Easy proof for Inteligent Design

Hi, MrQ. How does this differ from your argument that necessary truths were not necessary before some other intelligence came about?

---

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

It seems like there might be some confusion afoot as to what "order" actually is. Hopefully I can aggravate that a bit.To begin with, because we really do not in fact have to start somewhere, you have nothing. No, less than that, not a thing at all. That vast empty expanse you are trying to imagine is dead wrong, there's no vastness, no emptiness, no expansion. If you can think of it, you don't have it, and even if you can't think of it, you still don't have it. Nothing Nil Nada Nicht Nein None.We will call this Void, for poetical reasons. Now somehow, expanding into or out of this nothing, we have, something. Oh, not just something, not even just everything, it's arbitrary and infinite and essentially the exact opposite of the nothing you were imagining to start with. This we can call Chaos.Now Void, in conjunction with Chaos, is expressed as entropy. That is, it is eating away at the substance of everything, taking its arbitrariness and distinct being and reducing them down closer and closer to nothing. In this conjunction it is just as correct to speak of Chaos as energy, and entropy as it's behavior over time in conjunction with Void.The result of this interaction is this, reality, we tend to try to live in. It's immeasurable but basically uniform over all, it definitely exists instead of being abstract like its parents, it's arbitrary locally but predictable in large chunks, it is plural rather than singular, and capable of being abstracted in such a way as to draw attention to its energy or to its entropy. In short, it is what we could call Order. Or Disorder, they are the same thing, a ratio between Chaos and Void we happen to find more or less comfortable.In this way we see that Order is not the opposite of Chaos at all, that Order without Chaos would be entirely null and Void. That's how it is. To summarize:0/x = 0 (nothing)
x/0 = n (infinity)
0/n = x (this (and/or that))* credit for this trick to Hesiod, though the live community has juiced it up over the years. You guys know who you are.Edited by Iblis, : kosmosEdited by Iblis, :

It is very simple my friend. I don't know why are you twisting it. Let me explain it in another way.We have an intuition and that intuition gives us neccessary truths. I guess you shouldn't have problems on this.Now everything we have in our mind it is either learned during our life or somehow programmed in our genes. Intuition is not something you learn as you can tell from its meaning. Therefore, we got it through our genes. This means that the mother nature during process of time coded it into us. How does mother nature do that? Based on physics and physical laws. Therefore, this intuition comes from reality and thus necessary truths have some roots in reality. We later on learned at the school how to present it but that doesn't undermines the fact that its inner meaning was in us since birth. Now tell me which part have problems I will explain again.

Interesting, but I don't see it help us that much in this. As if would be logical to have both order and chaos in the case world had a designer.

quote:

---

It is very simple my friend. I don't know why are you twisting it. Let me explain it in another way.

---

Asking for an explanation is NOT twisting your words in any way.

quote:

---

We have an intuition and that intuition gives us neccessary truths. I guess you shouldn't have problems on this.

---

I suggest reading my posts instead of guessing. If you had you would know that I do NOT agree that intuition gives us necessary truths.

quote:

---

Now everything we have in our mind it is either learned during our life or somehow programmed in our genes. Intuition is not something you learn as you can tell from its meaning. Therefore, we got it through our genes. This means that the mother nature during process of time coded it into us. How does mother nature do that? Based on physics and physical laws. Therefore, this intuition comes from reality and thus necessary truths have some roots in reality. We later on learned at the school how to present it but that doesn't undermines the fact that its inner meaning was in us since birth. Now tell me which part have problems I will explain again.

---

You are confusing the capability of intuition with the specific beliefs that are produced by intuition. Intuition is more about processing data - subconsciously - than about preprogrammed beliefs. And, as I have already said, necessary truths do not come from intuition. And in fact the necessary truths of mathematics are necessary only in the mathematical systems that we construct to represent reality - not in reality itself.However, let us get back to the point since you do not address it.In what way is physics dependent on necessary truths ? Is it dependent on them being true or on something else ? If it is something else, then what ? How does this support your argument that there must be some eternal mind ?This is the core of your argument and you will not explain it.

