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 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?

I'm confident you'll have a certain level of education to answer this question.

So let me see if I understand you. You are saying that we know whether or not something was produced by design, by knowing whether or not it was produced by a "person". But what it takes to be a "person" is left undefined, and extremely vague. Doesn't that leave whether or not a thing was created by design as undeterminable?

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

English is probably not your first language, because you seem to be missing out in some nuances. The way I use "both possible" implies the two together, collectively. So to say it more clearly, it is impossible to have both. This uses "both" to refer to the two collectively, and we agree that they are mutually exclusive, so it is impossible to have both, together. But when I said they are "both possible" it refers to each of the two individually, and individually each is possible. Therefore I can say that both are possible, but to have both is impossible. "Both" is used in two distinct ways, one time referring to each of the two individually, and the other referring to the two together, collectively. Sorry no confusion or equivocation was intended.

Again, congratulations for catching me on this mistake. Please reconsider my stance as corrected in this post. Thanks. — god must be atheist

OK, but as I explained in my last post, directed at alcontali, I believe that it is impossible for order to come from disorder, in any absolute sense (meaning order cannot come from absolute disorder).

I don't think that Aristotle was particularly familiar with self-organizing systems or the concept of spontaneous order: — alcontali

"Spontaneous order", is nothing but a rehash of the old concept "spontaneous generation", which was long ago disproven. It's pie in the sky.

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

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.

Unlike metaphysics, mathematics has made incredible progress in the 20th century. — alcontali

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.

how would an intelligent designer go about creating this orderly design? — Happenstance

An intelligent designer would have intent of ends/objectives and then think of means to achieve these ends. Take your story of digging holes - it begins with sticks, then iron hoes and then to mechanization. It's not just purpose that indicates design but also the way designed objects evolve over time in terms of efficiency or power or whatnot.

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

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. The process can be spontaneous when sufficient energy is available, not needing control by any external agent. It is often triggered by seemingly random fluctuations, amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all the components of the system. As such, the organization is typically robust and able to survive or self-repair substantial perturbation. Chaos theory discusses self-organization in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability. Self-organization occurs in many physical, chemical, biological, robotic, and cognitive systems. Examples of self-organization include crystallization, thermal convection of fluids, chemical oscillation, animal swarming, neural circuits, and artificial neural networks.

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).

I am obviously not familiar with the nitty-gritty details of how they investigate self-organization in various physical, chemical, and biological systems, as these are highly empirical subjects that seek to guarantee minimum standards of real-world correspondence, and therefore, spend a lot of money and effort on activities such as experimental testing.

I only peruse the mathematical foundations of why it makes sense to think like that.

So, yes, I can somehow "see" the profound implications of John Nash's Nobel-prize winning discovery, and why it strongly suggests a widespread principle of self-organization.

While I certainly agree that system-bound knowledge is based on basic beliefs that must necessarily come from elsewhere, and that the universe itself must necessarily be the result of principles that lie outside of it, I avoid applying that view to observable phenomena WITHIN the universe.

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

Well, we know exactly what the basic beliefs are in mathematics. The axioms are not a secret. Therefore, we strictly control the source of deception. There is no hidden deception in mathematics.

Furthermore, as I already pointed out, mathematics is not about real-world correspondence. Any such claim will first have to go through the hands of empirical disciplines, who will then take responsibility for what they say about the real, physical world.

That is also one reason for my very negative views on constructivism.

Unlike the constructivists, I do not believe that mathematics should directly link to the real, physical world, without regulating and mediating such real-world claim first by empirical, minimum standards for correspondence.

So, yes, I am critical about particular mathematical philosophies, but I also subscribe to other ones. 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.

specified complexity — aletheist

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.

Order is simply how minds categorize information — Harry Hindu

Are you saying order is subjective, it's more like an impression and not objective, a truth about reality?

If yes then reality should be frequently countering the "perceived" order and it should be impossible to plan anything.

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.

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

I find this confusing because game-theory is about strategy and that involves some rules which isn't chaos to my knowledge. Maybe I'm mistaken. Kindly clarify how order may arise from chaos. I thought it was the other way around.

Kindly clarify how order may arise from chaos. I thought it was the other way around. — TheMadFool

It is also the other way around. I don't think that anybody is denying the irreversible trend to entropy. However, there are also other principles at play. The likelihood of a particular situation does not matter as much as we may think. For example, a highly-improbable situation may be an incredibly stable game-theoretical equilibrium. Many structures in nature are highly improbable, but they still exist, because they are also incredibly stable.

