Some time ago, I made a post “Created or Evolved?” arguing that technology which is thought to be created, in fact, does not have a specific creator and rather evolves.
In my previous post, “Intelligence is in the Eye of the Beholder“, I pointed out that the term intelligence refers to the level of complexity. The term intelligent is usually reserved for systems complex enough that we don’t quite understand their behavior. Once we fully understand the system behavior, the illusion of intelligence disappears. This is why, although we have very complex devices today doing very sophisticated things, it is still believed that “artificial intelligence” (AI, for short) is still in the future. I think, it will always be.
Another necessary feature of intelligence is a perceived purpose. If we don’t see a purpose in system’s behavior, we don’t call the system intelligent.
Now, let’s put the pieces together and answer the question, was the world intelligently designed by a creator or has it evolved? Since even things created by humans do not have a single creator and rely on fusion of ideas to evolve from simple to complex, the world has, certainly, evolved. However, when a system appears to have a purpose and we do not fully understand how it works, we tend to consider it intelligent or designed by an intelligent agent. And the world does seem to fit this description.
Yet another post on the jaded topic of creation vs. evolution. This time, however, I will not question whether humans evolved. I’d like to consider what we mean when we say that things such as TV sets, computers, cars, pencils, and anything else created by humans have a creator. And I would like to defend the following thesis:
Technogy does not have a creator. Technology evolved.
This thought occured to me when I watched the Matt Ridley’s TED talk “When Ideas Have Sex” where he draws an analogy between evolution of living beings and evolution of ideas. What do we mean when we say that a TV set was “created”? Perhaps, it was built by workers in a Chinese factory. Have the workers created the TV set? Perhaps, they have no idea how and why it works. The workers, definitely, do not understand analog or digital signal processing, video codecs, or physics of radio transmission. But people who understand those things, have no understanding of PCB assembly or plastics manufacturing. Neither workers nor the TV designers understand the semiconductor device physics or the chemistry involved in semiconductor processing. So, who can be called a creator of a TV? Or, more specifically, a creator of your particular TV set?
This can be said not only about high technologies, but about anything “created” by human beings. Matt Ridley uses a low-tech pencil as an example:
I am of course quoting from a famous essayby Leonard Read, the economist in the 1950s,called “I, Pencil”in which he wrote about how a pencil came to be made,and how nobody knows even how to make a pencil,because the people who assemble it don’t know how to mine graphite,and they don’t know how to fell trees and that kind of thing.And what we’ve done in human society,through exchange and specialization,is we’ve createdthe ability to do things that we don’t even understand.It’s not the same with language.With language we have to transfer ideasthat we understand with each other.But with technology,we can actually do things that are beyond our capabilities.
This thought occured to me at work. My task was to test reliability of a new integrated circuit designed by the company I work for. I myself have a very vague understanding of how these tests are done. We hire a subcontractor company to run these reliability tests. But I need to tell the subcontractor how to turn on the chip. I came to the designer for instructions. The designer explained to me, which capacitors need to be attached to the device under test. He also said that to turn on the analog portion of the chip, I need to send a command to the on-chip processor. What command? How to send it? He had no idea. He used a computer program to do that, and the program was written by software engineers. What I carried out from this experience is that there is not a single person in the company who can tell me how the product works. The chip does not have a creator. But it does work!
It appears to me that when people talk about evolution and creation, they talk about the same damn thing, from a little different perspectives.
P.S. Another thought occured to me. In creation vs. evolution debates, evolutionists frequently say that evolution is supported by paleontology which proves that organisms historically appeared in a certain order. They say that if creationism were true, we could, potentially, find fossils of dinosaurs predating any known fossils of mollusks. But isn’t the same true of technology which is, undoubtedly, considered a human creation? Technological advances happen in certain order. E.g. a car cannot be invented before people discover a combustion engine, learn technology to process metals, obtain gasoline from oil, build roads, etc.
