- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
|Powers of Ten|
|Pt. II||Verbal and Mathematical Logic Relating to Questions Presented||3|
|Pt. III||Case against Accident from Mathematical Probabilities in Molecular Biology||31|
|Pt. IV||The Problem of Complexity: The Generation of Sufficient Information Content||69|
|Pt. V||Case against Accident from Precision of Values in Particle Astrophysics Required for the Formation of Life||103|
|Pt. VI||Ethical Implications of Chance or Impersonal Beginning||177|
|Pt. VII||Summary and Conclusion||181|
|App||Some Important Physical Values||199|
|About the Author||245|
Posted January 20, 2006
The author effectively demonstrates that the irregular sequences in DNA cannot be produced from an algorithm. The almost random nature of the sequences necessary to transmit the high level of information content in the DNA of all living matter cannot be derived from an algorithm. Yockey has demonstrated, with Overman, that randomness and complexity are linked and required to form the irregular, periodic sequences required for information in DNA. Because the laws of physics are algorithms, Chaitin has demonstrated that algorithmic information theory precludes an adequate information sequence of letters in DNA. Overman, Chaitin, and Yockey are correct in their thinking, and the source of life is essentially unknowable.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 24, 2004
The book provides a very warm-and-fuzzy 'we are not alone' look at universe. It's a very engaging book, and will undeniably be the source of many exciting debates. But the book at its core is flawed. Not only does the author ignore the proof of existing emergence from simple systems such as neural networks and collective intelligence algorithms (as noted by a previous critic), but he engages in fundamental misjudgements when it comes to probabilistic reasoning. Using his line of reasoning, I can 'prove' that you (the reader of this review) do not exist. All you have to do is consider the probability of your existence: What if your dad made a bad impression on your mom for their first date? What if he decided to go to a different bar on the night they would have met each other? What if your great-great-great-grandfather had a cold on the night they would have conceived their child? There are an infinite number of events which must have occurred in a very specific order for you to be alive and reading this right now. According to the author's 'mathematical' logic, it is a statistical impossibility that you exist right now. So you must not exist, right? Either that, or the author made some collosal misjudgements in reasoning. You be the judge.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted September 22, 2001
LET ME BEGIN BY STATING,THAT I FOUND THIS BOOK SO VERY REFRESHING. SERIOUS QUESTIONS ARE ASKED OF THE PROPONANTS OF ACCIDENTAL SELF ORGANIZATION. AS REGARDS TO THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET. ANY ONE WHO HAS THE COURAGE TO LAY ASIDE THEIR PREDISPOSITIONS AND IDEAOLOGIES WHICH ONE MAY HOLD DEAR. WILL DISCOVER THAT WHAT MAY SEEM TO BE AN ESTABLISHED FACT, IS INDEED FAR FROM IT! NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART BUT FOR THOSE WHO ALLOW THE CHIPS TO FALL WHERE THEY MAY! HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 23, 2001
Overman argues against accident and self-organization as primary causes underlying the creation of the universe and the generation of life. I agree with Overman's general conclusion that an explanation for why there exists a universe at all, and one with the particular properties that it has, may require positing causes lying beyond the scope of scientific inquiry (i.e. 'God'). However, I disagree that the emergence of complex life forms similarly requires some sort of divine intervention. Specifically, in defending his arguments Overman does not consider fractals, neural networks, and other systems which generate emergent complex (not just ordered) behavior from simple algorithms and rules. In my opinion, a consideration of these well-known and impressive examples would have significantly weakened his argument against accident and self-organizational priniciples in the emergence of life. Otherwise, Overman's views are worthy of consideration by scientists, philosophers, and the general reader.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.