That was the number one definition of "person" in my OED, "an individual human being". That's why I chose it. For "personhood" I find "the quality or condition of being an individual person". What else did you have in mind? — Metaphysician Undercover

We're on a philosophy board, ostensibly discussing philosophy, from the perspective of that discipline. Personhood is a core concept in ontology. There's a philosophical tradition of discussing personhood under ontology, just like there are traditions of disccussing things like identity in general, time, ontic simples, etc. I directed you to the philosophical ideas if you're not familiar with this.

Seriously, it's like talking to a wall to try to interact with you.

Clearly that order arose by design. You specified the desired order, you threw the dice intentionally to create that order, and succeeded in creating that order. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I'm saying I merely specified the order that would interest me, then threw the dice. Not that I threw the dice with the intention of making 1,2,3,4,5,6. My intention may well have been, for example, to prove how unlikely that was.

Order is a subjective opinion, it's just a pattern we recognise. I could as easily have accidentally dropped the dice, if they landed 1,2,3,4,5,6, I'd say "oh look, that's an order I recognise". Nothing to do with intent. Same thing would happen if they were my phone number, but to you that would just be random.

The problem is that accidents and mistakes are inherent to intentional acts. So if someone is trying to produce one thing, and instead they produce something not quite as intended, this does not mean that the thing produced was not designed. — Metaphysician Undercover

Possibly, but that principle doesn't extend to an object created entirely by accident, without the intention to make anything at all. I certainly can't just be prima face applied any object at all, even if we don't know if there were a designer or not.

The universe displays order, and the property of having been designed, as described above in my proposal, with the concept of "inertia". — Metaphysician Undercover

No. This is the main issue. You're conflating 'ordered' with 'designed', the two do not describe the same thing at all, that is the very crux of the matter, you can't just assume it. What you described was a perfectly adequate working description of 'order', and yes, the universe exhibits such structure. But how can you justify saying it also bears the hallmarks of being 'designed' simply because you've recognised 'order'?

. If something actually existed without order, it could not even appear to us at all. It would be so random, from one moment to the next (and that's an extremely short time), that it could not even appear to our senses which are programmed to perceive order. For example, some people propose that this sort of randomness exists at the quantum level. But this randomness doesn't even appear to our senses at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, all this is true of 'order', but my statement was about appearing to have been 'designed' a different property from merely being 'ordered'.

Therefore, I believe that if a "state" appears to us, it is necessarily designed, because we could not perceive a disordered state. — Metaphysician Undercover

Same conflation. 'designed' in the first part, 'ordered' in the second. The two terms are not simply interchangeable.

Even if we did accept this, it would simply be the claim that all ordered things must have been designed, which is the very issue.

But as I explained to Terrapin, this is not actually how we make such a judgement. We actually judge in the opposite way. We find all sorts of things which we believe were designed, and we judge that they were created with intention, by people. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you have any evidence for this? I don't judge things that way for one. And if you demonstrated that some critical mass of people judged things that way, how would that effect what is actually the case, they might all be wrong.

in reality we cannot judge intention through observation, and we really observe to see whether the thing was designed, then conclude that it was made with intention. There is no way to observe intention in action, so we must judge the characteristics of the thing to determine whether there was intention. — Metaphysician Undercover

We can. We just ask.

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. — god must be atheist

That's a great observation. I have a simple answer. Humans find the task of imbuing machines with sentience (artificial intelligence) a very difficult problem. Yet, the universe has us and other animals that are sentient. Nano-machines operate within the cells of an organism but nano-technology still has a long way to go. I consider these as sufficient evidence that the universe is more complex than what man has achieved.

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? — Echarmion

That's the issue I want your views on. As I wrote elsewhere in this thread the argument from design is premised on a subset of the universe viz. objects that have order and have a designer - specifically man-made objects.