Moreover, when conditions are ripe for a certain technology to emerge, similar discoveries are often independently made by several people, often in different parts of the world. This means that if one scientist does not make the discovery, another will. And this seems inevitable. So, the will or the talent of individual scientists are irrelevant. Which also seem to support the idea that technological progress evolves independently from human will.
language can never point out anything specifically, only eliminate sets of possibilities (“possible worlds” for the modern philosopher or logician) from our consideration. That is, language – and therefore logic – can only say what isn’t the case. And that no matter how many possibilities were excluded by language, i.e., how specific our language, an infinite number would still remain (a now well-known property of infinite sets.) If, for example, we say that a friend of ours has red hair, someone listening to us knows that our friend doesn’t have black or light blonde colored hair, but not what precise shade, of all the infinite shades of red that are possible, their hair is. Nor do they know from what we’ve said how tall, or heavy, or witty our friend is. The possibilities are still infinite.
Visit the link and play with those interactive diagrams. It appears that to “say more” or “be more specific”, we need to exclude more possibilities. If what we say does not exclude any possibilities, our language becomes meaningless. “A or not A” does not exclude any possibilities. It’s a meaningless tautology. To create meaning, we need to draw lines between concepts. We need to separate “A” from “not A”. When we draw the line between “I” and “not I”, we become self-aware, conscious of who we are, our identity.
A few interesting associations come to mind. Remember Genesis?
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
I know, this does not sound like a factual account and science tells us that things may have appeared in a slightly different order. It does not seem to make sense that earth appeared before light and light appeared before any source of it. But what does make sense (at least, to myself) is that there is a lot of separation going on here. And separation of “A” from “not A” creates meaning. This is how the universe is conceived in our mind. Separation of concepts is the beginning of self-consciousness (realizing what is “I” and “not I”) and understanding of the universe.
But how is all this related to the physical universe? Let me note first that all these relations and separations between ideas and concepts exist only in our mind. What seems related to me may not seem related to you. My idea of the universe is different from another person’s idea. So, if you don’t see the connection, I would not argue, to be consistent with one of my fundamental beliefs. But, if you are interested, read on.
In 1920’s, a Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître suggested based on various observations that the universe is expanding debunking the theory that religious people are backwards and don’t get science. Tracing this expansion back in time, one can conclude that approximately 13.7 bln. years ago, the universe was quite small and seems to have a beginning. How close can we get to this mysterious “0 seconds” in universal time?
Quantum mechanics tells us that space and time are not continuous. They are discrete. There is a smallest measurable length called Planck length
According to the generalized uncertainty principle (a concept from speculative models of quantum gravity), the Planck length is, in principle, within a factor of order unity, the shortest measurable length – and no improvement in measurement instruments could change that. — Wikipedia
There is also the smallest measurable time interval called Planck time
≈ 5.39106(32) × 10−44 s
Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change. — Wikipedia
It seems that within the first 10−44 s of existence of the universe, we cannot detect any changes any more. The time stops. And when the universe was, perhaps, as small as 10−35 m, we cannot measure any distances either. It appears that the universe did not start at “0 seconds”. It started right after the first Planck time interval.
What was before Planck time? The plot says that the Planck time is
the time before which science is unable to describe the universe. At this point, the force of gravity separated from the electronuclear force.
In other words, before Planck time, there was a complete uncertainty. We cannot say that time, space, and matter did not exist. We cannot say that there was “nothing” or “vacuum” — a concept requiring space. We cannot say if anything existed. It was complete uncertainty.
Then there was the first “tick” of the quantum clock — the second Planck time in the history of the universe. Why did it happen? We cannot say, it happened according to the laws of physics. The laws of physics appeared with the first tick. All we can say is that, suddenly, we had all kinds of “separations”: gravity separated from electromagnetic force, “now” separated from “then”, “here” separated from “there”, “this” separated from “that”, light from darkness, etc. Suddenly, there is meaning, there are laws of physics, there is structure, there is order. “Creation of the universe” was not a transition from “nothing” to “everything”. I believe, creation was a transition from uncertainty and chaos to certainty and structure.
“Meaning is exclusion” has another interesting implication: all-inclusive and all-exclusive concepts are meaningless. “God created everything” is not a false statement. It just does not have much meaning if we try to explain how something came into existence. Omnipotence and omniscience have the same issue. This may be a topic of a different discussion.