You do seem fixated on the idea that order is sufficient for design, so say for argument's sake I agree with you that order is sufficient to imply design and because I'm such a curious cat, I have a question of my own: how would an intelligent designer go about creating this orderly design?Sorry but, not to be disparaging, a certain level of education is a prerequisite for seeing the connection which is absent in your story. An interesting story. Thanks. — TheMadFool
You wrote: "So you could say that ... both of them are possible, but it is incorrect to say that they are "both possible" Why is one correct and the other incorrect? I think the two say the same thing. — god must be atheist
Again, congratulations for catching me on this mistake. Please reconsider my stance as corrected in this post. Thanks. — god must be atheist
I don't think that Aristotle was particularly familiar with self-organizing systems or the concept of spontaneous order: — alcontali
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concepts of "spontaneous order" and "emergent behaviour" which are quite modern, only a few decades old, actually. — alcontali
Unlike metaphysics, mathematics has made incredible progress in the 20th century. — alcontali
how would an intelligent designer go about creating this orderly design? — Happenstance
As I said, your example of game theory starts with the existence of things, which itself implies order. So the theories you refer to do not describe order coming from disorder, only one form of order coming from another form of order. If you believe that these theories describe order coming from disorder, you have been misled. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, I've noticed that mathematics has made incredible progress in misleading people. Luckily I'm not one of them. You ought to learn how to read these theories more critically and free yourself from the binds of such deception. — Metaphysician Undercover
specified complexity — aletheist
Order is simply how minds categorize information — Harry Hindu
So, incredibly complex and orderly situations tend to arise pretty much spontaneously from chaos. As far as I am concerned, they do not necessarily point to an underlying design. They could just arbitrarily be satisfying the conditions of particular game equilibria. — alcontali
Kindly clarify how order may arise from chaos. I thought it was the other way around. — TheMadFool
Given that definition of "order", there is no chaos at all in the physical universe, since everything physical behaves in accordance with the laws of physics. In that case, your question would be incoherent. — Echarmion
However this isn't chaos giving rise to order. Anyway I can now conceive of order arising from chaos but such events would be improbable and short-lived. Of course we mustn't forget the qualifier "relative" for "improbable" and "short-lived". — TheMadFool
Why is it incoherent? — TheMadFool
That really depends on how you define "order" versus "chaos" or "disorder". The following definition for self-organization does not seem to use your definition:
Self-organization, also called (in the social sciences) spontaneous order, is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. — alcontali
As I already pointed out, this "self-organization" view in exact sciences has an important foundation in John Nash's Nobel-prize winning (1994) publication (1950), "Equilibrium points in n-player strategy games", which predicts the existence of highly improbably but very stable structure-creating equilibrium-seeking processes. You can find a copy of this theorem-cum-proof in the official database of the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America" (PNAS). — alcontali
There is no hidden deception in mathematics. — alcontali
For example, I am quite happy with Platonism, structuralism, logicism, and formalism, which each of them emphasize one aspect of mathematics, which is clearly there to me. I may not agree with all ontological views, for example, by decisively rejecting constructivism, but I also do not reject all of them. — alcontali
But what it takes to be a "person" is left undefined, and extremely vague. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. The universe is orders of magnitude more complex in its order, therefore requiring a designer. Terrapin Station referred to a disanalogy between a watch and the universe but you spoke against that by alluding to complexity. — TheMadFool
You don't seem to understand what unfalsifiable means. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist, or that I'm not Elvis reincarnated. It's not the responsibility of others to prove or disprove some claim. You are making the claim - you prove it. I didn't make a claim. You are. It is up to you to prove it to me. One can only reject the existence of some thing AFTER a positive claim for it's existence is made. One can't make assertions that some thing doesn't exist before some claim is made for it's existence. I never made a claim. You did. Now you prove it to me. If I reject your claim, then I'm doing so based on your lack of evidence, not any proof that I need to supply.So is the claim that a god does not exist. Or some gods do not exist. If you don't believe me, prove it to me. — god must be atheist
What the hell is a "god". Just replace "god" with "aliens" in your post and we should be good to go. I can accept the possible existence of aliens, but not "gods" as I don't understand the concept, or how "gods" would be different from "aliens".I personally believe that there are no gods or god. But I allow the possibility that they do exist. We just don't have any evidence either way. And we certainly don't have any knowledge what they are, what they want, what they want of us, what they can do, and what they will do. This is unknown to humans at this point, on the odds that there are actually gods (or god). — god must be atheist
LOL - so thinking philosophically is not thinking objectively? That would seem to be the case for some people on this forum.You should think about it more objectively.