To counter the design argument you'll need to provide instances of order sans a designer as you have tried. This tactic is symmetric to the design argument itself in that we call upon a subset of the universe viz. objects that have order and have no designer. Notice however that this subset of objects, in fact any subset of the universe apart from man-made objects, consists of objects far more complex than what human creativity and ingenuity are capable of. Thus, shouldn't we conclude a far cleverer designer of the universe instead of saying the universe has NO designer?

It is interesting to compare the role of a human designer to something like a creator of all that we know as our universe. We are in an awkward position to opine upon the matter. — Valentinus

Not only awkward but also probably futile. How can a chimpanzee ever comprehend Mozart or calculus? In fact there are humans who can't do that. Nevertheless for humans it's just a matter of effort or interest but a chimpanzee, no matter how interested, simply lacks the basic hardware/software to understand humans. To say nothing of how vast the mental gap between god and humans maybe.

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. — aletheist

I don't agree with the concept of irreducible complexity. It flies against the natural process of creativity. For instance flight began as a simple toy and no we have hypersonic missiles. Creativity isn't about getting things perfect right from the start. Objects of creation evolve from simple beginnings to perfection and what could be more ingenious than having the process of evolution built into the scheme/plan? An object of creation that requires minimal intervention, like evolution, is more well-designed than irreducible complexity that would fail immediately in a different environment. In other words an ability to adapt is a better design than something built for a specific environment/purpose.

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. — aporiap

Assuming that I am conflating design and order what could be the reason for that? Could it be because the inference that order implies design(er) is a well-founded heuristic?

@aletheist made a pertinent remark viz. that complexity itself isn't sufficient to infer a designer. We need irreducible complexity. What is your opinion on irreducible complexity which basically states that if object x is irreducible complex then it shouldn't be possible for an object y, through small increments, to become x?

To this issue of irreducible complexity I simply draw your attention to human creativity. Which is a sign of greater designing ability - a computer program that is task-specific or an artificial intelligence that evolves and adapts and can make your morning coffee or crunch numbers for a space program?

We're talking about a state which 'appears' designed. One which has a type of order we recognise from other states we know to be designed. — Isaac

Personhood is a core concept in ontology. — Terrapin Station

You are the one who wants to talk about "personhood". I think this digression of yours is nonsensical. If you can come up with an ontologically based definition of personhood, be my guest. I already tried, to the best of my abilities, but in all my ontological studies I never came across "personhood", so my abilities are extremely limited in that department.

Order is a subjective opinion, it's just a pattern we recognise. — Isaac

This is where you show ambiguity, and perhaps inconsistency in what you are saying. If order is a "subjective opinion" then it is proper to the judgement that there is order, and the judgement itself, only. If it is a "pattern we recognize" then it is something within the thing itself (objective).

You spoke of order, last post, as if it were something within the object, recognized as "order" through association with intention. ("We're talking about a state which 'appears' designed. One which has a type of order we recognise from other states we know to be designed.") But now you're saying that someone could randomly throw the dice, with no intent of creating any order, and if a person happens to judge that there is order in the outcome, then there actually is order in that outcome. But really, this is just what you say, a "subjective opinion".

The problem with this scenario, is that throwing the dice itself is an intentional act. So you cannot remove the order which is inherent within the intentional act, simply by saying that you did not intend to throw any particular combination of numbers. The intentional act of throwing the dice six times in a row gives order to the outcome (six throws in a row) regardless of what the outcome is.

I could as easily have accidentally dropped the dice, if they landed 1,2,3,4,5,6, I'd say "oh look, that's an order I recognise". Nothing to do with intent. Same thing would happen if they were my phone number, but to you that would just be random. — Isaac

Again, you cannot remove intent from the act, by turning to a particular aspect of the act, and saying that this particular aspect was unintentional. That's what I tried to explain in my last post. The overall act (the act as a whole), you picking up the dice and carrying them for some reason, is an intentional act. You would have reason for carrying or holding those dice. The fact that you happened to drop them makes that particular aspect of the thing created (the precise time of the roll or something like that), unintentional, but it does not remove the intent which was behind the act as a whole.

