Easy proof for Inteligent Design

I notice that! There are two minor things here. First the usability of an apple and MS Word is different. This is obvious to everybody that you can't use the same verb for both. Secondly, we are not used to look at the world as codes. We always thought that when an apple tree bear fruit, there is some substance to it. But in fact what apple tree does is to assemble molecules based on a predefined code. Basically, mother nature did the first programming for us whilst in MS word case, Micro$oft did it for us! After that it is just copying! These codes then is stored in an special arrangement of molecules and atoms. First one becomes another (copy of) apple the second one another copy of MS Word! That's fine. Finally everyone will some day take the red pill! All these discussions were to show that necessary truths and logic, despite their being abstract concepts, they have roots in real world. That's why they existed before humans and there are here to stay. As necessary truths and logic are products of mind, therefore, an original reference mind must have been there at the birth of the creation to at least deal with the logical and coding aspects of the creation.Edited by MrQ, : revise

Hi, MrQ. I didn't see that coming. ----- I should point out here that you are trying to explain that reality lines up with our thought processes to a bunch of people whose thought processes you feel do not line up with reality.The fact that you have to make this argument suggests that there really isn’t as much correlation between our thought processes and reality as you want us to believe. Since this debate is happening, your argument is false in the case of at least some of us.However, my impression is that the exact opposite from what you say is true. I’ve found that people are generally very bad at thinking logically. Many people are, in fact, completely incapable of even recognizing what logic is. And, let’s not even start talking about how bad we are at mathematics.It takes a lot of effort to get our thought processes to line up with the way the world works. This is not consistent with your viewpoint.----- I don’t really get a sense of order when I look at the world around me.

---

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

The universe has a sense of order only because we as humans think it has order. 'Order' is a human-derived anthropic concept which has no meaning if there were not humans present to quantify it.In a alternate universe, the inhabitants may say that our universe was in disorder while there universe was in order and vice-versa.Now if you are using the term 'order' to mean the decrease of entropy in a closed system that also opens another can of worms as the arrow of time (entropy) at the quantum level does not always run in the same direction as it seems to do at the macroscopic level.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

There is another important difference between the two which I completely forgot and you implied it here correctly.That is our interest! I mean when you say I want an apple, in reality you mean you are not only interested in the information it contains but also the material that holds the information. Now for example, if I give you the material only which mean carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and other stuff, you would be exteremly unhappy. But if I add some of the information back. Means I give you main molecules of apple i.e sugars, vitamins and water etc you would be still be unhappy but not that much as before. Because ultimately you wanted to use it as an energy source which still serves the purpose in this form.But if you put MS Word example in the same context, you would see that the most important aspect of it is the information which you are interested in. That means that even if you asked me of a copy of MS Word on a CD and I give you a flash disk, you wouldn't be that unhappy because you know that first the information is usable like that second you can easily copy it to your preferred medium.Now in our apple example, if we had some imaginary printer that could assemble atoms and molecules based on the information then it would be the same scenario as MS Word. You could just download apple's code off from internet and print it! Then you would have a real nice apple!Edited by MrQ, : clarification

Ok I accept and agree! But what about the fact that we can at least able to line up our thought process? I mean when we try we eventually succeed for the most part. The fact that physical laws hold for the whole life of the universe is not enough for you?

Yes, our mind is designed to look for order. But we look for order in many things. We created SETI to look for signals from space that have order to find other intelligent beings. So far we didn't succeed. Similarly, we looked at the universe and derived physical laws. If we looked and found then defined this order this can't be an illusion. So there is no doubt that the order is there and it is definable and recognizable but whether this order mean something or not is something else. Because meaning is a product of mind and deals with purpose. If finding the meaning was easy then we wouldn't have this argument. But I here presented was the fact that if we start from necessary truths and logic we can draw conclusions easier than the physics.

In the same way that the non-designed Mandelbrot Set is a just a random mixed up curve in the complex plane?