— Harry Hindu
And you must think about it more philosophically. — god must be atheist
Yes.Are you saying order is subjective, it's more like an impression and not objective, a truth about reality? — TheMadFool
Not necessarily impossible. Like I said, your concept of time is limited - as if this small span of time that humans exist in is the goal of some designer - while ignoring the huge expanses of time where there appears to be no goal.If yes then reality should be frequently countering the "perceived" order and it should be impossible to plan anything. — TheMadFool
Right - so your claims are unfalsifiable. The hoof-prints in the sand are evidence that unicorns exist.You also point out flaws in the design - heat death - but I don't think eternal existence is part of the plan as such. Even the best stories have an end. — TheMadFool
I believe that it is impossible for order to come from disorder, in any absolute sense (meaning order cannot come from absolute disorder). — Metaphysician Undercover
What the hell is a "god". — Harry Hindu
LOL - so thinking philosophically is not thinking objectively? That would seem to be the case for some people on this forum. — Harry Hindu
both of them are possible, — god must be atheist
they are "both possible" — god must be atheist
What is really described by this theory is some form of order arising from another form of order, not order arising from disorder. — Metaphysician Undercover
Maybe you didn't know that Nobel prizes might be given to deceivers. — Metaphysician Undercover
Firstly, I think you are equivocating ordered and 'design'. The way in which a designer makes designs, which are ordered, is fundamentally different from the way nature orders. A designer, by necessity, intervenes on otherwise inanimate material to construct a particular design. A designer, by necessity, is an external force that designs something external to it. Order or patterns, on the other hand, is a more encompassing term and includes designs (i.e. patterns constructed, by an external agent) or self organized patterns. In nature, order and patterning is intrinsic to nature itself. I.e. a 'dog', cat, snowflake are all self organized; those things don't have external agents constructing them, hence they are not 'designed'.Thanks. It's the wide-scale application of this heuristic (order/design ergo designer) in our everyday lives and then making a singular exception of rejecting it when it comes to the universe that I'm asking an explanation for.
I understand that exceptions are the rule, so to speak, but there must be a good reason which I presume is an instance of order/design without a designer. Can you give me an example of that?
S — TheMadFool
It wasn't left undefined. There are common definitions of personhood. I directed you towards some of them via the articles in question. — Terrapin Station
I appreciate it's your belief, and against belief I have no logical argument — god must be atheist
It is none of my business why you are incapable to see equivalence in English expressions. — god must be atheist
That is actually a reasonable interpretation. I can live with that. It is just that the people involved in working on that theory have developed their own lingo and views. — alcontali
It is just that the people involved in working on that theory have developed their own lingo and views. I don't feel like arguing with them over this, really. — alcontali
No, mere complexity is also insufficient; "intelligent design" theory requires specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity to count as evidence of design. Again, the plausibility of such an approach depends on one's opinion of the underlying assumptions.The universe is orders of magnitude more complex in its order, therefore requiring a designer. — TheMadFool
Because I'm not the one making the claim that some thing exists! If you are, then define that thing if you expect me to believe in it too. If you can't define it, then how do you expect to prove it to me? Do you understand how "Making a claim and proving it", works?If you don't know what the hell you are arguing about, then why are you arguing? — god must be atheist
I never said objectivity/subjectivity has to do with proving or disproving god. I said it has to do with being consistent in thinking about and accepting claims that have the same amount of evidence - none. You aren't being consistent in your acceptance of claims that have the same amount of evidence. Smelshlops are just as likely to exist as Gods, yet you only accept the existence of Gods.I say this, because objectivity / subjectivity has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of god, or the non-existence of god. It is not a matter that can be true one way (objectively / subjectively) but wrong the other way (objectively/ subjectively). So that's why I said you must think philosophically, for you to consider that the existence of god is such a proposition in philosophy. — god must be atheist
There is no such thing as equivalence in English expressions. — Metaphysician Undercover
Because I'm not the one making the claim that some thing exists! I — Harry Hindu
The universe is orders of magnitude more complex in its order, therefore requiring a designer. — TheMadFool
Do you understand how "Making a claim and proving it", works? — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.