That is what I explained. If we look at intentional acts in this way, we can distinguish the aspects of the outcome which are unintentional, mistakes, and we can analyze the "unknowns" which caused the mistakes. But mistakes, and accidents are inherent to intentional acts only. They require that the act itself is intentional, so it is contradictory to say that the existence of a mistake or accident makes the act unintentional.

Possibly, but that principle doesn't extend to an object created entirely by accident, without the intention to make anything at all. — Isaac

Of course you ought to see that this is contradictory. An accident, or mistake only occurs as part of an intentional act, so "object created entirely by accident, without the intention to make anything at all", is just contradictory nonsense.

No. This is the main issue. You're conflating 'ordered' with 'designed', the two do not describe the same thing at all, that is the very crux of the matter, you can't just assume it. — Isaac

"Ordered" and "designed" both mean pretty much the same thing, implying intent within the thing ordered, or designed. You are trying to create ambiguity between the act of recognizing an order (subjective opinion), and the act of creating a designed order (ordering the object), actually conflating the two to create inconsistency and contradiction through your attempts at obfuscation, as I described above.

What you described was a perfectly adequate working description of 'order', and yes, the universe exhibits such structure. But how can you justify saying it also bears the hallmarks of being 'designed' simply because you've recognised 'order'? — Isaac

I don't see why you have a problem with this. What supports your desire to make this unwarranted separation between "order" and "design"? Let's start with the assumption that "order" is completely subjective opinion, as you mentioned at the start of the post. The observing subject notices an "order". The subject claims there is an order in the object (the universe in this example). But this "order" is not justified by anything real within the object according to the specifications of the premise, it is just judgement made by the subject, subjective opinion. So the subject wants to justify the claim of "order", by pointing to something real, a real order in the object. The only recourse for the subject is to appeal to an ordered creation (design).

You might insist that if you and I, and others, all agree that there is "order" which is inherent within the observed object, and we agree on the nature of that "order", then this justifies the claim that there is real order within the object. But this is just inter-subjectivity, and inter-subjectivity cannot validate the claim that what "we" conclude about the object really represents what is true about the object. So this claimed "order" is still a subjective opinion, agreed to by other subjects.

Therefore, we must turn to the reasons why the object appears to 'us' as having order, to validate this claim which 'we' have, that it does have order. We cannot turn back to the individual subject, and say 'if the object appears to the subject as having order, then it has order', because we know that the subject may be mistaken. And if one subject may be mistaken, a number of subjects agreeing cannot remove the possibility of mistake. So we must turn to the object itself, and explain why the object appears to have order. Claiming that the object appears to 'us' as having order, therefore it has order, does not suffice. We could say 'it appears to have order because it actually has order', but this is also unjustified due to the same possibility of mistake. Therefore, to justify the real existence of order within the object (the universe in this example), we must demonstrate what it means to have order, and show that the object in question fulfills the criteria.

The only way to show what it means to have order, is to show an instance of ordering, demonstrating that the object has been ordered. This is an act of intentional ordering, design. Therefore your proposed separation between "order" and "design" is completely misguided. Ordering can only be demonstrated by design. You will never demonstrate, as you have tried through reference to accidents, an act of ordering which is not intentional. Each time you do this, by the very fact that you are doing it, it will necessarily be an intentional act. Thus you will never demonstrate how order may come into existence without intention, and you will never justify the claim that the order observed within the object is real, and part of the object, without showing that it must have been put there by design, intention.

Yes, all this is true of 'order', but my statement was about appearing to have been 'designed' a different property from merely being 'ordered'. — Isaac

The two are the same, by the principles described above. If something is ordered, then necessarily it appears to have been designed. There is no escape from this brute fact. This is because we cannot demonstrate an instance of order arising, without designing that instance. That's the problem with theories like "spontaneous order", and "self-organization" which alcontali referred to earlier in the thread. Any experimental demonstration of such things requires a designed system.

