|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Easy proof for Inteligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5082 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5082 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
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" 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Which leaves us the question of just what role they play in your argument.
quote: 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: Do they ? Which ones ?
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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. 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.
2- Freewill which is more controversial. But we have strong feeling for it. Feeling count for nothing - in fact, given past history, feelings tend to work opposite to reality.
If you want to categorize that as an illusion then we resort to categorize everything as illusion. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5082 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
That relationship would apply even if the equation were never known (unless you are denying that there is an objective reality). 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.
Do they ? Which ones ? 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.
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 ? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote:. You mean before you can describe it. It doesn't need any sort of definitions. How could it ? quote: 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: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5082 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
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. 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.
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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5082 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
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 ? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: Which one would that be ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, MrQ.
MrQ writes: Bluejay writes: 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. 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. 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. -----
MrQ writes: Bluejay writes: I don’t really get a sense of order when I look at the world around me. The fact that physical laws hold for the whole life of the universe is not enough for you? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5082 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5082 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But not in any way that helps your case. What is in the real world is NOT necessarily true.
quote: No, they don't. And necessary truths are true because they are tautologies. Nothing in the real world is needed.
quote: 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: If you think that this represents any sort of change in my position, you haven't been paying attention.
quote: I said no such thing.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, MrQ.
MrQ writes: You need to go one level higher than patterns to get to my viewpoint. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024