqueous environment of the living organism. No deity required, just add water. Is it magic? No but it is amazing, and from my perspective life is magic!

Again this is a simplification, Ive never heard of non DNA transcriptive proteins. There are 34 known genes that produce collagen or procollagen which is repeatably modified by a variety of post transcriptional processes from a variety of molecular machines. I'm fairly certain it is much more than adding water.

It also says nothing about the organizational factor shaping different tissue types, it appears the "junk" is responsible fot regulating that. eg collagen has a helical rope structure, the only place that differs is in the eye where it forms a grid structure making it transparent instead of opaque. Once again information is running the show. Not chemistry or physics. A bottom up explanation cannot account for the translation system or the intergration of the vast networks in cells. This I think can easily be grasped by engineers and not biologists generally.

A computer is not running on the supernatural or an intangible life force, no deity required. There is no question though that it is a product of mind.

I see the design argument ultimately boiled down to one single question.

What mechanisms can create a semiotic relationship? I propose that intelligence is the only logical conclusion.
Falsification was mentioned before, this could be falsified by demonstrating how a semiosis can emerge unguided from natural forces. If you reason this out, knowing what semiosis is, a materialistic explanation is simply at a loss for even a hypothesis, the very concept is illogical. Semiosis is not chemistry or physics it is something entirely different it is a product of mind, it is not of the physical world.

[roughone]

Squiz,

If you do a simple google search for collagen self assembly and investigate
it then you will discover that collagen is fully capable of this and the
molecule in the proper aqueous environment contains all the information
required for synthesis. Hydrophobic/Hydrophilic electrical reactions
providing the mechanism as entrophic minimums are the over riding cause.

And also single nucleotides do not denature in the positively charged water
in which they exist, but this is not normal bulk water.

Attributing everything to DNA is an oversimplification.

[squiz]

Roughone,

I do know that collagen has been artificially produced in highly sophistacated intelligently designed experiments. It is not as simple as you are implying. It requires hands on attention from the chemists. Here is a recent example, Look at the details and starting point.
http://news.rice.edu/2012/09/25/rice-un ... -collagen/

To state that all you do is add water is rediculous. Many of the building blocks of life can be reproduced but building blocks are lightyears away from functional organised systems.

The are 34 genes associated with collagen production designated by the COL prefix. How then is DNA not involved?

This is how ithappens in biology.

1. Transcription of mRNA: There are approximately 34 genes associated with collagen formation, each coding for a specific mRNA sequence, and typically have the "COL" prefix. The beginning of collagen synthesis begins with turning on genes which are associated with the formation of a particular alpha peptide (typically alpha 1, 2 or 3).

2. Pre-pro-peptide Formation: Once the final mRNA exits from the cell nucleus and enters into the cytoplasm it links with the ribosomal subunits and the process of translation occurs. The early/first part of the new peptide is known as the signal sequence. The signal sequence on the N-terminal of the peptide is recognized by a signal recognition particle on the endoplasmic reticulum, which will be responsible for directing the pre-pro-peptide into the endoplasmic reticulum. Therefore, once the synthesis of new peptide is finished, it goes directly into the endoplasmic reticulum for post-translational processing. Note that it is now known as pre-pro-collagen.

3. Alpha Peptide to Procollagen: Three modifications of the pre-pro-peptide occur leading to the formation of the alpha peptide. Secondly, the triple helix known as procollagen is formed before being transported in a transport vesicle to the golgi apparatus. 1) The signal peptide on the N-terminal is dissolved, and the molecule is now known as propeptide (not procollagen). 2) Hydroxylation of lysines and prolines on propeptide by the enzymes prolyl hydroxylase and lysyl hydroxylase (to produce hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine) occurs to aid crosslinking of the alpha peptides. It is this enzymatic step that requires vitamin C as a cofactor. In scurvy, the lack of hydroxylation of prolines and lysines causes a looser triple helix (which is formed by 3 alpha peptides). 3) Glycosylation occurs by adding either glucose or galactose monomers onto the hydroxy groups that were placed onto lysines, but not on prolines. From here the hydroxylated and glycosylated propeptide twists towards the left very tightly and then three propeptides will form a triple helix. It is important to remember that this molecule, now known as procollagen (not propeptide) is composed of a twisted portion (center) and two loose ends on either end. At this point the procollagen is packaged into a transfer vesicle destined for the golgi apparatus.

