Easy proof for Inteligent Design

That's because of the way you put there. There should be something out there for your to observe. So physical reality is the key. Yes, we are no moving toward the original question's answers. Because we don't have proof for it. Basically, it is based on inductive reasoning. Material world based on what we know from it now looks like this and behaves like this. This is based on our understanding of the it till now. I don't understand why it is not the other way around. Do you have a proof for any constants in material world so that show how such a chaos and changing world suddenly gives you a concrete constant?

No, because we don't know any process other than abstraction to create them. Exactly like brain and mind. We couldn't find the reasons and the way that mind is created either. We don't know how and why the constants of physics are created and they are there. Also we don't know about why they relations should follow the necessary truths. At least nothing in material world that I know of can create this. Unless you show me the way it works, I don't see matter creates anything constant with its inherent changes. But the only and the only process that I know in this world that create constants is the mind.

I thought that you accepted the fact that necessary truths are there we just formulate and present them. We don't create them. So out model might not look exactly like the actual model but you can't deny that there is an actual model. The more we get close to it the more our model matches the reality. I didn't categorize constants to actual and non actual. Because there isn't any! Let's say what actual constant do you know so I can work base on that.

Give me one example? You are presenting a looping argument here. First you accepted that necessary truths have some roots in reality. But again you revert back to the rhetoric of tautologies. Think about result of your assumptions. What you basically mean is that necessary truths are hypothetical and product of our minds. They are necessary because we hypothetically think that they are necessary. But in fact they are not! This is the main idea that you accepted before and now changing your mind. Please once again clarify your position. Remember, what you assume has got consequences and once you accept one theory you need to accept its logical results as well. Ok what you are saying here is that you in fact you want to distinguish between necessity of the truth and the truth themselves. You are claiming that their necessity comes from human mind but truthness is real. With the same analogy I would claim truthness is also hypothetical. Because we call it truth in reality we don't have anything as truth. As I said everything in real world is changing. So you don't have any single constant truth. Therefore, necessary truths are hypothetical and product of human mind.

So reality is random and there is no model for it but we just force a model from our mind on it. Is that what you are saying? Then it is product of mind. As the system and its construction are the products of mind. I said constants are product of abstraction. Matter and energy don't have the capabilities to produce them. I never said constants don't exist. To me some abstract things are real. But to logical positivist like you, the only thing that is real is matter and energy which is of course 100% wrong! Mind is real and is abstract. Software is real and it is abstract. We have loads of things that are abstract and they are real. By real I mean that they do exist and they have vivid impact on matter and energy around them. Therefore they exist. They are different than fairy tales. I am not saying truths are relative but it is you who is saying! You don't say it directly but consequence of what you say is the same. Yes they are abstracts that are not changing and they are real.

What do you mean yes and no?! We are not dealing with fuzzy logic here. When the system and its context is product of mind then its necessities are also product of mind. Like for example euclidean geometry. It starts with some hypothetical axioms and after that everything is product of mind. But really is it?! does this mean that euclidean geometry have absolutely no relation with reality? That's simple my friend. Show me one single constant that isn't as I said and I will be convinced. There was. You agreed the system is product of mind. Its necessities are product of mind. Then why on earth suddenly the truth in it correspond to reality?! You yourself categorized software as abstract and I know I can print, change color of the screen and do everything from the software. So software is changing things around it. Of course, it controls everything through some limited and controlled gateways to physical world but the fact that the source and origin of influence starts from software is obvious. The same is true for mind.

Dimensions are actually totally abstract! Because in mathematics we create 1d and 2d things then we call 3d as 3d. But is there any really 1d or 2d shape?! No! Everything is 3d and you can't show it in reality. I accept the root of it is in the reality but as to my theory everything is like that. But the 3Dness is not real the way you described it.I told you everything that we deal with is abstract. There is no single concrete thing that we know about it. Because we observe things and our mind have some understanding of it. That understanding is unchanging but has a relation to reality that is changing. Example of it would an apple as I said. Computer software as I said and everything else. Because these are product of mind, that's why they don't change.Things that picked up by mind are like that error detection and correction in technology. For example if we send a signal with encoded bits in a wire, that signal gets to the other end in a totally different shape. So its physical reality changes. But the software and logical circuits are designed to extract the information from that noisy signal. So it appears to us that what you sent on one side is exactly what you get on the other side. But in fact physical reality of it is totally different. Then again you are saying that the whole concept of necessary truth are hypothetical. There is no concrete instance. It is just code that executes. The code is abstract. Then it is translated to bits and then goes to logical circuits with switches and then these switches turn the power on or off on an actual device. So everything is abstract. The physical reality of it is meaning less. It is not pointless. The fact that we can't copy it now doesn't mean we can never do it. Software is a software and consists of codes and instructions and information. So the nature of it is not material at all. It doesn't matter how you run it or where you run it.

