From Gordon Ackerman
Erik Foxcroft seems to suggest that there is some sort of linear relationship between intelligent input to research and other resources and time required to produce a result – such as artificial life (2 April, p 29).
I think this unfounded. Consider the time taken by, say, an 18-year-old to demonstrate in class a mathematical task such as integration by parts. Say they take 5 minutes. Will a pupil with half the intelligence resources, or half the “research input” or training – say a 13-year-old – take 10 minutes, or even 5 hours? I think it more likely you would never get a clear demonstration of that solution from that pupil, and you would be still less likely to get one if you reduced further to an 8-year-old. It seems that the time would rapidly run off to infinity as the research input was reduced to some required minimum.
Paul Davies clearly showed that some quite simple problems are incomputable in the age of the universe (5 March, p 34). Simply throwing bigger times and volumes at some problems is not sufficient.
Following Foxcroft’s letter, Steve Welch argues against John Athanasiou’s suggestion of the need for an intelligent input to the origin on life on the ground that it does not show a first cause. No theory does. The concept of the big bang only pushes back the question further as to what caused the initial conditions that could allow it. All theories have initial assumptions. Athanasiou simply argues that his assumptions seem to give him a better explanation of his observations.
Advertisement
Edinburgh, UK