Order, within the natural universe is so pervasive, that we would need to design a very special set of circumstances to remove it for the purpose of experimentation, if we wanted to show order coming from disorder. But this act is already a designed act, therefore intentional, and ordered. And that's why this approach of yours is futile. We need to give up on these nonsensical, contradictory ideas, and recognize that overall, the universe is ordered, therefore designed, but there may be aspects of it which are mistakes, accidents. Then we can focus on these particular aspects, these parts which appear to undesigned, unintentional, and this will give us a route, a passage into the most highly disordered aspects of the universe, allowing such experimentation. But it makes no sense to pretend that the isolation of such accidental aspects is not itself a design.

Same conflation. 'designed' in the first part, 'ordered' in the second. The two terms are not simply interchangeable.

Even if we did accept this, it would simply be the claim that all ordered things must have been designed, which is the very issue. — Isaac

Now, hopefully you'll see how my claim is justified. Since we cannot demonstrate any instance of ordering without designing such a thing, and the claim that order simply exists in the object cannot be justified, the opposite claim to mine, that things may be ordered without design is completely unjustifiable. And, since we have a vast and magnificent multitude of examples where order is designed, as well as examples like yours of accidents, where order appears to be undesigned, but is really designed, it is simply illogical (by inductive logic) to make the claim that there is order which was not designed. So this proposed division of yours, between order and design, is unsupported, unjustifiable and illogical.

Therefore you ought to quit referring to such a division as a premise for criticism of usage of the terms, such as my usage. You are creating an artificial unjustifiable and illogical separation between order and design, and applying that unjustifiable and illogical principle as the basis for your criticism of what I am saying. Therefore your criticism has no efficacy and you are just wasting your time. It would be much more practical, worthwhile, and productive if you would just drop this nonsensical approach which is only hindering any progress which you might desire to make into understanding this reality.

Do you have any evidence for this? I don't judge things that way for one. — Isaac

This is another nonsensical point of departure. Look around you, in your house, at all the objects. How many of these objects do you judge to have been created with intention? How many of these objects have you observed a "person" or some such thing, creating? Now think about the judgements you have just made. Did you make the judgement that certain things were created intentionally, by imagining, or referred to in your mind, images or propositions about how the things were actually produced, manufactured by equipment and human beings, or did you make the judgement simply by seeing something about the object? I don't know of anyone who would think about the manufacturing process when making the judgement that an object was intentionally designed. We take one look at the object and make the judgement.

If that doesn't convince you about how such judgements are made, imagine that you see in the corner of the room an object which you are unsure whether it was created intentionally or not. Suppose it's a piece of rock, which may have been sculpted, or may be natural. If you wanted to pass judgement on this object, you might think about how you got it, but then you'd be trusting the word of the seller, or that information might not even be available in your memory. Isn't the more natural way of making such a judgement to look for evidence of sculpting on the stone itself?

We can. We just ask. — Isaac

There are at least two very good reasons why this reply is faulty. The first one, is that the person asked might not know the truth, might pretend to know the truth when not knowing, or might not speak the truth (deception). The second reason is even stronger. The artifact often lasts a lot longer than the person who made it, in this case there is really no reliable person alive to ask.

Assuming that I am conflating design and order what could be the reason for that? Could it be because the inference that order implies design(er) is a well-founded heuristic? — TheMadFool

Maybe it’s because the way we define ‘design’ differs. What did you think of my definition.

I don’t think order implies a designer - part of that is because the examples of natural, order - snowflakes, molecules, galactic filaments- are so numerous and we know the mechanisms and none of them require an external intelligent designing agent for their generation.

@aletheist made a pertinent remark viz. that complexity itself isn't sufficient to infer a designer. We need irreducible complexity. What is your opinion on irreducible complexity which basically states that if object x is irreducible complex then it shouldn't be possible for an object y, through small increments, to become x?