Then I suggest you read Intuition - WikipediaProcessing what data subconsciously? I didn't answer your second question because it is related. If we don't agree on the source and nature of these necessary truth, how can I show you that physical laws dependent on them? Therefore, I first suggest to find out were do we get it from? Is an illusion or it is some how reflection of physical world.

quote:

---

Then I suggest you read Intuition - Wikipedia

---

Which specifically says that the matter is debated. And in fact NEITHER side agrees with you.
The first side only states that our intuition can identify necessary truths, not that it provides us with necessary truths: The second side states that: Which obviously disagrees with you.

quote:

---

Processing what data subconsciously?

---

Potentially any and all data available to us, of course. We may not even have a good way of telling since it is subconscious and may use data that we are not even consciously aware of.

quote:

---

I didn't answer your second question because it is related. If we don't agree on the source and nature of these necessary truth, how can I show you that physical laws dependent on them? Therefore, I first suggest to find out were do we get it from? Is an illusion or it is some how reflection of physical world.

---

It would make thing much easier if you were to actually pay attention to my posts. The answer is neither. All necessary truths are tautologies, thus they are neither illusions nor reflections of the physical world.As I have stated there are necessary truths within the models that we build to represent aspects of the physical world. But they are necessary because they are tautologies within the model.

I am not talking about hidden variables. No, the probability distributions are an output of the theory - in no way are they designed. Perhaps you can show me which part of wave-function evolution is not deterministic? Don't be afraid of going technical, I used to teach this stuff Yes, of course. And why? Because I get pleasure from it - robot or not.

This is what I said. There should be a root for it somewhere that you can identify it. There are only two options, either our mind create these or it identify something that is already there. Therefore if I am not mistaken what you are implying is that we learn these unknowingly from environment. Isn't it? I guess we have some differences in definition of tautology as well. What tautology is in 1+1=2 or ~(~A)?

The fact that position vs time is shown as probability distribution rather than one exact point is not enough? Do you also deny intuition as well? Is it an illusion or it is real?

quote:

---

This is what I said.

---

So you DIDN'T say that we get necessary truths from our intuition. So where do YOU think we get them from ?

quote:

---

There should be a root for it somewhere that you can identify it. There are only two options, either our mind create these or it identify something that is already there.

---

In what sense would our minds create a necessary truth ? In what sense would it be "always there" ? I don't think that either option really captures the truth. It's obvious that our minds formulate necessary truths. It is obvious that they are true whether they are formulated or not. How do those facts fit with your two options ?

quote:

---

Therefore if I am not mistaken what you are implying is that we learn these unknowingly from environment. Isn't it?

---

You are heading off track. Since I don't accept that we really learn genuinely necessary truths through intuition at all how can the workings of intuition be relevant to how we learn necessary truths ?

quote:

---

I guess we have some differences in definition of tautology as well. What tautology is in 1+1=2 or ~(~A)?

---

Both follow necessarily from the axioms of the systems that contain them. Put them in a different system and they might not even be true or even meaningful.

OK lets go step by step to get out of the deadlock.
As we don't have any disagreements on the formulation part then we have to find the essence and nature of these necessary truths.Do you think that necessary truths are some sort of information? You said that these are tautology. That means that it is sort of redundant information that can be omitted. This is not tautology. Tautology is that the information repeated inside the statement itself. Like 'I am alive because I have life!

quote:

---

OK lets go step by step to get out of the deadlock.
As we don't have any disagreements on the formulation part then we have to find the essence and nature of these necessary truths.

---

OK. They're tautologies.

quote:

---

Do you think that necessary truths are some sort of information? You said that these are tautology. That means that it is sort of redundant information that can be omitted.

---

Actually it means that they convey NO information - or to be more accurate at best they may only make what is implicit, explicit.

quote:

---

This is not tautology. Tautology is that the information repeated inside the statement itself. Like 'I am alive because I have life!

---

The information is implicit in the definitions and in the system. If you "unpacked" them, wrote everything out in full, it would be there. But that is too cumbersome, which is why we don't do it.

Wave-functions don't have a position You are asking the wrong questions - don't expect classical answers when the Universe is quantum. Deny it? It's there all the time. But it is "simply" brain function.

Then it is not tautology. Please be exact with details. What system are you talking about? brain, mind, universe?