Logical Proof of Intelligent Design

Logical Proof of Intelligent Design:The universe is defined as the totality of all that exists.Within the universe, cause precedes effect.If cause, then effect:If A then BATherefore BThe purpose of "cause" is to create an effect.Cause and effect are mutually dependent. If there is no effect, then there is no cause:If not B then not A,not Btherefore not AThe universe creates its own purpose. If it did not create its own purpose, it would be totally chaotic, or, it would be totally deterministic. We observe the universe as a system with consistent laws, therefore, it is not totally chaotic.The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle explains that both the position and momentum of a particle, cannot be determined precisely, and this uncertainty is an intrinsic property of the universe, so the universe cannot be totally deterministic.Therefore, the universe creates its own purpose.Purpose implies intent, intent implies mind, mind implies intelligence.If the universe is an effect, and the cause of the effect is within the universe, then the universe creates itself.Therefore:The universe is an intelligent mind.Russell E. Rierson
analog57@yahoo.com

Flaw:

quote:

---

Within the universe, cause precedes effect.

---

This isn't true. Sometimes, effects have no cause. That's the horrible thing about quantum mechanics.Flaw:

quote:

---

Cause and effect are mutually dependent. If there is no effect, then there is no cause

---

Same problem. This isn't true. Sometimes, effects have no cause.Flaw:

quote:

---

The universe creates its own purpose.

---

Define "purpose." Who said the universe had to have a purpose?Flaw:

quote:

---

If it did not create its own purpose, it would be totally chaotic

---

Non sequitur. Why does "purpose" mean something other than "totally chaotic"? Why can't the purpose be chaos? And why does something other than "totally chaotic" indicate purpose?Flaw:

quote:

---

Purpose implies intent

---

Equivocation on the word "purpose." Of course, you haven't really defined "purpose" in the first place.Therefore, your entire argument falls apart.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Just because in the time that we have been observing the
universe it seems to follow the rules that we have identified,
does that mean that that has always been and will always be the
case?Order is just sub-set of Chaos.

Oh dear...While I will grant that cause generally precedes effect (quantum physics is an apparent anomaly though not definite), there is no logical relation between purpose and cause.Neither is there a logical necessity that nature must tend to absolute rigidity or total chaos.If mathematical modeling has given us anything, it is an understanding that order can exist within chaos. This one is simply painful to read. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle explains that those two characteristics cannot be measured... why?It has to do with how man is forced to try and measure such things. It does not mean that particles do not have an objective position and momentum at some finite point of time.The universe can certainly be deterministic. We simply cannot determine both the position and momentum of extremely small particles.You also have missed the logical possibility that our term "universe" may be very inaccurate. There may be multiple-verses, not to mention the implication of my earlier point... our universe may simple be a small regular "point" existing within a larger chaos.I think you should also be careful when using the term "Intelligent Design". While your use is not incorrect, there is a much larger movement which has dubbed itself "Intelligent Design" and do not use the kinds of arguments you just advanced."Intelligent Creation" may be more appropriate, or even "Intelligent Universe".------------------
holmes

Hi Russel!Thanks for breaking the steps in the proof down in such detail. It made it easy to see where the holes are: Sometimes, and sometimes not. Rrhain already addresses this, and to his example of quantum mechanics I would add nuclear decay - there is no way of knowing when an atom will decay and no precipitating cause. You have presented no imperative that a purpose must be associated with a cause. You need to include steps in your proof showing that causes must have a purpose.There are other holes: The universe may not be chaotic, but that paragraph certainly is. I'm certain I'm not up to straightening this out, so I'll just say that this step in your proof suffers from the lack of definition of terms, and from inclusion of bald declarations with no supporting argument where, in a proof, logical progressions should lie.I'll stop here, but will additionally note that this paragraph and the rest of your proof also rely upon "purpose", which is insufficiently supported at this point.--Percy

