The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency
The Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc.
Last updated on 23 November 2010
The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency states that physicochemical interactions are inadequate to explain the mathematical and formal nature of physical law relationships.
Many versions of a certain null hypothesis have been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature over the last decade with invitation to the world’s scientific community to falsify it (Abel, 2000, 2002, Abel and Trevors, 2005, Abel, 2006, Abel and Trevors, 2006, Abel, 2007, 2008, Abel, 2008, Abel, 2009, 2009, 2009, Abel, 2009, Abel, 2010, 2011, Trevors and Abel, 2004):
“If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
“No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
How can such a bold, dogmatic prediction possibly be made by any reputable scientist? The answer lies first in the fact that it is just a null hypothesis designed for open-minded testing. The author of the hypothesis himself actively pursues falsification. Its deliberately absolutist tone begs falsification all the more in the challenging spirit of quality science. Second, the hypothesis itself arises from logical inference in addition to seemingly universal empirical observation. The statement is not just a product of inductive reasoning. The latter would be subject to overturning with minimal new data that could arise around the next blind empirical corner. The prediction is rather a logically valid inference enjoying deductive absoluteness within its own axiomatic system. Baring fallacious inference, the only possibility of falsehood would be that the logic flows from a faulty axiom. If a presupposition (pre-assumption about the nature of reality) is “out of touch with reality (ontologic, objective being)” then the prediction might not be ‘helpful.” Unhelpfulness would be realized in the form of a prediction failure. Since no axiom is ever proven, science tends to proceed by assuming an axiomatic system to be tentatively valid, and testing it from many different directions through time. In this sense, all laws of science are considered best-thus-far generalizations subject to continuing experiment falsification.
...
Read more here/Leia mais aqui: Scitopics
+++++
Further reading/Leituras suplementares:
Abel, D.L. and Trevors, J.T., 2005, Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling 2: Open access (Link »)
Abel, D.L., 2008, 'The Cybernetic Cut': Progressing from description to prescription in systems theory. The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal 2: 234-244 Open access (Link »)
Abel, D.L., 2009, The GS (Genetic Selection) Principle. Frontiers in Bioscience 14: 2959-2969 Open access (Link »)
Abel, D.L., 2009, The capabilities of chaos and complexity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 10: 247-291 Open access (Link »)
Abel, D.L., 2010, Constraints vs. Controls. Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, open access (Link »)