My understanding of ‘irreducible’ in the term irreducible complexity is irreducible with respect to function - ie, the object cannot function unless all its parts are present, functioning and arranged in a necessary way. I don’t think this necessarily implies designer. I can think, for example, of a protein, which by that definition is irreducibly complex. A functional protein is formed by an unguided, semi-stochastic process of protein folding.

I think what you could use as a criteria to infer designer is an inability to conceive of a plausible mechanism of generation. Ie if the pattern’s generation cannot be explained by an unguided, mechanistic process then it’s likely a design.

To this issue of irreducible complexity I simply draw your attention to human creativity. Which is a sign of greater designing ability - a computer program that is task-specific or an artificial intelligence that evolves and adapts and can make your morning coffee or crunch numbers for a space program?

I’d definitely say the artificial intelligence. And, whilst it’s true the components and the logic gate states which generate an artificial intelligence are something that cannot come together alone, implying AI is designed, this does not mean all intelligent agents are designed.

I don’t think order implies a designer - part of that is because the examples of natural, order - snowflakes, molecules, galactic filaments- are so numerous and we know the mechanisms and none of them require an external intelligent designing agent for their generation. — aporiap

Actually, we do not really know these mechanisms. We can describe these processes to an extent, provide a partial description of them, but not enough to say that a designing agent is not necessary. As I explained a couple posts back, the fundamental aspect of such processes, which we take for granted, inertia (the tendency for things to remain the same as time passes), which is how we describe temporal order, cannot be accounted for without an appeal to a designing agent.

The difference is a designer.

If it is a "pattern we recognize" then it is something within the thing itself (objective). — Metaphysician Undercover

No, because the act of recognition can occur in different people based in different patterns. I might recognise my phone number, to you it's random digits.

if a person happens to judge that there is order in the outcome, then there actually is order in that outcome. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I'm saying there is no such thing as 'actually' order. Order is entirely a subjective judgement, no 'actually' about it.

The fact that you happened to drop them makes that particular aspect of the thing created (the precise time of the roll or something like that), unintentional, but it does not remove the intent which was behind the act as a whole. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't agree with your interpretation. I think it defines away the meaning of intent. Why is 'carrying the dice' and intentional act and not just 'going about my day' (which happened to involve carrying dice), or 'living my life'. Where we draw the line between acts is arbitrary.

An accident, or mistake only occurs as part of an intentional act, so "object created entirely by accident, without the intention to make anything at all", is just contradictory nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

As above, I disagree with your use of 'act'.

So the subject wants to justify the claim of "order", by pointing to something real, a real order in the object. The only recourse for the subject is to appeal to an ordered creation (design). — Metaphysician Undercover

The subject wanting to justify some judgement does not in itself mean that they must then be capable of doing so. I want to fly but I can't.

This is another nonsensical point of departure. Look around you, in your house, at all the objects. How many of these objects do you judge to have been created with intention? — Metaphysician Undercover

Almost all of them.

How many of these objects have you observed a "person" or some such thing, creating? — Metaphysician Undercover

Almost all of them (or objects very similar to them).

Did you make the judgement that certain things were created intentionally, by imagining, or referred to in your mind, images or propositions about how the things were actually produced, manufactured by equipment and human beings, or did you make the judgement simply by seeing something about the object? — Metaphysician Undercover

Neither. I've already made that judgement in most cases and I just recall the outcome.

I don't know of anyone who would think about the manufacturing process when making the judgement that an object was intentionally designed. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well you do now.

Isn't the more natural way of making such a judgement to look for evidence of sculpting on the stone itself? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I'd use its history, it's strong similarity to other objects I know the history of, or reserve judgement.

the person asked might not know the truth, might pretend to know the truth when not knowing, or might not speak the truth (deception). — Metaphysician Undercover

So? We can ask hundreds, we can ask a dozen people, each of whom has themselves asked a dozen people, each of whom... This is a perfectly normal means of learning, how much of what you know can you claim to have actually learnt from first hand direct experience?

