Does the universe have CSI?

[geochron]

Taken as a whole, that is.

[FreezBee]

Taken as a whole, that is.

That would depend on the probability of the universe exhibiting by chance whichever pattern the universe taken as a whole exhibits.

Now, that would depend on the initial conditions, so it boils down to the probability of the initial conditions. But here we have a slight problem: which outcome space is the initial universe taken from?


- FreezBee

[oxmixmudd]

Taken as a whole, that is.

Give it a few billion years. The CBS broacasts will eventually get there too




Jim

[geochron]

Well, I started musing this way.

Some people argue that the universe is "fine tuned" to the emergence of intelligent life. This would be a form of specification. The universe is certainly complex. So I think it is arguable that the universe has CSI.

But if the universe has CSI, is it possible for some part of it not to have CSI?

As I said, it was musing. I've not come to a conclusion yet.

[FreezBee]

But if the universe has CSI, is it possible for some part of it not to have CSI?

Of course.

A coin tossing sequence of 100 heads has CSI, but the individual toss doesn't. so a whole can have CSI without a part having it as well.


- FreezBee

[geochron]

Of course.

A coin tossing sequence of 100 heads has CSI, but the individual toss doesn't. so a whole can have CSI without a part having it as well.


- FreezBee

Yes. of course. It's still part of a specified order but not in itself complex. Thanks.

[geochron]

Yes. of course. It's still part of a specified order but not in itself complex. Thanks.

So I need to rephrase the question.

If the universe is designed, can any complex part of it not have CSI?

Designed or not - if the universe has CSI from its "fine tuning", can any part of it not have CSI?

[FreezBee]

So I need to rephrase the question.

If the universe is designed, can any complex part of it not have CSI?

This is a lot more difficult to answer. What counts as a complex part?

In No Free Lunch p.148, Dembski writes:

William Dembski

Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified ...

© source where applicable

So, it's no so much a question of mere complexity, but whether you can identify a (sub)system independent of its environment - that is, whether you can come up with a specification for the (sub)system.

If you can identify a part as a specific part (not just a random subsection), it is specified, if you do not need knowledge about the whole for that identification.

On p. 161, he writes:

William Dembski

What turns specified information into complex specified information is that the quantity of information in the conceptual component is large.

© source where applicable

So, you have specified information, if you can identify a part without knowledge of the whole, and it's complex specified information (CSI), if the information content is sufficient large - which means larger than 500 bits in No Free Lunch.

But for Dembski it is of course sufficient to identify just one part with CSI to declare 'design'.

On p. 66, he writes

William Dembski

Specification depends on the knowledge of subjects. Is specification therefore subjective? Yes.

© source where applicable

That is, whether you can come up with a specification depends on your knowledge.

For instance, a trained physician is more likely to identify whether a person has the symptoms of some disease than the average person is.

That is, even if some part of the universe may not have CSI as far as you know, it may still have CSI as afr as somebody else knows.

All in all, the answer to your question should then be: yes.


- FreezBee