I want to try to get back to the basics.1) Do you agree that necessary truths are necessarily true ?2) How, exactly does the dependence of physics on necessary truths work ?
Is it merely a requirement that the necessary truths, must in fact be true ?
If it is not, then what is it ?

Mandelbrot Set is not random enough. It still has recognizable order. Even random generator functions are not random enough. Creating true random is an increasingly difficult task in a universe with law and order(note for those who don't believe in it)! But so far what we found is that if you make it as random as quantum particles behavior then it would be sufficient. Currently, this is the best that we can do!

It is not random at all!!! That is the whole point. It is a perfect example of extreme order and complexity without design.

Yes. But that is tautology. So I have to agree! Yes for example we have E=MC^2. We should have some concept of equality in place before you could write such equation. I am not saying that these are real exactly as the way we write them. But what I claim is that equality is an abstract concept that has roots in real world and it is not imaginary. That's why E=MC^2 works! All parameters and equations in physics are based in mathematics and and logic and necessary truths. These necessary truths have some roots in real world which we can't show or define. As I said before in my discussions with nwr, you can never define any concrete thing. But we have an abstract concept attached to them to be able to recognize and present them. Therefore, although necessary truths are abstract concepts but they are not like Alice in wonderland! Most of people here think that it is just an illusion. I am claiming it can't be! I provided two reasons. One is the fact that they were true even before humans. Second, physical laws need them to be present.

No you are wrong! It only shows that how a small amount of disorder that is repeated in a loop can create a bigger more complex order. But all these are again based on necessary truths. You can't define anything without them. Remember loop by self is an order and is great example of it.

Really? What disorder? It is mathematics. The Universe itself shows itself to be inherently mathematical. That is not by design. It is the nature of reality. It is the designed universe that would make little sense and appear to be random in nature, unless the designer went out of its way to make such as universe look undesigned.A consistent necessary universe gives rise to an Earth with lifeforms such as tetrapods, but no hexapods such as dragons, pegasi, centaurs and angels. A designed universe has no such restrictions.

Thanks! That's what I am trying to say in the whole thread. So at least you accept that this is not an illusion but it is real! This is progress! Ok first you can't comment on the design part unless you know its creator's purpose. Second, it is very good that you accept it to this far that we have at least some order in the universe. Now if I want to interpret your question, in essence you are saying that if there was a mind behind this why there are also so much disorder is going on?!Answer to this is really easy! First of all we don't know what the designer wants to achieve. May be his goal was to create some sort of disorder as well! But in fact if you look carefully, this disorder is more harder to make than the order! As I mentioned before creating a true random generator was always a great problem for scientist! Now if we say it was hard to create disorder in an orderly world, then it must have a purpose for it! what is the purpose of it?! Disorder a great tool to provide diversity and optimization. We use it in mathematics as well. I give you an example. Imagine that you have a random number of cities which you need to fly to. Assume that the ticket cost is relative to the distance. If I asked you to define a path that give us the cheapest route what will you do? There are several algorithms in operation research for this and good ones have some sort of random selections in them. Heuristically they give better results. Another great example is the evolution process itself. We are using evolutionary algorithms in our designs everyday just for the sake of fact that they work very good in optimization.I didn't want to extend the argument this far. I just started this to prove there should be a reference mind. But put yourself in place of a timeless creator. Imagine that you want to create nicest aircraft in the world and you don't have any time restrictions. Then for you using an evolutionary algorithm would be the best bet. It takes little effort from you and gives you the most optimized results. Why would you bother to spend time and effort to design it peace by peace when you can develop a tool that can do it for you but in a longer time?Basically, here we are just trying to guess what was the purpose for the disorders. But this has nothing to do with our argument. The main part is the order. If we realize an accept that there is a mind behind this, then finding out the purpose of it is not very easy if not impossible.

No. The exact opposite. If there was a mind, I would expect more disorder. The order I see reveals no choice, no input, and so I can only conclude no design. If you can show me dragons (of the four legs, two wings variety) I will agree that there is a designer.