Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
106 online now:
dwise1, PaulK (2 members, 104 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,136 Year: 6,248/6,534 Month: 441/650 Week: 211/278 Day: 7/44 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power of the New Intelligent Design...
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 421 of 470 (894051)
04-29-2022 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by WookieeB
04-29-2022 3:09 PM


Point -> . You ---------------->
I don't think you understand how infinity works.

It's okay - I mean, I think I kinda understand, and I understand what Paul K is saying here.
But I know that I don't really understand how infinity works... as far as higher level maths go, anyway. It is a really weird concept.

But this is lower level maths.
And if you don't understand how lower-level-maths infinity works... then you just don't understand how infinity works.

Hint: It's not a "really-really big number you can eventually add enough things up and get kinda-close to."
There's no such thing as a really large number that's "getting near infinite."

You're mistaking a conceptual-tool-of-learning for how-a-thing-really-is.
The stepping stool itself is not the top shelf.

I know this doesn't help show you what infinity really is.
But that teaching is above my pay-grade.
All I can say is... currently... you're a swing-and-a-miss.

You need to step back, reflect, and take another attempt at understanding what infinity is before moving forward in your current vein of thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by WookieeB, posted 04-29-2022 3:09 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 464 of 470 (894654)
05-25-2022 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by WookieeB
05-08-2022 5:54 PM


Trying again
WookieeB writes:
Yes, infinity is an abstract concept, not a number. As an abstract concept, it is not something concrete...ever.
Before I thought you just didn't know how infinity works.
But, now... I think you don't know how numbers work.
Infinity is an abstract concept.
Numbers are also abstract concepts.
As abstract concepts... neither is anything concrete... ever.
Let's take infinity first, as you seem to agree with this one:
Infinity does not exist as anything concrete... ever.
-that is, you cannot say "that is infinity!" while pointing at anything
-you can only point at something shaped like how we write infinity (our representation of the concept)
-or you can point at the concept of "an infinite number of things"... like the number of slices when always slicing the remaining distance in half between 2 apples
-but "the number of slices when always slicing the remaining distance in half between 2 apples" is merely displaying the concept of infinity, it is not a concrete existence of "infinity."
-Infinity certainly exists... as a concept
-Infinity, as a concept, can be identified in physical reality... like the number of slices when always slicing the remaining distance in half between 2 apples
-but the concept is not a "concrete thing" in and of itself
Now I'll do the same with numbers. (I'll use the number 2.)
The number two does not exist as anything concrete... ever.
-that is, you cannot say "that is the number 2!" while pointing at anything
-you can only point at something shaped like how we write the number two (our representation of the concept)
-or you can point at the concept of "2 things"... like 2 apples
-but "2 apples" is merely displaying the concept of the number 2, they are not a concrete existence of "the number 2."
-The number 2 certainly exists... as a concept
-The number 2, as a concept, can be identified in physical reality... like having 2 apples
-but the concept is not a "concrete thing" in and of itself
All numbers, including infinity are concepts.
We always describe the concept when observing concrete physical reality.
What's happened here is that you are overly familiar with the concept of "2" and not overly familiar with the concept of "infinity."
You've conflated your over-familiarity with "2" into this actually being a concrete thing... but it's not, it never has been, and it never will be.
You're wrong on a simple, fundamental level.
It's easy to see, easy to explain, and easy to identify to anyone who cares to look at the situation objectively.
Your continued denial only ends up displaying additional problems with your thinking (a large ego, being deceived by others, not wanting to lose... could be a lot of things.)
If you're looking for truth, you need to take a long look at what you're doing here.
Otherwise... I don't really care what you do, as in this thread I'm not concerned with people who don't care about truth.
Added by Edit:
Amidst my rambling, I forgot to make my own point clear.
My point is: Every time you see two objects, you are seeing "the number 2" and "infinity" in reality at the exact same level.
Every time there is two objects: you can see two objects and in your mind (abstractly) count to 2.
Every time there is two objects: you can see the space between them and in your mind (abstractly) how it can be divided up in half an infinite number of times.
You never see "a concrete number 2"
You never see "a concrete infinity"
The only difference is you are very familiar with "the number 2" and "counting abstractly in your mind." This familiarity does not mean "the number 2" concretely exists.
Others who are more familiar with the concept of infinity will see both, all the time... their familiarity does not mean "infinity" concretely exists.
However, both abstract concepts do very much exist in reality any time you have 2 objects or any other example where the concepts can be applied to reality.
The concepts exist, and their applications to reality exist - equally except for your own personal familiarity/credulity with them.

Edited by Stile, : Forgot to make my point clear


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by WookieeB, posted 05-08-2022 5:54 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(3)
Message 465 of 470 (894657)
05-25-2022 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by mike the wiz
05-24-2022 12:33 PM


mike the wiz writes:
For example if a tree falls over a stream that might enable you to use it as a bridge to cross. Was it created or uncreated? The answer is that you can't determine which one because the wind could have blown it over or someone could have done it deliberately.
Seems reasonable.
I completely agree with this.
However if you drastically increase the specified complexity, and you also have other features of I.D such as contingency planning, correct materials, etc....then if you find a bridge with arches and made from lasting materials with detailed patterns and rails and so forth then you can determine it is created because it is impossible to create something sophisticated without it having all of the intelligent input required by the designer.
I completely agree with this as well.
(so for example, a differential to solve the inherent problem of wheelspin in a car, or the Mueller cells in the camera eye to solve the nerve-net problem of the receptors receiving light through it)
But.. here's where things don't add up.
You look at Mueller cells in the camera eye and see design or "the designed bridge" - all sorts of perfect planning and execution.
But I look at Mueller cells in the camera eye and see natural existence or "the tree fallen over the gap" - all sorts of "just good enough" and a messy execution.
Do I simply know more about biology and how things evolve and how nature works than you do?
This is the problem. You can't just say "I know design when I see it."
You have to say "these are the limits, and this is why the limits must be this way" and it all must be very specific and objectively connected to evidence or it simply doesn't apply to reality.
If you can actually show some objective link to reality.. we can discuss that and come to an objective conclusion.
mike the wiz writes:
So that's classically what I have argued.
There's nothing wrong with the logical form of your argument.
It's just that there's no connection to reality, so there's no reason to accept that it applies to reality.
mike the wiz writes:
If a sophisticated object has all the features of intelligent design it is intelligently designed.
The connection to reality is right here. The rest of the logically-correct-argument is irrelvent.
You need to identify, using specific objective evidence connected to reality, the following:
-what is "sophisticated?"
-what is not "sophisticated?"
-what are the "features of design?"
-what are not the "features of design?"
-when do "sophisticated features of design" cross a threshold into being designed?
-when do they not?
And the levels need to objectively shown to be valid... and can't simply be because of your lack of familiarity with how nature works.
If there is any ambiguity in the answer to those questions... then, as the rest of your post shows... it basically comes down to "I know it when I see it" which is not objective... and then the foundation for your argument has no connection to reality.
Without that specific objective evidence connected to reality, you may as well say:
"If a sophisticated object has all the features of intelligent design, then it is purple."
And go on to prove how logically sound the formulation of that argument is.
It's just as logically sound as the one you provide in Message 463.
And both have the same failure - no specific, objective evidence to connect them to reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by mike the wiz, posted 05-24-2022 12:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022