The artifact often lasts a lot longer than the person who made it, in this case there is really no reliable person alive to ask. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, so what? In those cases we just don't know. We can't just make up some method of defining 'designed' to suit the availability of evidence.

Actually, we do not really know these mechanisms. We can describe these processes to an extent, provide a partial description of them, but not enough to say that a designing agent is not necessary. As I explained a couple posts back, the fundamental aspect of such processes, which we take for granted, inertia (the tendency for things to remain the same as time passes), which is how we describe temporal order, cannot be accounted for without an appeal to a designing agent. — Metaphysician Undercover

Probably the only thing I mentioned that is unknown enough to even make remote the possibility of a designer is galactic filaments. To my knowledge, there isn't a full explanation for how or why dark matter, which pulls ordinary matter to form filaments, is distributed in the organized way it is,. Snowflake formation, molecule formation is known with sufficient detail. If we didn't know how these were formed, we wouldn't able to make snow machines or pharmaceuticals.

I'm unsure what you mean by inertia being a fundamental aspect of these processes-- if anything it is the electromagnetic properties and kinetic energies of molecules and atoms that are fundamental to snowflake and molecule formation. How does inertia require a designing agent?

Just to open it up even further...what do we think there is design at all? For example I think determinism fits poorly with design. Snowflake patterns, evolution and me making a bowl on a pottery wheel, it's all just dominoes falling.

No, I'm saying there is no such thing as 'actually' order. Order is entirely a subjective judgement, no 'actually' about it. — Isaac

OK, but now it's clear that you and I have completely different views of "order". I think order is something that the physical world exhibits to us, you think order is totally within the mind of the subject. I take it then, that if a person designs and creates something, this is not case of putting order into the physical object, by your definition of "order", because the physical object can never really have any order.

I don't agree with your interpretation. I think it defines away the meaning of intent. Why is 'carrying the dice' and intentional act and not just 'going about my day' (which happened to involve carrying dice), or 'living my life'. — Isaac

I think the answer to that is very obvious, and I don't understand why you would ask it. We are intentional beings, and act intentionally, so 'going about my day' is itself acting intentionally. Are you trying to argue that you are not an intentional being, and that your actions are not intentional? If so, I would say that this is just a ploy in an attempt to avoid legal responsibility. Trust me, it won't work, in the eyes of the law we are intentional beings and therefore responsible for our actions. You cannot avoid the fact that you are an intentional being, by claiming that you are not. That's why the argument of determinism does not absolve you from legal responsibility. No matter how much you insist that you have no intentional control over your actions, such assertions do not convince people that this is the case.

The subject wanting to justify some judgement does not in itself mean that they must then be capable of doing so. I want to fly but I can't. — Isaac

That of course is the very problem with your claimed stance, that order is completely subjective. Any claim of order cannot be justified. Even if the subject wants to justify that claim, it is impossible to. I see that our discussion on the topic of "order" is completely pointless now, because you very clearly have claimed a definition of "order" which renders any claim of order as absolutely unjustifiable. This means that "order" can be whatever you want it to be. You say "there is order here", and by your definition there is necessarily order there, regardless of what you are referring to as order. What's the point to insisting that this is what "order" is when you've made this concept into something which could refer to absolutely anything? And of course, for me to discuss "order" with you is a complete waste of time because you can say about anything, that there is order there, or there is not order there, and by your professed definition, what you say would be true.

Snowflake formation, molecule formation is known with sufficient detail. — aporiap

This is obviously untrue, as evidenced by the unknowns within quantum mechanics. Just because we can observe enough of the process to make us believe that we understand it, doesn't mean that we actually understand the activities of those subatomic particles involved in these processes. And until we understand those activities of those subatomic particles, we cannot say that they haven't been designed to behave in the way that they do.

