Easy proof for Inteligent Design

I am not Blue Jay, but I'll comment anyway. MSWord, the program, is abstract.
The disk or CDROM that you have containing MSWord is physical.
The encoding of MSWord on that disk is physical, but it is not the program. Rather, that encoding is a physical representation of the program.I'll add that there is some disagreement about this question, though I think most computer scientists, mathematicians and philosophers would agree with me. You are correct. It isn't coincidence. It is because scientists try to design their description language to be as mathematical as possible. Sorry, no, it isn't. However, it is interwoven into the language we use to describe the universe, but that's because we designed our scientific language that way. Those of us who have taught classes on mathematics are aware that the human mind is not at all logical. Actually, no, the physical laws have little effect on you until you study them in class. It is the behavior of the universe that shapes us. The physical laws are just our way of describing that behavior. Actually, quantum physics uses some very mathematical laws, too. Speaking only for myself, I think logical positivism is silly. So, no, I am not a positivist. Actually, mathematics does not explain the world at all. However, I'll take it that you are really asking about why some of our scientific laws are so mathematical. That is actually because scientists choose to design their laws that way. Scientific laws are not God's prescription on how the world runs. Rather, they are man's prescription on how we describe the world. And while scientists cannot command the world to behave in particular ways, they often have some freedom of choice in how they design their description language. When they have sufficient freedom, they choose to make the description language as mathematically tractable as possible because that makes the resulting descriptions easier to use. LOL. If you read some of the philosophy literature, you will find lots of arguments and disagreements over what are necessary truths.

Very good. Now assume we have three copies of MS word one on CD one on flash disk and one running on a computer. Now, my question is how do you identify and present concrete part of MS Word? What is the difference between these three? Well I don't buy this. Assume that you are blind folded and there is a toolbox infront of you and one screw on the wall. I will ask you to open that screw, you just reach out and take one tool and that tool happens to match exactly the screw for opening!You might say we don't have any other tool, that's the only tool we have and also all screws only matches to this tool. In this case also you will affirm what I claimed that this happening is not a coincidence. You think about it, you can have infinite amount of screw types and tools. Why should we have the exact one that matches the screw?!

These are copies of the program. They are different physical representations.We would still say that they are the same program, not different programs. What makes MSWord abstract, is that we talk about it in ways that require it to be abstract. That we say all three copies are the same program (as distinct from saying that they are three different programs) is an example of that way of talking that requires that the program be abstract.I should add that the way we talk about the program reflects the way that we think about it. And it is the way that we think about it that has to do with it being abstract. I'm not sure why you think that has to do with anything.If you think science is a matter of marvelous coincidence, where the scientist just happens to have the right "tool", then you don't understand much about science. There is often a great struggle and lots of debate on how to organize a scientific study and how to formulate a theory.

Try to come out of the abstract part. I asked about the concrete part. I asked you to identify that for me. Like draw a border around the bits that constitutes MS Word. I don't want you to actually do it. Just tell me the process. Like for example we have flash disk that has many programs on it including MS Word. I want you to show me the concrete part of MS Word. You didn't get my point. Scientist do debates but all the debates are still in the realm of mathematics. For example they don't even consider art and literature. Why is that?! Because they know those won't work! Only mathematics works!

If MSWord is abstract, then there is no concrete part. The flash disk has electrical encodings (parts that are ionized). That's physical.We say that the flash disk has bits (binary digits). But bits are just how we interpret it in our minds. The flash disk physically (in concrete terms) has only the electrical encodings. We say that those encoding respresent the bits. Sometimes we talk losely and say that they are the bits. However a binary digit is purely a logical structure, and not physical at all. What is physical, is how we represent those binary digits in physical structure.MSWord is made of binary digits. So it is entirely abstract, though it is represented on the disk in those electrical encodings that represent the binary digits. Is that intended to be a serious comment? It seems like complete nonsense.There's no way you could build a scientific theory out of art and literature. You are not making sense when you suggest that.

Excellent! Now what an apple, is that abstract or concrete? That's what I said! You see mathematics and art both are abstract and products of mind. With one you can build a scientific theory with other you can't. It seems so natural to you that even thinking about it for you is a joke! But in fact, math and art both have the same root. You look at the nature, get inspired and then develop something out of your imagination. One is working the other one not. Why? because of logic! The first one is based on logic but the second isnt!

The apple that I eat is concrete (or non-abstract). After I have eaten it, then it is only a memory.The Apple computer is also concrete. The Apple Corporation is an abstraction.I'm not sure what you take to be the point of all that. Whether something is abstract depends mostly a matter of how we look at it, think about it, talk about it. Only in the broad sense that both are human inventions. Did it ever occur to you that mathematics is useful because it was made to be useful? Whether mathematics is based on logic is itself disputable.I have never understood this attitude to logic. Some people, such as you, seem to think that logic is some wondrous thing, a kind of magicI just see it as a name for some pragmatic methods we use to organize our thoughts.

