Easy proof for Inteligent Design

The fact that we have both order as well as disorder by itself invigorates the idea of design as both are required if you want to achieve anything usable.Now the level of order to disorder ratio is something again related to the intention of the designer. If you put yourself as a designer, you always put certain sets of controls over a random process to make sure it doesn't go beyond what you desire to do. If you see any equipment we make at least have a power button! If I was going to design a giant computer with massive processing power with a capability to evolve, I would definitely consider to put loads of safety checks that I wouldn't end up in a Matrix later! Remember it is not only earth, there are massive number of planets and stars out there which we have no idea what is going on them.

No, I see no disorder at all. All I see is a reality built of mathematical relationships. There is no room for disorder, for choice, for "designer input". Just as with the Mandlebrot Set. There is huge variety, but it all must be consistent. So there is no room for any god to play with its creation. You may think this "invigorates" the idea of design, and that is fine. But this does not begin to make even evidence, never mind "proof".Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Well, this was not my proof as I said. I was talking about necessary truths and not design and order. Anyway, As I, like you, don't call it a proof but it certainly counts. At least for me, if I want to stay as unbiased as possible.Regarding disorder and randomness, it is a huge topic by itself. There are two main proofs for it:1- Quantum mechanics which I agree still some scientist don't count them as random but I guess the majority agree that there is an inherent deep probabilistic character to quantum events.
2- Freewill which is more controversial. But we have strong feeling for it. If you want to categorize that as an illusion then we resort to categorize everything as illusion. Welcome to the wonderland!Edited by MrQ, : commas

quote:

---

Yes. But that is tautology. So I have to agree!

---

Which leaves us the question of just what role they play in your argument.

quote:

---

Yes for example we have E=MC^2. We should have some concept of equality in place before you could write such equation.

---

Neither E=mc^2 nor the concept of equality are necessary truths. And what is the relevance of writing the equation ? The equation is just a description of the relationship between mass and energy. That relationship would apply even if the equation were never known (unless you are denying that there is an objective reality).

quote:

---

These necessary truths have some roots in real world which we can't show or define.

---

Do they ? Which ones ?

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course necessary truths were tue before there were humans ! That isn't problematic in the slightest. But in what way do they need to be "present" for the laws of physics ?

This is in no way disorder - quite the opposite. QM is completely deterministic, and the probablistic features precisely follow the associated probability distributions. Furthermore, it is quite possible (and I think probable) that even this probablistic nature is a secondary effect. Given sufficient measuring apparatus and time, it would be possible to eliminate all but the most minor deistic tinkering. Feeling count for nothing - in fact, given past history, feelings tend to work opposite to reality. Nonsense. There is no mechanism known in science that can give rise to true "freewill", and all evidence so far suggests that "freewill" is merely a secondary effect of brain function. Why should such unambiguous reasoning lead anyone to suggest that "everything is illusion" as being a sensible conclusion?

The relationship is not just any kind of relationship. It is mathematical one and has got precise ratios and figures. This needs to be based on necessary truths and also logic. Exactly like 1+1=2. Basically, you have to have some sort of definition for summation and equality until you can define the relationship that you are talking about.For example if we have two gas molecules happen to be close to each other. Then you would come and define a relationship called 'being neighbor'. Then you claim based on that because these two molecules are 'neighbors' then somebody must have designed them like that I would say it is nonsense. But even in this case, if we have a truly random and chaos world and these two molecules of gas stay like that for a long time, then I would become suspicious that there should be something fishy going on. As relationships in random world is non-deterministic and come and go. If something is constant it would raise the flag.The fact that laws of physics are based on mathematics and logic and they always stay the same is a sign that they are not random. I gave example for necessary truths. Like ~(~A)=A and 1+1=2. I am claiming that these not abstract and illusional concepts that have no relation to the real world. The reason for it is laws of physics like E=MC^2 and this is just a sample out of many. Good at least you accept that they are not illusions and they are true all times. As I said it above the relationship that you were talking about requires them.

quote:

---

The relationship is not just any kind of relationship. It is mathematical one and has got precise ratios and figures. This needs to be based on necessary truths and also logic. Exactly like 1+1=2. Basically, you have to have some sort of definition for summation and equality until you can define the relationship that you are talking about.

---

.
You mean before you can describe it. It doesn't need any sort of definitions. How could it ?

quote:

---

The fact that laws of physics are based on mathematics and logic and they always stay the same is a sign that they are not random.

---

I have never said that they were random - certainly not in the sense that you mean here. But that is getting away from the basic point I am trying to discuss.

quote:

---

I gave example for necessary truths. Like ~(~A)=A and 1+1=2. I am claiming that these not abstract and illusional concepts that have no relation to the real world. The reason for it is laws of physics like E=MC^2 and this is just a sample out of many.

---

Both of the necessary truths you list are necessary only as a product of the definitions of the terms involved. And addition was intended to represent aspects of the real world so it is not surprising that it does so.The question is, can the meaning of these statements still be true even if there is no one to define the terms or formulate the statements or evaluate their truth ?
If they are truly necessary truths then surely they must be ?