Then, you have at least one other principle which throws a spanner in the works: group re-normalization. Some elements are substantially more stubborn than others, even in physics. These other elements will just acquiesce to what these few stubborn elements want. That leads again to absolutely improbable outcomes. Nassim Nicholas Taleb writes about that in "The most intolerant wins":

The best example I know that gives insights into the functioning of a complex system is with the following situation. It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority.

This example of complexity hit me, ironically, as I was attending the New England Complex Systems institute summer barbecue. As the hosts were setting up the table and unpacking the drinks, a friend who was observant and only ate Kosher dropped by to say hello. I offered him a glass of that type of yellow sugared water with citric acid people sometimes call lemonade, almost certain that he would reject it owing to his dietary laws. He didn’t. He drank the liquid called lemonade, and another Kosher person commented: “liquids around here are Kosher”. We looked at the carton container. There was a fine print: a tiny symbol, a U inside a circle, indicating that it was Kosher. The symbol will be detected by those who need to know and look for the minuscule print. As to others, like myself, I had been speaking prose all these years without knowing, drinking Kosher liquids without knowing they were Kosher liquids.

Great Post :up:

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".

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

Why is it incoherent?

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

Imagine that a thing can improve its own stability by forming an equilibrium with other things, who also improve their own stability by doing that. In that case, that equilibrium is a super-thing with these existing things as sub-things. John Nash's paper "Equilibrium points in n-player strategy games" enumerates the precise conditions in which this will happen.

So, now we have super-things. Of course, the process just repeats, because super-things may be able to improve their own stability by forming an equilibrium with other super-things. So, layer after layer, you get a composition process that yields increasingly improbable structures that are increasingly stable.

It explains why a large molecule tends to be more stable than free-floating atoms, which in turn, tend to be more stable than free-floating electrons, protons, and neutrons. This large molecule, will become even more internally stable, if it becomes part of a living body, which tends to be longer-lived than its constituent molecules (Within reason, that body has a process of replacing broken sub-things).

A human body may live for almost 80 years, but its constituent free-floating electrons, protons, and neutrons are very short-lived. If these constituent parts want to stay around longer, and they seem to do, they will have to join an equilibrium with other similar parts. The influence of these other parts through the equilibrium will substantially improve their own internal stability, and therefore, make them live longer.

Why is it incoherent? — TheMadFool

Everything physical behaves according to the laws of physics. If the laws of physics are "order", then everything physical is thus ordered. You were asking for examples for order arising out of Chaos. But since everything physical is already ordered, where would such examples come from?

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

The problem is that in self-organization theory, "disorder" is not defined in any rigorous way. For something to be a "system" requires some form of order. Order is inherent within a "system", by definition. So the "initially disordered system" is really a contradiction because "system" requires order. What is really described by this theory is some form of order arising from another form of order, not order arising from disorder.

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 may be some Nobel prize winning work here, but the work does not show order arising from disorder. And if it refers to a "disordered system", which is of course contradictory, it is Nobel prize winning deception. Maybe you didn't know that Nobel prizes might be given to deceivers.

There is no hidden deception in mathematics. — alcontali

I take that as a joke.

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

Platonism itself is a falsity, disproven by Aristotle. But it is essential to some modern day mathematical axioms, which require that mathematical symbols refer to mathematical objects. So right here we find deception hidden within mathematical axioms, when a mathematician claims that a symbol refers to a non-existent Platonic object.

But what it takes to be a "person" is left undefined, and extremely vague. — Metaphysician Undercover

It wasn't left undefined. There are common definitions of personhood. I directed you towards some of them via the articles in question. I didn't forward a definition because I'm not interested in arguing about definitions. I said that you could use any common definition of it that you like.

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

Again, it has nothing to do with order or complexity, assuming there are plausible ways to quantify such things in the first place.

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

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.

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

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".

You should think about it more objectively.
— Harry Hindu

And you must think about it more philosophically. — 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.

Are you saying order is subjective, it's more like an impression and not objective, a truth about reality? — TheMadFool

Yes.

If yes then reality should be frequently countering the "perceived" order and it should be impossible to plan anything. — 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.

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

Right - so your claims are unfalsifiable. The hoof-prints in the sand are evidence that unicorns exist.

What are the odds that human beings exist in some universe without a designer? How do you know? Answer the question.

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

I appreciate it's your belief, and against belief I have no logical argument.**

Let me know if anything changes.

** Not you, but people tenaciously cling on to beliefs like the holy trinity and like an entity can be omnipotent. So if I can't sway someone on a belief which is impossible, I won't even attempt to sway a person on a belief that is possible (but he believes it's the ONLY possible of two alternatives).

What the hell is a "god". — Harry Hindu

If you don't know what the hell you are arguing about, then why are you arguing?