Hi, MrQ. Personally, I think you're doing well. I'm impressed that you could even try discussing this topic in a foreign language. I speak Mandarin Chinese fairly well, but I wouldn't even attempt a discussion like this.What is your native language?----- Because math is a system of logic created by humans to explain reality. If our system for explaining reality didn’t explain reality, it would be stupid of us to try to use it to explain reality.Do you really believe that, if something can be explained, it must have been designed?
If so, how were you able to explain to us what a non-designed universe would be like here and here?----- Nobody has yet agreed with what you have said about necessary truths.
And, you disagreed with me that the logical fallacy of reification is actually a logical fallcy.
So, I think we can safely say that not all human beings agree on necessary truths and logic.----- Can matter be reprogrammed to not recognize and respect necessary truths, without actually changing the matter itself, like a computer can?If not, then we must conclude that your software analogy is inaccurate, and regard necessary truths as simply an innate part of matter.Edited by Bluejay, : fix dBCodes

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

OK, good now tell me if the apple you eat is concrete then can you identify and present its concrete parts? Like can you identify the molecules and atoms and draw a line around them and say this is an apple? Do you also call apple molecules an apple?Also then tell me what is freedom, abstract or concrete? Do you see any difference between an abstract subject like freedom and MS Word? That's true. But art is also useful! I don't understand how can you dispute that? If mathematics is not based on logic so it is based on what?

While the apple is still growing on the tree, there is a continuous exchange of atoms and molecules. Some atoms that were once part of the apple are replaced by others. Some new ones were added.After the apple matures and stops growing, the rate of molecular exchange with the environment reduces, but it does not stop completely.An apple is not defined in terms of the molecules. It is defined in terms of its characteristics (appearance, texture) and its history (how it came to be). Freedom, as a concept, is abstract. Particular instances of freedom might have physical aspects. I am inclined to say that the are different kinds of abstract things. However, I have never attempted to make a generic hierarchical classification of abstract things. But art was not made to be useful, though it sometimes is. Art was made to challenge the perceptions of people. I'm not sure I would say that it is based on anything, other than the desires of mathematicians to understand and idealize how they interact with the world. Formalism: the thesis that mathematics is based on the study of formal notations;
logicism: the thesis that mathematics is based on logic, andn is a branch of logic;
platonism: the thesis that mathematics is based on the study of platonic idea forms;
intuitionism: the thesis that mathematics is based on the study of human intuitions.Of those, platonism is perhaps the closest fit. And most mathematicians seem to be platonists. I consider myself a fictionalist, meaning that I see mathematical objects (such as numbers) as useful fictions, and I don't see mathematics as actually based on anything other than what mathematicians want to do.

That's for encouraging remarks. I speak Persian. That I totally understand. I remember there was Mr.Bean episode in which he went to a shop with a fish in hand tried to buy a frying pan that fits the fish! Ofcourse if you didn't know this, you would say what a coincidence that the fish length exactly matches the frying pan! But mathematics is not one or two parameters like frying pan! It is like a suit. You have to tailor make it. So far so good. We created mathematics exactly to describe the world. But why that should match our logic and our way of thinking?! So in our tailored suit case, it would be like after the tailor created the suit, he finds out that the same suit looks good on him as well! Not necessarily. This is a very hard area that so far we couldn't find any solutions for it. Dembsky did some stuff under 'Design Inference' but it is far from practical. Basically, all this mess is because of the fact that we can't say something is designed or not unless we have the knowledge and history of it. We don't know much from universe that's why we are bound to guess works.An non-designed universe to me would be a random mix of energy and mass. In this universe, there should not be any sense of order. So no laws and no rules. Do you also disagree with me that 1+1=2 and ~(~A)=A?! We don't have the power to change the mass because we didn't created it. We can change computer because we are its creator. So we program it in anyway we want. I suppose the mind who programmed the matter like this could easily program it in any other way. Edited by MrQ, : Spell