How does inertia require a designing agent? — aporiap

Do you understand that every massive body is composed of parts? And, the parts within a massive body are not necessarily arranged in the way that they are, so as to make that particular mass. However, as time passes, the mass retains its composition, (parts not flying off in different directions), and this is inertia. This requires that the parts are "ordered" to maintain the existence of that massive body. As I explained to Isaac (who has now ignored my explanation and opted for an absolutely useless definition of "order"), the only way that we know of, by which these elements could be ordered like this, is through design.

Just to open it up even further...what do we think there is design at all? For example I think determinism fits poorly with design. Snowflake patterns, evolution and me making a bowl on a pottery wheel, it's all just dominoes falling. — Coben

Design wouldn't work without causality being true in some sense. There has to be some pattern that can be manipulated or directed for design to be possible.

Looks like causality (in some sense) is necessary for both design AND determinism. Does this lead to a contradiction? You tell me.

I'd like to refer you back to the notion of complexity when you draw from nature or the universe for examples of undesigned order.

To illustrate take the example of clocks/watches. Chronometers began as sun dials and water clocks. They were then replaced by pendulum or mechanical clocks which were in turn superseded by digital versions. I've heard of people refer to this as "progress" from the primitive to the modern and is understandable in terms of increasing complexity. This increased complexity indicates increased knowledge and designing capability.

Since everything in nature is "surely" better designed than anything we humans are capable of i.e. is even more complex we should actually infer a better, far more knowledgeable designer than no designer; just like a digital watch is better designed than a sun dial.

This is obviously untrue, as evidenced by the unknowns within quantum mechanics. Just because we can observe enough of the process to make us believe that we understand it, doesn't mean that we actually understand the activities of those subatomic particles involved in these processes. And until we understand those activities of those subatomic particles, we cannot say that they haven't been designed to behave in the way that they do. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't mean to be pestering, but what quantum mechanicals unknowns? All the quantum mechanics needed to understand basic subatomic interactions is well characterized: orbital geometries, bonding interactions between orbitals. The activities of the relevant subatomic particles - electrons and protons, are well known.

If what you mean by "we cannot say they haven't been designed to behave the way in they do" is that until we have an explanation for why they behave that way, we can't say they haven't been designed to do so, then I'd also disagree saying it's not the forming of snowflakes that's designed, it's the fundamental constants and forces that are designed to be the way they are. I think, however, this kind of thing just moves the problem up a level. The designer would have to be explained as well as, by being able to interact with matter, it must have some sort of form or mechanism of interacting. This implies there's a logic or order to the way the designer works. This order would then need to be accounted for.

Do you understand that every massive body is composed of parts? And, the parts within a massive body are not necessarily arranged in the way that they are, so as to make that particular mass. However, as time passes, the mass retains its composition, (parts not flying off in different directions), and this is inertia. This requires that the parts are "ordered" to maintain the existence of that massive body. As I explained to Isaac (who has now ignored my explanation and opted for an absolutely useless definition of "order"), the only way that we know of, by which these elements could be ordered like this, is through design.

We are working with different definitions of inertia. Your definition, the tendency of parts of an object to remain together over time, is not the same as the traditional definition of inertia, the tendency of an object to maintain its state of motion - either continuing at a certain velocity or remaining at rest. I don't think either of these require a designer.

The first case can be explained by just fundamental forces at work - at small scales [electron to maybe hundreds of kilometer range] electromagnetic force is most influential contributor to bodies maintaining their composition; at larger scales gravity is the most influential contributor.

The second case can be explained by general and special relativity.

I'd like to refer you back to the notion of complexity when you draw from nature or the universe for examples of undesigned order.

To illustrate take the example of clocks/watches. Chronometers began as sun dials and water clocks. They were then replaced by pendulum or mechanical clocks which were in turn superseded by digital versions. I've heard of people refer to this as "progress" from the primitive to the modern and is understandable in terms of increasing complexity. This increased complexity indicates increased knowledge and designing capability.