3. Golgi Apparatus Modification: In the golgi apparatus, the procollagen goes through one last post-translational modification before being secreted out of the cell. In this step oligosaccharides (not monosaccharides like in step 3) are added, and then the procollagen is packaged into a secretory vesicle destined for the extracellular space.
Formation of Tropocollagen: Once outside the cell, membrane bound enzymes known as collagen peptidases, remove the "loose ends" of the procollagen molecule. What is left is known as tropocollagen. Defect in this step produces one of the many collagenopathies known as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. This step is absent when synthesizing type III, a type of fibrilar collagen.

4. Formation of the Collagen Fibril: Lysyl oxidase and extracellular enzyme produces the final step in the collagen synthesis pathway. This enzyme acts on lysines and hydroxylysines producing aldehyde groups, which will eventually undergo covalent bonding between tropocollagen molecules. This polymer of tropocollogen is known as a collagen fibril.

Self assembly is but a small part of a larger intergrated system. As i said it says nothing about the organizational factors forming different tissue types.

I'm fascinated by the role of electricity in biology, it was EU that started my interest in biology. I don't deny that some elements can self assemble. But it is the conditions and systems within the cell as a whole that allow it.

You stated that the molecule and the aqeous solution has all the information to do the job, why then are there 34 genes fo collagen? what about the regulating factors for different types? The above clearly refutes that. I don't think i'm the one doing the over simplification.

The previous poster broadly claimed that proteins can self assemble, this is simply not true. Darwinian evolution cannot account for even a single protein through selection acting on random variation. You need proteins to make proteins, many of them. Along with that are molecular machines that assist in the folding for many proteins. Make no mistake the cell is full of molecular machines, true nano technology engineers can only drool over.

nucleotides and peptides will break down in water, inside the cell is a different matter of course. This is a major stumbling block in origin of life theories, not for a pre existing system that allows it.

All of this is really small potatoes to my main point which is the emergence of code and prescriptive functional information.

A code implies knowledge and intent. How can it not? How can one arrangement of dead matter talk to another arrangement of dead matter without defined protocols and a system of defined symbols? Semiotics is not chemistry or physics. Materialism simply can not account for it, it's that simple. Generally in these debates people begin to deny that dna is a code, this is very telling because they really do know what code implies but won't allow themselves to accept the implications, not because of science but because of the false materialism world view they desparately cling to.

[roughone]

DNA is not the end all be all you make it out to be. It is just a recipe book primarily to produce globular proteins and enzymes. There is not much dynamic intelligence in DNA, in fact you can remove it all and a cell will continue to function without it for about a month, and fails only after the protein turnover has not been matched with synthesis.

This fixation on DNA confounds and obfuscates the real mechanisms of life function.

[squiz]

Roughone,

You are making a strawman here, I never said dna is the be all and end all. I have refered to intergrated systems several times. I don't see your point about removing the nucleus after all the enzymes and proteins have already been produced It makes no difference. Especially when I have not claimed DNA is all that is required. It's quite the opposite.

DNA does nothing by itself, this is a huge part of the problem and only compounds the inference to design.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/a_ ... 65521.html

See the numbers explode after even a handiful of intergrating parts? It is beyond comprehension. The same is true of a single protein.

[squiz]

It's just a recipe book? Books contain prescriptive coded information, semantics, symbols conveying non physical information or meaning carried by the physical medium of ink and paper. It is the specific arrangement of symbols that define the meaning. This is precisely my point. You must learn the protocols and know the code to extract the meaning otherwise it is just random squigles on paper. Yes it is a good analogy. Would we believe a book would be the product of self assembly?