|
Author
|
Topic: Logical Proof of Intelligent Design
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 23. October 2003 04:01
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 B
A
Therefore B
The 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 B
therefore not A
The 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
[ 23. October 2003, 05:07: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 23. October 2003 09:32
So the universe's purpose is to follow quantum relationships?
How do we know it is not "chaotic"? (Just because relationships hold fairly accurately, because the universe is constrained, is that sufficient to imply lack of "chaos"?)
IP: Logged
|
|
Claire
Member
Member # 725
|
posted 24. October 2003 00:59
Logical Proof of RER Design:
The universe is defined as the totality of all that exists even if RER has two names.
If cause, then effect then cause:
If A then B then C
A
Therefore :. B
:. C
If HP then RER then C
HP
(:.) RER
(:.) RER causes 2 valued logic so much that RER has two names.
:. RER is now C.
Name and effect are mutually dependent. If there is no second name, then there is no cause then there is no effect and there is no C:
If not RER then not HP, then not C
not RER
:. not HP
:. no C
:. no 2VL
R creates a new name. If R did not create a new name, R wouldn't be totally Chaotic, or, R would be totally deterministic. We observe R as a system with consistent laws of two names, therefore R appears to be "not" totally Chaotic, only R really could be.
Claire
[ 24. October 2003, 01:47: Message edited by: Claire ]
IP: Logged
|
|
jasonyoung
Member
Member # 432
|
posted 24. October 2003 01:51
i) The consequent of a cause is an effect. You cannot ascribe purpose until the mindfulness of the universe has been established;
ii) I reject the premise that the universe would be chaotic were it not purposeful on the grounds that chaos has not been defined with enough specificity;
iii) You're misusing the word determinism.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 24. October 2003 04:24
quote:
i) The consequent of a cause is an effect. You cannot ascribe purpose until the mindfulness of the universe has been established;
ii) I reject the premise that the universe would be chaotic were it not purposeful on the grounds that chaos has not been defined with enough specificity;
iii) You're misusing the word determinism.
1.] Cause and effect are mutually dependent, they form a closed loop. Since they are mutually dependent, one cannot exist without the other. Cause and effect are an intrinsic function of the universe.
2.] The specification is realized with the words "total chaos" which is analogous to absolute chaos. Absolute chaos would mean absolute zero order, which is not what we observe in the universe ![[Wink]](wink.gif) Therefore the universe is not totally chaotic.
3.] The specification of determinism is realized with the words "total determinism" which is analogous to absolute determinism, which also is not the case. Therefore the universe is not totally deterministic. There exists sensitivity to initial conditions, for a given system. Pierre - Simon Laplace's dream of a clockworks universe cannot be realized. The initial state of a system i.e. its exact position and momentum cannot be known precisely. Heisenberg uncertainty DxDp >= hbar/2.
If a system is totally chaotic or totally deterministic, it needs no purpose for itself.
The universe is not totally chaotic nor totally deterministic. It serves its own purpose.
Purpose implies mind, mind implies intelligence.
The universe[the totality of all that exists] is an intelligent mind.
IP: Logged
|
|
Noel Rude
Member
Member # 516
|
posted 24. October 2003 16:11
Very interesting! But the world – even ISCID – may not be ready for logical proofs to the Big Questions. Still this does not mean that such proofs are impossible. So bravo!
Your points 2 & 3 are well taken. They prove that ID should be on the table, but to prove that ID is the answer, don’t we still need to refute the claim that combinations of chance (point 2) and necessity (point 3) are sufficient to explain everything? To my mind the chance + necessity solution has been refuted, so would this be your point 4? But then, and admittedly I am rather dense, how does your point 1 mesh with 2 and 3?
Earlier you said, “The purpose of ‘cause’ is to create an effect.” Intriguing – maybe ultimately the only way to define either ‘cause’ or ‘purpose’ is with reference to the other. How, mathematically, might the equation be formalized? Get the logicians and the case grammarians (for whom Agent [the premier semantic role] = Consciousness + Cause) together on this and we might be on to something.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 24. October 2003 21:45
Why equate "neither fully deterministic nor completely chaotic" with "serving its own purpose"?
Here are three graphs:
The first one seems very deterministic. Up, down, up , down, up, down, up, down, always the same amount as far as we can see here. "Down" has a value of around 0.5, while "Up" is somewhere around 0.85.
The second one seems much more chaotic; it still has the up-down characteristic, but how far up varies and it even flips direction (note that 20 is up, 40 is down, and 70 is up again).