It is easy to see why scientists are not impressed by the claim that IC cannot evolve. IC is a matter of an observer specifying a combination of function, parts and system so that the specified function requires all the parts. There is no way for evolution to be sensitive to this, no way for it to matter at all. Nor does nature care about 'direct' vs 'indirect' evolution as perceived by us. Indirect evolution is as normal as tails on cows. Evolution merely requires populations with heritable variation. The processes of mutation, natural selection and random drift are not sensitive to whether a change will be deemed direct or not, nor whether a function, system and parts as specified by some observer are changing to meet the 'all parts required' condition.There was supposed to be a special reason why it was impossible or at least very difficult for evolution to arrive at an 'all parts required' situation, but there is no such reason. The proposed reason was based on overlooking standard evolutionary processes and making analogies to manufactured items. Comparing Behe's mousetrap to Venus' flytrap confirms the reasonable suspicion that analogies and arguments based on manufactured items lead to underestimating nature. Since IC can occur in the ordinary course of events we have a known process, evolution, which is acting in the present and which given time is sufficient to produce the adaptations that Behe finds perplexing. This is like the raising of the Rocky Mountains; a known process acting in the present is sufficient, given time, to produce the result. Of course there is no way to predict all the details in either case, nor is it necessary.Finally, this version of 'gap theology', basing the Designer on gaps or purported gaps in our knowledge (which is not mainstream religion), ends up implicating the Designer in human disease. This makes ID rather questionable as a public school lesson. Gap theology is bad enough at best, and always has the problem that the gaps keep getting smaller. This new version of it is especially bad. Darwin did theologians a favor by freeing them from this sort of thing.

Thanks for the help.Here is a second "rough draft" :Here is what the theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking, says about the "anthropic principle":The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus I believe that we have to invoke the Anthropic Principle. Many physicists dislike the Anthropic Principle. They feel it is messy and vague, it can be used to explain almost anything, and it has little predictive power. I sympathize with these feelings, but the Anthropic Principle seems essential in quantum cosmology. Otherwise, why should we live in a four dimensional world, and not eleven, or some other number of dimensions. The anthropic answer is that two spatial dimensions, are not enough for complicated structures, like intelligent beings. On the other hand, four or more spatial dimensions would mean that gravitational and electric forces would fall off faster than the inverse square law. In this situation, planets would not have stable orbits around their star, nor electrons have stable orbits around the nucleus of an atom. Thus intelligent life, at least as we know it, could exist only in four dimensions. I very much doubt we will find a non anthropic explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Of course the argument could be made that if the universe[totality of all that exists] is an all encompassing intelligent mind, then why doesn't that mind communicate to us in such a way as to let the sub-minds of itself, recognize and understand ...it?Well, how can we communicate to a nest of ants such that those ants can understand and recognize ...us?It could also be argued that a light cone at time, T = 0 units, intersects with itself at time, T = 1 units, and if the subsequent intersections are not all perfectly symmetrical, the composition, or combinative points of intersection recombine in creative and unexpected ways. The complexity of the "computation", would eventually be much more complex than the computation of a single human brain.Since we do not observe perfect symmetry in the universe, and the combinative intersection of wavefronts can be explained to be a very complex computation, much more complex than a human brain, the universe is intelligent.A perfect homogeneous self cancelling symmetry is analogous to an absolute self cancelling "chaos".The universe is not totally chaotic.Since Heisenberg uncertainty exists, and because nothing exists outside the universe, the universe is not totally deterministic.The universe is a self aware computation. The computational capability of the universe is on the order of "X" magnitude greater than a human brain. Since T = 0, the number of computations would be Planck units of time for roughly 13 billion years since the beginning?The "universal light cone" can be represented as a variable that is unknown.At T = 0, X = XProfessor Smolin explains that there is "nothing outside the "real" universe". If there is nothing outside the real universe, then it is self contained:[X] = [X]We observe the universe "changing":[X] changes by D[X] , where D is a "difference" operator.(X)---> (X+D(X))(X+D(X))--->(X+D(X+D(X)))(X+D(X+D(X+D(X))))etc.etc.etc.X is self embedding.etc.X is self embedding.[This message has been edited by Russell E. Rierson, 10-26-2003][This message has been edited by Russell E. Rierson, 10-26-2003]

uh, So?This sounds like the beginning of a science fiction book that needs a good editor. Are you going to elaborate on this?I find it moderately incomprehensible in it's present form.