Well many people claimed that there is a hidden variable and suggested loads of experiments. Eisenstein spent 20 years to find a hole in it. But so far it stands strong as before and we have no evidence of it breaking. Probability distributions are designed to predict the behavior of random variables over long period of time and huge number of repetitions. That's why they give the illusion that quantum world is also deterministic. But in fact it is not. There is no tool or apparatus that can prove it otherwise. Unless the whole theory will fail. Basically, you can't tell in any way what an electron will do at the next instant of time. You can say most probably it will be at some areas but I don't call that determinism. Then why would you even bother to participate in discussion?! Are we a bunch of robots just passing time here?!In fact I think belief in freewill is part of necessary truths discussion! According to philosophers, the source of neccessary truth is something that is called intuition. 1+1=2 seems true to us even without any priori knowledge or definition. The same is true for free will. So in fact if you reject freewill, you must reject necessary truths as well. Because all of these come under category of priori knowledge and beliefs. Therefore, we would end up in the same problem that we discussed about the reference mind.You can't build everything based on logic alone. That's why I always use two terms logic and necessary truths. Necessary truths are the axioms that are very basic and we don't provide any proof for them. Godel, in incompleteness theorem proved that you can't not create any logical mathematics system only by computation. You will always end up with something at the very basics that you need to accept as truth with no proofs.

Yes! That's why I said these necessary truths have something concrete in them that is not dependent on human mind. Because they were there before humans. Even you don't define them as they are now, its inner meanings and concept should have been there. Because E=MC^2 was there before us and the same equality and addition was used in it. So in fact even you don't know about mathematics you can extract them from physical laws. This shows we are not dealing just with some hypothetical concept in our mind. There is some reality attached to it. Also, read my previous post about intuition. It might help! In fact large part of mathematics have been extracted from physics. We need it to be used in physics that's why we developed it.

quote:

---

Yes! That's why I said these necessary truths have something concrete in them that is not dependent on human mind. Because they were there before humans.

---

I don't see why a tautology has to "be there" to be true. And I can't think of anything concrete that they would need. Your example of 1 + 1 = 2 deals entirely with abstractions,

quote:

---

Because E=MC^2 was there before us and the same equality and addition was used in it. So in fact even you don't know about mathematics you can extract them from physical laws

---

And I repeat that equality and addition are abstractions that we invented to describe aspects of reality. But the relationship described by E = mc^2 is not dependent on those concepts.So I am still waiting for some sort of explanation of how physics is dependent on "necessary truths" in a way that supports your argument.

quote:

---

Also, read my previous post about intuition.

---

Which one would that be ?

Hi, MrQ. This brings us right back to, "If we can explain it, it must have been designed." As far as I can tell, this is a non sequitur.----- You perceive the universe as obeying a certain set of rules. Thus, it looks orderly to you.
I perceive the universe as being the result of the interactions among a small set of processes. Thus, it does not look orderly to me.I do not pretend to have an explanation for why this small set of processes is happening. I simply observe that this is what is happening, and I view the laws as patterns in the occurrence of events.On the other hand, you assert that this small set of processes is happening because it is being actively imposed on the universe. Therefore, you view the laws as rules regulating the occurrence of events.Where I see patterns, you see rules. You assert that patterns cannot happen without rules, and that rules cannot exist without an intelligence to create them. I only see patterns, and admit that I cannot actually know what is required for those patterns to happen. Thus, I refrain from accepting that formal rules and intelligence are required to make patterns.

---

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

Ok good that you aleast agree that addition and equality describes aspects of reality. This means that there is something in real world that is related to it. In fact necessary truths comes to us as an intuition. So there must be something in real world to give us these.Now, lets assume that what you are saying is true and E=MC^2 is not dependent on these necessary truths. But these necessary truths were true since the beginning of the universe(you accepted this). Also, at least now you accept that these necessary truth are necessary to write this equation. Because it clearly has equation and summation. In fact if you sum it up, you will see that what you are saying is that necessary truth were not necessary before humans come about. Because physical laws don't depend on them and nothing else depend on them. This leads to a paradox and leads to this conclusion that necessary truth were not necessary after all and were result of human imagination. After we get extinct they go away as they have no usage! This is against our intuition!Edited by MrQ, : spell

I used the argument of the order as well as disorder as a side argument in this thread. My main focus was the roles of necessary truth and logic. This I only counted as a assisting proof not the main one. You need to go one level higher than patterns to get to my viewpoint.

quote:

---

Ok good that you aleast agree that addition and equality describes aspects of reality. This means that there is something in real world that is related to it.

---

But not in any way that helps your case. What is in the real world is NOT necessarily true.

quote:

---

In fact necessary truths comes to us as an intuition. So there must be something in real world to give us these.

---

No, they don't. And necessary truths are true because they are tautologies. Nothing in the real world is needed.

quote:

---

Now, lets assume that what you are saying is true and E=MC^2 is not dependent on these necessary truths.

---

Actually I am asking you to explain your claims. Obviously the real phenomenon is not dependent on the terms and formulas and descriptions we invent to describe it. So which necessary truths does it dependo no, and how ? And how does this help your argument ?

quote:

---

ut these necessary truths were true since the beginning of the universe(you accepted this). Also, at least now you accept that these necessary truth are necessary to write this equation. Because it clearly has equation and summation

---

If you think that this represents any sort of change in my position, you haven't been paying attention.

quote:

---

In fact if you sum it up, you will see that what you are saying is that necessary truth were not necessary before humans come about.

---

I said no such thing.

quote:

---

Because physical laws don't depend on them and nothing else depend on them. This leads to a paradox and leads to this conclusion that necessary truth were not necessary after all and were result of human imagination. After we get exist they go away as they have no usage! This is against our intuition!

---

I don't know what you are trying to say here. If necessary truths could be false there would be a problem but as you have conceded this is not possible. If a necessary truth isn't known by any conscious being on the other hand there is no problem at all,because physical laws do not depend on that at all.So come on, explain your argument. Because my intuition says that it is obviously wrong and I want to track down the problem.

Hi, MrQ. I did go one level higher, MrQ.
When I did, I found that there was nothing up there but bare assertions and circular logic.
So, I came back down to where there is evidence.
You would do well to do the same.

---

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