The third one just shows a zoomed-out view of the second trace, showing the bursty random nature of this trace.
These graphs are generated by the equation f(i+1) = sqrt( 1 - f(i)^(2 + z) ) where z is a small amount of noise. The first case has f(1) = 0.5, while the second has f(1) = 1/sqrt(2).
Does this equation / noise-source pair "serve its own purpose"? Does it therefore have a mind, and is it therefore intelligent?
I think not.
[ 24. October 2003, 21:47: Message edited by: Rex Kerr ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 25. October 2003 02:21
quote:
Rex:
Does this equation / noise-source pair "serve its own purpose"? Does it therefore have a mind, and is it therefore intelligent?
Interesting...
There is a certain observed regularity to nature, such, that it is logically consistent with itself. You can depend on certain aspects of the system. Certain rules must hold for certain conditions. A type of built in redundancy. In that regard, the equations are part of a logically consistent information processing system[mind].
Rex, it seems that there must be no aspect of the perceptual universe that is totally chaotic. Likewise, there also must be no aspect of the perceptual universe that is totally deterministic, except for ideal mathematical forms, which are completely abstract. The abstract contains the concrete. A completely chaotic system would have zero deterministic constraints, while a totally deterministic system would have zero degrees of freedom. So it is not possible for a universe to exist that is totally deterministic, since it would have too few axioms in its nomological structure.
Quantum systems have both wave and particle like aspects, and the wavelike aspect is indeterminate, spatiotemporally distributed as a wave form, which is possibility.
probability = [possibility]^2 = psi^2
Your graphs are one aspect of a holistic medium[universe] that encompasses the graph as well as the computer generating the graph.
A computer simulation that is self aware can contain within it other sub programs that have self awareness, as well as sub programs that are functioning at lower levels of sentience, with less degrees of freedom, where the term "degree of freedom" means a variable in physical theory that can be specified independently of the other variables, expressing how the system evolves in time, according to natural law.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 26. October 2003 18:55
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 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?
[ 26. October 2003, 21:57: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 26. October 2003 21:18
We are aware of the universe, and part of it. Therefore, the universe is self-aware, in a manner of speaking.
Did you intend to imply anything deeper than this?
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 26. October 2003 22:07
quote:
Rex:
We are aware of the universe, and part of it. Therefore, the universe is self-aware, in a manner of speaking.
Did you intend to imply anything deeper than this?
I am arguing that the computational ability of the universe as a whole, is far more complex than the computational ability of one human brain.
Let "X" be the light cone cross section of the "past" universal light cone:
[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]]]---> [X + D[X+D[X+D[X]]]]
etc.
etc.
etc.
X is self embedding.
[ 26. October 2003, 22:16: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 27. October 2003 01:01
Ever hear of Zeno's paradox. From this, later the rational and real number system were developed.
Key point is that it did not develop "embeding", it developed continum change description.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 27. October 2003 13:48
Obviously the computational power of the universe is much greater than our own, since we are embedded in it. But you seem to be equating computation with intelligence with self-awareness.
These are normally viewed as distinct concepts.
Computation is a process of applying heuristics to various inputs to generate appropriate or desired outputs.
Intelligence is usually associated with behaviors that demonstrate a robust perception and predictive modeling of the world.
Self-awareness is usually thought of as having cohesive experiences as a unitary conscious entity but also possessing abstract knowledge of one's identity and actions and classifying self similarly to others, while realizing that these third-person descriptions are equivalent to their first-person experience.
With definitions like these, the universe can be described as a computational system with a high degree of confidence. But where is the evidence that the universe perceives and self-models aspects of the universe, and where is the evidence that the universe has anything like a cohesive experience?
If you're not using definitions like these, what do you mean by "intelligent" and "self-aware"?
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 27. October 2003 14:46
According to physicist Stephen Hawking, in the book "The Universe in a Nutshell", the brain of a humble earthworm has greater computational power than our modern computers, at least at the time of his writing of it
Intelligence also implies goal directed or purposeful actions. If the computational power of the universe exceeds the human brain by a huge factor then we are basically as intelligent as "bacteria" in comparison to the universal computation[mind].
The existence of intelligent[self aware] life appears to be one of the "goals" of the system.
[ 27. October 2003, 14:48: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 27. October 2003 15:56
Modern computers now best an earthworm, but are still (potentially) put to shame by a fruit fly.
But since you didn't address the computation/intelligence/self-awareness link, I'll assume that's conjecture, rather than proof, on your part. An interesting conjecture, but I am pretty timid about extrapolating too far beyond available data.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic