Well I guess it's how you define design. It designs in the sense that it produces something that simply works. Evolution/survival of the fittest is absolute and all human design is simply to imitate it's efficacy (its efficacy is perfect) in less time.
Well our argument is about semantics. If "designing" by your definition requires planning, then so be it.
The point is that when we design we try to create something that works. Evolution is basically the products produced by reality that work, and this is by definition. So in essence we try to speed up evolution by designing. We try to predict what works before it gets there by random luck. Obviously the simplest algorithm is to try random iterations that are completely independent of past ones, but this is essentially evolution. So what Linus is in favor of is guided evolution, that is instead of trying random iterations, we try to predict the next working iteration based on past knowledge, and identifying any patterns. Of course everyone probably does this. Unfortunately most people break out of this if they don't understand this, and may be blinded by ego. So when you can't admit you're doing something wrong, you're no longer designing through guided evolution, you're designing by complete random chance at best.
In any case evolution is the absolute process that design tries to mimick because its results are by definition what we are trying to achieve.
Does your definition of "designing" not include the concept of planning? I can see how "building" could forego planning (and result in poor products), but "design" implies planning I would argue.
Some comments about evolution:
1) Evolution very often has results that, if it were the product of design, would be considered very poor design
2) Evolution is not random luck. It is anything but random. Mutation is random, but evolution by natural selection is not.
3) Things do not evolve unless:
- there's replication
- there are mutations that natural selection can "see"
- there is pressure for certain kinds of mutations to be favored
1) Evolution always has results that will be considered poor design. Every time an evolved "design" becomes obsolete with respect to its surroundings, then it becomes a poor adaptation, at which point it must evolve again. But because this process is continuous, we consider this whole continuous process as evolution. As time increases, evolution will always force something to adjust to its environment and become perfect with it, therefore evolution as a whole can be considered absolute and perfect.
2) Evolution as a whole is absolute, so obviously it's not luck. The adaptations and changes before the perfect "design" arrives are determined by luck as you say.
When I say design I just mean the product of some systematic process. Planning is systematic, but so is evolution.
Comments
Well I guess it's how you define design. It designs in the sense that it produces something that simply works. Evolution/survival of the fittest is absolute and all human design is simply to imitate it's efficacy (its efficacy is perfect) in less time.
I think most people would agree that "designing" something means that its construction/development is planned. There's no planning in evolution.
Well our argument is about semantics. If "designing" by your definition requires planning, then so be it.
The point is that when we design we try to create something that works. Evolution is basically the products produced by reality that work, and this is by definition. So in essence we try to speed up evolution by designing. We try to predict what works before it gets there by random luck. Obviously the simplest algorithm is to try random iterations that are completely independent of past ones, but this is essentially evolution. So what Linus is in favor of is guided evolution, that is instead of trying random iterations, we try to predict the next working iteration based on past knowledge, and identifying any patterns. Of course everyone probably does this. Unfortunately most people break out of this if they don't understand this, and may be blinded by ego. So when you can't admit you're doing something wrong, you're no longer designing through guided evolution, you're designing by complete random chance at best.
In any case evolution is the absolute process that design tries to mimick because its results are by definition what we are trying to achieve.
Does your definition of "designing" not include the concept of planning? I can see how "building" could forego planning (and result in poor products), but "design" implies planning I would argue.
Some comments about evolution:
1) Evolution very often has results that, if it were the product of design, would be considered very poor design
2) Evolution is not random luck. It is anything but random. Mutation is random, but evolution by natural selection is not.
3) Things do not evolve unless:
In response to your bullet points:
1) Evolution always has results that will be considered poor design. Every time an evolved "design" becomes obsolete with respect to its surroundings, then it becomes a poor adaptation, at which point it must evolve again. But because this process is continuous, we consider this whole continuous process as evolution. As time increases, evolution will always force something to adjust to its environment and become perfect with it, therefore evolution as a whole can be considered absolute and perfect.
2) Evolution as a whole is absolute, so obviously it's not luck. The adaptations and changes before the perfect "design" arrives are determined by luck as you say.
When I say design I just mean the product of some systematic process. Planning is systematic, but so is evolution.