Thanks indeed! You have been extremely helpful! Now if you look deeper in the MS Word and apple case you would see them very much like each other. There is an abstract concept, product of mind, for both MS Word and apple. You can view it as just a name or concept. This abstract part doesn't change and we human share it. So for me and you an apple growing on tree or in a basket is still an apple even if its molecules change! The same is true about MS Word. The MS Word, on a flash disk, CD or running on a computer to us is still MS Word. But there its concrete part changes.To sum it up, if you have categorized apple as concrete then you need to categorize MS Word as concrete as well!To me, even this whole categorization is fallacy! This has been introduced since Greek era into philosophy. It is completely useless categorization based our current knowledge. The reason for it is that everything goes into our mind is abstract! We don't deal with anything concrete at all! As you said there are different categorization of abstract things and even different layers of it but they are all abstract! No matter how much we try we can't get close to concrete or reality of the world. As I said things get fuzzy and probabilistic. Basically it is impossible to define anything truly concrete! If you don't agree with me just give an example so I can work on it!Therefore to me a concrete object is an abstract one that has a relation with the real world. Based on this definition both apple and MS Word will be concrete. It depends what kind of art it is. But I don't know why our intention have a role in this? You said mathematics is useful, I said art is also useful. Why our intention to make them should play a role here?Apart from that, there are various parts of mathematics that looks exactly like art and is there to challenge perception. There are some uses of mathematics in art and vice versa. In some areas even you can't distinguish between them! When I said base of mathematics is logic, I didn't mean the roots of it. I didn't want to get into philosophy of mathematics. The point I wanted to make was that logic is an essential part of mathematics. No matter what view point you hold from the above mentioned philosophies, still all parts of mathematics deal with logic. Now, you might not believe that all mathematics can be reduced to logic but the fact that logic plays an essential role in mathematics is undeniable. Specially after defining the initial axioms which are agreed to be true things goes forward based on logic.Edited by MrQ, : SpellEdited by MrQ, : clarificationEdited by MrQ, : concreteEdited by MrQ, : grammer

Okay. We agree so far. And there, we completely disagree.The molecules of MSWord never change. That's because it does not have molecules. What constitutes MSWord, is a pattern of binary digit, and this is independent of what method we use to represent those binary digits.If I have an apple in my left hand, and an apple in my right had - those are two distinct apples. I happen to own two copies of MSOffice 2007. If I hold one in my left hand and one in my right hand, those are two distinct CD, but they are not two distinct MSWords. There is only one MSWord 2007. You can disagree all you like. But your disagreement won't change anything.You would need to come up with a different way of describing MSWord. But it would have to be a way that works just as well in our speech and our thought. Identifying MSWords with the molecules of the CD does not work for that. Is it? That is far from clear.Some logicians and philosophers think that mathematics is a branch of logic. But most mathematicians think that logic is a branch of mathematics, but is only a relatively small part of mathematics. But what does that mean?I have a Ph.D. in mathematics. However, I have never taken a class in logic in my life. No class in logic was ever prerequisite to studying mathematics. Clear, precise thing is essential to doing mathematics. If you want to identify logic with clear precise thinking, then I guess you could say that logic is essential. But I am inclined to think that a bit of a stretch. The Peano axioms are normally taken to define arithmetic. Yet arithmetic was being used 1000 years before the Peano axioms were ever defined. The idea that mathematics consists of logical derivation from axioms is seriously mistaken.

Binary digits are abstract concept as well. The only difference between the apple and MS Word example is that in MS Word, we have several layers of abstraction. When you have a copy of MS Word on physical medium like flash disk, it is bound to change! That's why error detection and corrections are necessary to read the bits back. If they stay long enough, you might even lose your MS Word! Like an apple, put it outside for long time and it will rot! If I asked you to eat an apple. You could eat the left one or right one. If I asked you give me a copy of MS Word 2007 or give me MS Word then also you could give me the left one or right one. But if I asked you to give the right one you can't give the left. The only difference between these two examples is that in the MS Word case, you can create new copies yourself. But in apple's case, you can't do it. But nature has got the capacity to do these copies for us. in principal, it does the same thing, it reads some codes and assembles proteins and other molecules to create that. Therefore to get a copy of apple the only thing you need to do is to find an apple tree! Identifying the apple with molecules also is not normal our speech. I just said these for you to realize that they are philosophically the same. The same way we treat apple, we also treat MS Word. When I say logic I never meant the logic that is taught in school. I meant the same deductive approach utilizing necessary truths. The same logical thinking as we use it in everyday speech. When we say for example this argument is logical, that doesn't mean that this argument is taught in logic course at the uni! But that logic course that is taught in uni has been extracted from the same logical thinking process of our minds. So they are related. Most of the times we use things based on our intuition and we don't define them. Actually philosophers job is to find these and try to define them somehow. Concepts like freedom, love and many other things are like this. Anyway, the whole point of my discussion was to say logic is essential part of mathematics.Edited by MrQ, : Clarification

Notice the difference between eating (in the case of the apple) and copying (in the case of MSWord). That's an example of why you cannot treat them equivalently.In any case, I am exiting from this discussion of the abstract. It has become pointless. I already mention in Message 76 that there is some disagreement about this. I believe I have adequately explained why I consider programs to be abstract, although this has not persuaded you. I will leave it at that.