ARROW OF TIME

Imagine an apple tree with branches growing over a pond. Were an apple to
fall into the center of the pond from one of the branches, waves would
propagate from pond's center, and eventually touch each point around the
boundary of the pond. But if we to make a motion picture of this event,
and then play the film backwards, we would see trillions of disturbances
originating at each point along the pond's boundary, and traveling toward
the pond's center.

The astounding thing is that were the events seen by playing the film
backwards to actually occur in nature, it would require each of the
trillions of amplitudes and phases of these waves to be SO precise, as to
CONSTRUCTIVELY ADD, not only on and throughout the surface of the pond--
but along each of the water molecules BELOW the pond's surface.

If these events were to actually occur, it would mean that the energy of
each of the trillions of disturbances would have collected and converged
exactly at the place where the apple was laying at the pond's bottom--
and have done so in such a way, as to launch the apple upward, away from
the pond's surface and toward the branch from which it fell.

Of course we are looking at a film that is being played backward. But
could what we're seeing on film actually occur in the real world? The
answer is of course no. The reason is that to do so, we would need to
SIMULTANEOUSLY coordinate the initial amplitude and phase of each point
along the pond's boundary-- an impossible feat.
 

MACROSCOPIC INITIAL CONDITIONS

Why can't macroscopic initial conditions be created to reverse events
that have occurred in space over the span of time? Why can't this be
done? The reason is that this kind of coordination requires signals that
contain energy, and energy cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
Therefore it is not possible to SIMULTANEOUSLY create the initial
conditions around the pond's boundary necessary to converge the energy at
the pond's center to hurl the apple upwards and back to the branch. To do
so requires the simultaneous communication of all of the points along the
pond's boundary.

But notice something: At the beginning, and before the apple fell into
the pond, the apple was SEPARATED from the water. Afterwards, when
everything was again at rest, the apple was at the bottom of the pond
i.e., the apple had MIXED with the water. A natural process (gravity)
pulled the apple toward the water, causing them to mix.
 

MACROSCOPIC IRREVERSIBILITY

I use this example to illustrate that no natural macroscopic process
exists that can reverse the situation and cause them to unmix. To do so
requires an impossible feat: the simultaneously coordination of initial
conditions around a boundary with spacial extent-- it cannot be done.

If, instead of one apple, we had considered several thousand apples, the
impossibility of reversing their paths would have escalated enormously.
Moreover, had all these apples fell into the pond, they would have been
distributed in some fashion throughout the bottom of the pond.

Had we described the distribution of all these apples throughout all of
the branches before they fell into the pond, and then described how they
were lying afterward on the bottom of the pond, our first description
would have embraced a more complex situation and, therefore, would have
required more information than the latter one.

The First Law of Thermophysics puts it this way: On average, complexity
(information) must decrease in a thermodynamically closed system i.e.,
within such systems, THINGS MIX and, in doing so, become less complex.
The distribution of apples lying along the bottom of the pond is less
complex than what existed before they fell.
 

THE CONCEPT OF DESIGN

I have said that nature mixes, whereas intelligence separates. But why
does intelligence separate? We can answer this question by observing that
desire, and the intent that seeks its fulfillment are both attributes of
intelligence. Intent is satisfied when intelligence designs objects that
fulfill desire, and objects that function with intention are said to have
purpose. Let's now use this to understand why "intelligence separates".

Designed objects have functionality that satisfies the intent of the
intelligence that designed them. Moreover, the functionality of designed
objects is an organizational property of the way that their parts are
separated. This warrants repeating: Functionality is an organizational
property of the way parts are separated. When we say, "intelligence
separates", what we are saying is that in doing so, intelligence is
creating functionality deemed necessary to satisfy its intent.
 

DESIGNED OBJECTS

Anything that functions with intention has purpose i.e., it has
functionality that satisfies the intent of its designer. For example,
consider a typewriter. Each of its parts are strategically separated to
print symbols (letters, numbers, etc.) on paper. An airplane has parts
that are organized with functionality that allows it to fly. A clock has
parts organized in a way that tracks and conveys time.

To summarize, intelligence satisfies its intent by creating functionality
as the outcome of an organizational interaction of all of the parts that
it strategically separates. The description needed to completely specify
all of the properties of each of the system's parts is then used to
quantify the complexity of the strategically separated (organized) parts.
This organization is the activity of intelligence. Conversely, and on
average, modern thermophysics teaches that random collisions destroy
information and, therefore, complexity.
 

RANDOM COMBINATIONS

Shuffle a new deck of playing cards and sequentially remove each card
from the pack face up. Let's assume that the first card is a jack of
diamonds. What was the probability that this particular card would occur?
Since the likelihood of any one of the 52 cards in the deck occurring
first is equal to that of any other, the probability that a jack of
diamonds would be the first to appear is a little under 2 percent i.e.,
(1 divided by 52). Suppose we deal the next card and find that it's a
four of spades. Since our deck now has 51 cards, when we remove this
second card the probability of it being a four of spaces is also slightly
under 2 percent (but this time calculated as 1 divided by 51).
 