I don't disagree with this in principle. May be the reference mind is build on top of early matter or may be matter has got an intrinsic basic mind attached to it and it is one properties of it. I suggest you read the last few posts of discussion between me and PaulK. I suggested that in real world only abstract things are static and matter and energy are constant changing world. The relationships between forces in physics are static and from a type that govern the whole universe. You can't have them unless the particles of matter relate to each other some how. The type of relationship is logical so it shows that is one sign of a mind. Well, I guess this is the nature of philosophy that it doesn't have anything easy in it. I mean I can make anything complex. For example, I can ask you prove to me that you exist! That's the problem. Many things in the world are not empirically verifiable. Some stuff we just use our deduction reasoning for their proof but can never verify them or their verification is very hard. Materialism always include logical positivism. I mentioned in my last few replies to PaulK that nature of matter is change. Whilst these rules and models are unchanging. You can't make unchanging thing on the based on change unless there is a mind. This is the only process that we know in the world that has this capability. Because of abstraction levels and requirements. Logical truths are constant and there should be some sort of abstraction layer on top of changing matter and energy to create and maintain them. Then why would us have such capability to be able to create it? What I am saying is that this ability is not coincidence. Well, I am talking about normal people. Of course those with genetically illness are excluded. Exactly! So necessary truths are intrinsic part of nature and with evolution process, it has been passed down to us. Well first of all logical positivist like Dawkins, they don't say they don't know. They say they know!No! Because love here is unprovable. So that's why it is hypothetical unless there is a way to prove it and define it. But necessary truth and logic is something that existed since beginning in the form of constants in physics. So to me that's a big coincidence and can't be explained by the matter alone. As I said there is only one process that can do that in the world and that is abstraction of mind.

Ok tell me how many dimensions do we have in a black hole?

We can't. But computer is not important for us. We can run it now on silicon and later may be we use quantum or even proteins. As soon as you have something that runs your code your will be happy. So the main thing is software not the hardware as the hardware part can change easily. You can run MS Word on Mac or PC. It doesn't matter to you as long as you have MS Word. I thought you said that dimensions are 3 and non-changing!Edited by MrQ, : No reason given.

Good question! Because you have to define loads of axioms and definitions to make it work. This along with early matter or energy would be the actual starting point. But as you can see this whole system becomes way too complex. It means that you have to assume a lot of things to exist before you can have any universe. I am just removing all this and put one mind instead. You might say the mind might be as complex as this system or even more complex. I claimed that mind actually is simple. But obviously we can't prove it until we can find out what does it consists of. But even without that, assuming that we could summarize all these axioms and assumptions and system in a mind would be better. It is more logical to put it this way.This assumption however has got great consequences. As when we have mind we will have purpose. But if we assume just a logical system it would be no use for it. Then one would ask, why should be a logical system exist after all? why not chaos? What I said was that, if you assume there is mind then logic and axioms automatically comes out of it. But if you have logic and axioms and no mind, still problem of abstraction exist. So in fact the mind will solve many problems at once. Exactly! but we are considering evidence and relationships to see whether things can be the way they are without mind? There are numerous questions with this regard:1- Why does matter behave based on logic and necessary truths? Normally what you expect from matter is total chaos.
2- Why our mind has got the ability to understand and define these logic and necessary truths? If we had purpose-less random system, we would expect that our brains work based on a different system rather than logic. As the system is abstract, you can have virtually infinite number of systems that you can imagine to occur. Why should we have the exact one that fits the nature?Considering above questions and the fact that our mind simply is not our brain would show some sort of special link between our mind and the original necessary truths and logic. Assuming this plus the inherent change that associated with matter makes it impossible to define these based on matter with no abstraction on top of it. It is like you claim that we send a signal in a wire and we get the exact signal on the other end! So no error detection or correction is needed! This is a nice hypothetical idea but reality doesn't work like this. In reality, change and fuzziness are the integral part of matter. But necessary truth should be static and clear. How do you reconcile this paradox?If we assume there is no mind. We still have to set the neccessary truths and logic as part of original uncaused cause. So in fact to have a working system we would need following:1- Necessary truths and logic
2- Matter or energy
3- Physical laws which are basically manifestation of necessary truths and logic on the matter and energy.So our uncaused cause would be a system of three parts which each of them consist of other components. If you look at this system you will see in fact you are starting with a complex system which is not going to be logical to be considered as random.If you agree with me that the mind would be the main uncaused cause, then all problems will be resolved. Even if you agree that mind is an integral part of matter would be Ok. Because the only uncaused cause that we would need in that case would be matter itself. But as soon as you say mind, then notion of purpose comes in. I don't know may be whole universe is a massive quantum parallel processor and we are just one tiny part of it. Aha! You see! you said "Describe its change". If you think about it this is the same as abstraction that I talked about. I asked PaulK to give me an example of non-changing material thing that doesn't need abstraction but creates abstraction by itself. He said 3 dimensions. But in fact he later on accepted that we don't know how many dimensions do we have in a black hole! He said it goes outside our universe! But in fact I don't care about our universe. I am talking about whole creation. The fact is that space-time fabric is too venerable and sensitive to matter and it constantly change and with it everything changes. Attribute can't be in anyway created by matter. Show me a single example and I will drop my case. Attributes are products of mind and through a process which is called abstraction. You simply can't get it at material level. As I said when you said attribute again mind automatically comes in. You need to change your question and create one with no attribute, relation or these kind of abstraction process in them. To create static non changing parts of the universe. Having the ability is also the problem. You might want to do many things but you won't able to. The fact that we wanted and are able to do it is not coincidence. You can try very hard to fit something on something else but ultimately fail. But we didn't. Show me one person who says 1+1<>2. But if somebody wants to twist it then you can twist anything. As I said we can start talking about your existence! Logic is different than love. You would need logic to have physical laws and you would need physical laws to have universe. But love doesn't come into this equation. May be at other levels but not this level that we are talking about. As I said abstraction has several layers. We are talking above just immediate level after material level.