Actually, in modern physics, the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle does mean that particles don't have an objective position and momentum. It is not simply a limit on measurement, but a fundamental limit on the ability of particles to even have a precise position and momentum at all.Stephen Hawking has a fairly good explanation of this aimed for a popular audience. See Does God Play Dice?.This is really really hard for people to accept, because it violates some very basic assumptions we have about the nature of reality. Quantum mechanics will do that. If quantum mechanics does not clash violently with your intuitions, then you haven't understood it yet...See also the Usenet Physics FAQ on Bell's Inequality. An extract:

quote:

---

You can put a subatomic particle into a state of well-defined momentum, but then you cannot know where it is. It's not just a matter of your inability to measure, but rather, an intrinsic property of the particle.

---

Cheers -- cjhs

If intelligence and self awareness is the result of the computational complexity of interacting neurons within our brains, and the interactions are mathematical patterns, i.e. linear and nonlinear relationships, those relations can be modeled by mathematical equations. Since the process of computation within the brain is also nonlinear. Nonlinearity allows for intelligent choice and free will, for a sentient being.
The computationional complexity of the universe is described as the intersecting wave fronts of and within the past light cone cross sections of the universe. It could also be argued that a universal light cone at time, T = 0 units, intersects with itself at time, T = 1 units, and if the subsequent intersections are not all perfectly symmetrical, the composition, or combinative points of intersection recombine in creative and unexpected{nonlinear} ways. The complexity of the "computation", would eventually be much more complex than the computation of a single human brain.Since we do not observe perfect symmetry in the universe, and the combinative intersection of wavefronts can be explained to be a very complex computation, much more complex than a human brain, the universe is intelligent.A perfect homogeneous self cancelling symmetry is analogous to an absolute self cancelling "chaos".The universe is not totally chaotic.Since Heisenberg uncertainty exists, and because nothing exists outside the universe, the universe is not totally deterministic.The universe is a self aware computation. The computational capability of the universe is on the order of "X" magnitude greater than a human brain. Since T = 0, the number of computations would be Planck units of time for roughly 13 billion years since the beginning...

quote:

---

t could also be argued that a light cone at time, T = 0 units, intersects with itself at time, T = 1 units, and if the subsequent intersections are not all perfectly symmetrical, the composition, or combinative points of intersection recombine in creative and unexpected ways. The complexity of the "computation", would eventually be much more complex than the computation of a single human brain.

​

Since we do not observe perfect symmetry in the universe, and the combinative intersection of wavefronts can be explained to be a very complex computation, much more complex than a human brain, the universe is intelligent.

---

So, to you complexity and intelligence are equivalent? So, how intelligent is the Mandelbrot set, or Earth's dynamo?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

You also have missed the logical possibility that our term "universe" may be very inaccurate. There may be multiple-verses, not to mention the implication of my earlier point... our universe may simple be a small regular "point" existing within a larger chaos.

---

That possibility is not logical. By definition, the word 'universe' means all. So if you want to suggest parts of the universe can be called 'multiple-verses' the totality of all the so called 'multiple-verses' would still be a universe, meaning all that exists.

quote:

---

This isn't true. Sometimes, effects have no cause.

---

For example?------------------
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-27-2003]

quote:

---

For example?

---

For example, vacuum fluctuations, which cause the Casimir effect. Reality has this problem in that nothing about it seems to be "precise", and things can happen without a cause at a low level.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Well you are right and you are wrong. This is essentially semantics.While you certainly could define universe to mean everything in existence (and that tends to be suggested by the word "uni"), that word is commonly used to describe the ordered area of time and space that we see... or more importantly a place that has time and space as dimensions at all.The author of the post appeared to be using this definition and so I used it in my reply. That allows me to use the term Multi-verse (I should have used that term instead of "mutiple-verse").But if it'll make you feel better, reread it as "the stretch of time and space we live in may be a small regular "point" existing within a larger chaos making up the remainder of the Universe.------------------
holmes