LOL - so thinking philosophically is not thinking objectively? That would seem to be the case for some people on this forum. — Harry Hindu

One more case where you ought to have thought philosophically.

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.

@Metaphysical Undercover please note:

both of them are possible, — god must be atheist

they are "both possible" — god must be atheist

I am sorry, but I see no nuance difference between these two expressions.

I am on the opinion, @Metaphysical Undercover, that you may or may not be a native speaker of English, but you can't tell two equivalent sayings as being equivalent when they are.

Why you have that fault, I don't know. It is none of my business why you are incapable to see equivalence in English expressions.

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

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. I don't feel like arguing with them over this, really.

Maybe you didn't know that Nobel prizes might be given to deceivers. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, The Nobel Prize system is probably full of deceivers. Nassim Taleb is certainly sure of that:

Taleb has called for cancellation of the Nobel Prize in Economics, saying that the damage from economic theories can be devastating.

Taleb and Nobel laureate Myron Scholes have traded personal attacks, particularly after Taleb's paper with Espen Haug on why nobody used the Black–Scholes–Merton formula. Taleb said that Scholes was responsible for the financial crises of 2008, and suggested that "this guy should be in a retirement home doing Sudoku. His funds have blown up twice. He shouldn't be allowed in Washington to lecture anyone on risk."

Haug and Taleb (2011) listed hundreds of research documents showing the Black–Scholes formula was not Scholes' at all, and argued that the economics establishment ignored literature by practitioners and mathematicians (such as Ed Thorp), who had developed a more sophisticated version of the formula.[89]

And then there is, of course, also the acrimonious insult fests with Stiglitz and Krugman about bitcoin. These two Nobel laureates are hated by the bitcoin community for their deceptive remarks.

Furthermore, the canonical prize in mathematics is the Fields medal. It is normally not possible to get the Nobel prize for mathematics.

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

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'.

Secondly, even if we equivocate order and design, that heuristic does not support the conclusion. I.e. Even if every design we know has a designer, not every design necessarily has a designer. In the same way that there being clouds in the sky does not imply rain. If rain then cloudy and if designer, then design, yes both of these are true but they are not exhaustive - i.e. the antecedent can still be false while the conclusion true.

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

For example:
"The most common answer is that to be a person at a time is to have certain special mental properties..." Said properties are left undisclosed.

Wikipedia: "Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law..."

"Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate and has been questioned critically..."

These are quotes from your own post. "Common definitions" (notice your use of the plural) indicates that there is no universal convention, therefore no accepted definition. Clearly, "person" was left undefined, by you.

I appreciate it's your belief, and against belief I have no logical argument — god must be atheist

If the belief is illogical, it is easy to produce logical argument against it. That's why I can produce endless logical arguments against the belief that order can arise from disorder.

It is none of my business why you are incapable to see equivalence in English expressions. — god must be atheist

There is no such thing as equivalence in English expressions. Each expression is unique. I don't see imaginary things, and that's why I don't see equivalence in English expressions.

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

I'm glad that you see this in a way similar to me.

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

I' don't mind arguing over this. When I see people barking up the wrong tree, I feel morally obliged to point it out to others, that these people are barking up the wrong tree. The ones actually barking up the wrong tree are usually beyond hope of emancipation, so it might be a waste of time to point it out to them.

The universe is orders of magnitude more complex in its order, therefore requiring a designer. — TheMadFool

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.

If you don't know what the hell you are arguing about, then why are you arguing? — god must be atheist

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 I made the claim that Smelshlops exits, and then told you if you didn't know what Smelshlops are then you don't know what you're arguing about, and that you need to accept that they might possibly exist without defining what it is, then you'd think I was nuts. :roll:

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

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.

How the universe came to be is a scientific matter, not a philosophical one.

There is no such thing as equivalence in English expressions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ha!

Because I'm not the one making the claim that some thing exists! I — Harry Hindu

For your information, I am not making that claim either. I am making the claim that it is possible for that thing to exist. Whether it exists or not, is beyond my ability to claim, show, prove, or even support as a theory.

The universe is orders of magnitude more complex in its order, therefore requiring a designer. — TheMadFool

What is the measure of complexity? What is its unit value? How is it defined?

I think the quote makes sense, but only intuitively and qualitatively, not quantitatively.

If it's not quantifiable, then talking about multiples of the quality is meaningless.

I.e. "the Mona Lisa is 5.4 times more beautiful than "The Scream" by Munck." Beauty is not quantifiable. The same problem exists with complexity.

Do you understand how "Making a claim and proving it", works? — Harry Hindu

Yes, and I proved it. I am talking "possibilities" not facts. Do you understand the difference between probability and actual occurrence?