SPECIAL COMBINATIONS

But let's now ask a different question: If we shuffle a brand new deck
and remove the first two cards from the deck, what is the probability
that the first card will be a jack of diamonds AND the second card will
be a four of spades? The answer is less than 4 ten-thousandths of one
percent (found by multiplying the two probabilities together (1 divided
by 52>, times <1 divided by 51).
 

PRECHOSEN COMBINATIONS

Let's now shuffle a new deck of cards, sequentially remove ALL of the
cards, and ask: What was the probability that this particular sequence of
cards would occur? The answer is found by multiplying <1 divided by 52),
times <1 divided by 51>, times <1 divided by 50>, and so on, all the way
down to <1 divided by 3), times <1 divided by 2>, times <1 divided by 1>,
where the last division is noted for completeness. This calculation shows
that the certainty that a specific PRECHOSEN COMBINATION of the 52 cards
NOT appearing is somewhat less than, but approximately equal to the
number 10 multiplied by itself sixty-seven times.
 

COMBINATORIAL FUNCTIONALITY REVISITED

The concept of a prechosen combination is important because as a
practical matter, when applied to Cytochrome-c, only ONE combination out
of the many trillions that are possible works-- and it works because the
microscopic structures within each of the amino acid components are
strategically separated from each other in locations that allow their
unique chemical properties to express the functionality of Cytochrome-c.
Stated differently, it works because, and as noted earlier, it's the ONLY
combination that provides the necessary (desired ?) functionality.

In other words, and like our deck of playing cards, MANY combinations are
possible. In the case of Cytochrome-c, the number of combinations
possible is well beyond the number 10 multiplied by itself 108 times.
However, and as a practical matter, only ONE of these combinations yields
the desired functionality (in this case respiration). The foundational
points are these: (1) Many combinations are possible. (2) The fact that
any one of them is certain to occur is meaningless. (3) The reason is
that only ONE of them offers the required functionality.
 

ORGANIZATIONAL PROPERTIES

Designed objects have functionality that transcends the properties of
their individual parts considered separately. For example, consider
glass, metal and phosphor. Considered individually, each has very limited
properties. But when we organize them in the right way, we can create a
television set. The functionality of a color television picture on the
screen is an organizational property that transcends the properties of
the individual parts of the television set taken separately.

Another example is hydrogen and oxygen. When each is considered by
itself, we have a gas. But when combined into a molecule with two
hydrogen atoms at a polar angle of about 104 degrees and one oxygen atom
at its vertex, we have water-- a substance that can take the form of a
solid (ice), a liquid (water), or a vapor (steam). The point is this: The
organizational properties of water transcend those of its constituent
individual parts considered separately.
 

SYSTEM STATES

The complexity of a physical system increases in nonlinear proportion
with the size of the description needed to completely specify all of the
separate parts. Such descriptions must include the location of each part,
the direction, rate and acceleration of its atomic motion, and all of its
physical properties including charge, mass, spin and so on. The complete
specification of all such properties of each part of the system at any
given moment constitutes the "state" of the system at that moment.
 

CONCEPT OF COMPLEXITY

One of the foundational contributions of information theory is that, for
the first time, it allowed us to quantify the degree to which we could
specify the complexity of a physical system. Simply put, scientists ask,
how many "states" can the system assume? Typically the answer is a very
large number. Scientists have chosen to record this number in terms of a
measure called "informational bits" that measure the complexity of a
system. These "bits" allow us to assess the complexity of a physical
system by quantifying the total number of states that it is capable of
assuming.
 

INFORMATIONAL CONSTRAINTS

The basic constraint imposed by modern thermophysics is that a
thermodynamically closed system characterized by a maximum of say, 10
states, cannot in and of itself regularly create systems capable of say,
100 states, and then 1000 states, and then 10,000 states, and so on. In
other words, a thermodynamically closed system cannot systematically
create information (complexity).

All thermodynamically closed systems wear this straight jacket and no
such systems can exist without it. It IS possible for such systems to
momentarily cycle into a more complex state, but ON AVERAGE the
complexity so created will not only be lost, but devolve into lower and
lower informational configurations-- not by choice, but by a
thermodynamic mandate that physical matter cannot circumvent.
 

FOSSIL RECORD ENIGMA

However, when we study fossils in the earth's crust, we see the opposite
happening. We see a systematic rise in complexity. For example, based
upon time measurements published in scientific literature, corals make
their appearance about 570 million years ago, whereas reptiles, come on
the scene about 375 million years ago. But the biological structure of
reptiles is far more complex than that of coral. This increase in fossil
complexity with time occurs for each of the life kinds.

Yet if our universe was spawned by Big Bang, it is a thermodynamically
closed system in which natural processes cannot SYSTEMATICALLY increase
complexity. But this is just what we see in the fossil record: Each life
kind appears with more complexity than the one that precedes it. How then
are we to explain this regular rise in complexity in the light of modern
Thermo and Astro physics? How can informational production of the order
of thousands, millions and billions of bits occur within a space-time
frame characterized by about only 280 bits? What is the origin of so vast a
complexity? Materialism offers no rational answer. The theist answers God.