Yes but that's immaterial to us. What we need is a working MS Word, we don't care what is under the hood. The fact that you would need something to store and process your information is different than information itself. Information in its essence exists and its existence doesn't depend on matter. But since we don't have anything else except matter to store this data in it, we are using it. Bizarrely what matter provides you is only change. If you have change then you can code information in it. If you don't have change then level of information would be 0! So for information to exist we need change and that's it. Our source of change is matter. Therefore 3dimentions are not that static as you described. If they were, you could easily and positively say even in blackholes we have 3D. But you can't!

Well, I don't have any problem you assume it like that. But what you are saying leads to the same result. If you think that these attributes are intrinsic properties of matter then you are assuming that mind is intrinsic part of matter. I really don't see why would matter should behave logical. It should have its own built in mind. May be it is some sort of primitive mind but it is mind. Because:1- It has processing power and can do calculations like 1+1=2
2- It has memory like axioms, constants and physical laws and relationships
3- It evolves to handle more calculations and processing and memoryThe only thing we haven't seen yet is consciousness. The reason for that is that we yet don't know what it is. That's why we can't comment on it as yet.Thus may be your and my definition of mind are different. I mentioned previously that mind is a concept that has simple forms exactly like matter. So I can assume that above mentioned system is some sort of early mind which is build or co-exist with early type of matter. I am afraid existence is also changing and fuzzy. We have quantum vacuum and other quantum objects that come and go in an instant which you are not able to tell whether they exist or not.I guess our overall discussion boils down to these two major questions and assertions:1- What is the definition of mind?
2- Can matter produce anything non-changing without abstraction?Wikipedia defines mind as following:"Mind (pronounced /ˈmaɪnd/) is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combination of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes. The term is often used to refer, by implication, to the thought processes of reason."Well, it is obvious that they have defined it based on human mind. But what I claim is that mind can have simpler parts. As I said mind is like a software for brain and every software consist of simpler parts and components. But can we call these simpler components as mind? No. Because when you put them together they would be complex enough to handle all aspects of the mind required in the definition. But I think we can define a simple mind which consist of main functionalities only. For example if we have computers with consciousness then I would call them to have mind. May be they don't posses emotions or imaginations but having processing power, logic, memory and self-awareness is enough for me. In fact self-awareness is some sort of imagination as well. These are the parts that I mentioned are specific properties of mind which is abstraction. So if I want to define a litmus test for mind, I would say check if it can do abstraction process independently. Like we tried very hard to train computers to identify shapes and objects. But still they are very primitive and require our assistance. But if some day, they could be able to identify objects and relations on their own and name them then I would say they have mind. Therefore:Abstraction is distinctive characteristic of mind which involves processing power, memory and thought to identify objects and relations and recognize them.Now moving forward to second question. I already mentioned my position. Matter is changing and fuzzy and can't produce anything constant on its own. It needs abstraction. I am still waiting for a single constant that matter produces without abstraction process involving in it.Edited by MrQ, : spell

Good it seems we are reaching to final target now. My proof is based on inductive reasoning. I am saying whatever we know from matter till now, doesn't give this capability. Therefore, I developed this theory. Now I am giving you a challenge. I am asking give me single constant thing that matter produces solely on its own which doesn't need abstraction process. Proton to electron mass needs abstraction. Because you have to define mass and its ratio. Listen my friend, there is absolutely no logical reason for any random mass to suddenly keep its ratios constant. It is like saying apple to pear weight ratio should be constant! Of course apples and pears can't keep this constant because they are not aware of each other and also they don't know what abstraction is. But if proton and electron can do that, it is because something that can give at least this overall supervision that can see these relations together and keep them true all the times. You are saying this is intrinsic property of it. I accept, but I say this is not normal for any random system. This shows a sign of abstraction and as per to my definition, there should exist a mind. Any software like MS Word. Even your example keeping ratios and relations are all abstraction. There are real and they are there.