Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design and the intelligence hypothesis
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 52 of 109 (228594)
08-01-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by randman
08-01-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Do rules equal design?
randman writes:
The laws of gravity, etc,..pre-exist and reflect design and order, right?
In other words, the process reflects a program that provides for some seeming randomness from our perspective, if you put certain inputs into it.
But it will still fall, right? It does not just float off. There is predictability, a set of choices are predetermined even if the results are not exactly determined. It will be heads or tail every time, except maybe it could land on it's side.
If you shot it down from space at 100,000 mph, it would vaporize before hitting the Earth's surface.
Anyway, you can't get away from order and rules. I mean, if something always outputs a random result, that's a pretty simple rule that it's following. It's output would be, predictably, unpredictable.
If something outputs either a random or specific result, but at nonrandom intervals (say, every 3rd instance is random); that, too, is a rule that it's following. The first 2 instances are, predictably, predictable; and the 3rd is, predictably, unpredictable.
If something outputs either a random or specific result, but at random intervals; that again is a rule. The result is, predictably, unpredictable.
As everything must follow some rule (even if that rule is to follow no other rule), the presence of rules cannot be used as support of any position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 12:49 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 10:29 PM DominionSeraph has replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 58 of 109 (230427)
08-06-2005 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by randman
08-01-2005 10:29 PM


Re: Do rules equal design?
randman writes:
I agree. There is a design element to all things. The only real question is how the design got there and what keeps it existing.
That's not a valid question. "X follows no rules," is self-contradictory, as it's a rule unto itself. Thus, X must always follow some rule, as it's an impossibility for it not to. And you cannot ask how something that cannot not be there is there, as the question presupposes an impossibility -- that it could "not be there", and then asks for the means by which it got from the impossibility to the certainty.
"How did '1' go from equalling (something else) to equalling '1'; and what keeps it from sliding back to equalling (something else)?"
1 must always = 1, and can never = anything else. It needed no help getting there, since it was always there. It doesn't need to be 'sustained', since it's not a 'higher' position -- it's the only position.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-06-2005 12:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 10:29 PM randman has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 66 of 109 (231726)
08-10-2005 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Evopeach
08-10-2005 1:48 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
Again, we're back to your, 'The system must work with n-1 components, or the ToE is falsified.' Again, I fail to see why you don't just take this all the way, and go to 0 components. The extremes usually make things quite obvious, and that holds true here. If you have 0 components, you quite obviously don't have a working system.
The only reason I can see why you wouldn't go to this extreme is to hide the fact that since n-1 leads to zero, it's guaranteed that you'll find some point where the system breaks down. By looking for a breakdown at a point greater than zero, you can pretend that you really weren't using n-1, pretend that your method didn't guarantee 'falsification'; and in pretending that these things are true, allow for a belief to be maintained that the method is valid, and finding such 'falsification' using said method actually says something about the ToE.
(If "n-1" isn't the right way to say that, a correction would be appreciated. The stratospheric IQ makes up for a lot, but I still haven't had any formal education past the 10th grade. [and I slept through most of 8th, 9th, and 10th])
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-10-2005 07:35 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Evopeach, posted 08-10-2005 1:48 AM Evopeach has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 73 of 109 (231808)
08-10-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Evopeach
08-10-2005 10:08 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
Evopeach writes:
As to the appeal of fusion based arguments for carbon formation I admit not considering triple neutron collision reactions in the core of stars a billion light years away
Try considering the reaction happening in stars a little closer, those stars going supernova, which ejects the heavier elements, which then form the Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Evopeach, posted 08-10-2005 10:08 AM Evopeach has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 104 of 109 (233554)
08-15-2005 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
08-15-2005 5:39 PM


Maybe he's trying to say that Borg implants are designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 08-15-2005 5:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024