Since everything in nature is "surely" better designed than anything we humans are capable of i.e. is even more complex we should actually infer a better, far more knowledgeable designer than no designer; just like a digital watch is better designed than a sun dial. — TheMadFool

This example avoids the difference in our definition of design, and its influence on the arguments. If you agree with me that self organization is not the same as design then, by definition, order in the universe is not a result of design and you would agree with me that examples such as the one above has no bearing on the question of whether order in the universe is designed.

Secondly, I disagree with the idea that higher complexity implies more knowledge, I think instead higher efficiency implies more knowledge. A clock that is made of less organized parts, i.e. less complex, but is able to still function just as well as a more complicated watch with more parts is indicative of knowledge. It's certainly a fact that order in the universe is not the result of efficient means - evolution of species, for example, had to go through innumerable iterations before getting it right enough for survival [as opposed to perfectly right]. Human bodies are not fully efficient systems, there are many ways in which our strength, immune systems, cardiovascular systems could be optimized to minimize fatigue and effects of aging and so on. But I ultimately think this is a different issue.

Efficiency: Don't you think the universe is efficient? If "yes" then that's great design.

If "no", can you give an example? You mentioned human bodies and that reminded me of Neil deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysicist, who deprecated the design argument by stating that building an entertainment system (sex organs) right in the middle of a sewage system (excretory system - anus and all) was "poor" design. However, if efficiency, your criterion, is considered, multi-purpose structures should be the norm rather than the exception.

I agree that causation would be necessary for design. But then at the same time, determinism means, really, that things just unfold. Does a flower design its bloom. Well, not. But then we think we are fancy and free, but if determinism holds for us, then that pot we made is simply the unfolding of our genetics and experiences. It had to plop out. Our 'planning' popped out first like a bloom, then the pot we 'created' popped out like a bloom. I think determinism undermines desire, which, to me actually affects both sides of the intelligent desire debate. What are we contrasting the lack of design of the universe with? Where could true design occur, if thing, basically, just happen one thing after another?

I don't mean to be pestering, but what quantum mechanicals unknowns? All the quantum mechanics needed to understand basic subatomic interactions is well characterized: orbital geometries, bonding interactions between orbitals. The activities of the relevant subatomic particles - electrons and protons, are well known. — aporiap

How the particles move is an unknown. Some aspects of their movements are predictable, but that only means that the movements are orderly. The capacity to predict does not imply that the movements are known. For example, one could predict that the sun will rise in the morning, and predict the precise time of the rising and setting, while believing that a giant dragon is moving the sun around the back side of the earth every night, in an orderly fashion, therefore not knowing that the earth is actually spinning. If the movement of an object is orderly, its appearance is predictable, but the ability to predict its appearance doesn't mean that its movements are known.

If what you mean by "we cannot say they haven't been designed to behave the way in they do" is that until we have an explanation for why they behave that way, we can't say they haven't been designed to do so, then I'd also disagree saying it's not the forming of snowflakes that's designed, it's the fundamental constants and forces that are designed to be the way they are. — aporiap

Right, that's what design is, don't you think? To say that something was designed, doesn't imply that there is a person standing there making by hand, each designed object. We set up the production equipment, in the manufacturing plant, and pump out the objects. Of course those objects are designed. To argue that in this case, the objects are not really designed, only the production plant is, doesn't make sense. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to argue that the snowflakes are not designed, only the fundamental constants and forces which make them are.

The issue with "design" which you seem to be missing, is that things are designed for a reason, a purpose, that's fundamental to "design". So if these constants are "designed", then there is a reason for their being.

The designer would have to be explained as well as, by being able to interact with matter, it must have some sort of form or mechanism of interacting. This implies there's a logic or order to the way the designer works. This order would then need to be accounted for. — aporiap

That's not a very good argument. It's like saying "that's a dark and scary place, I'm afraid of what might be in there, so I'll just assume that there is nothing in there, that way I won't need to go in and look. People commonly say this about God, if you assume that God created the universe, this doesn't get you anywhere because now you have to determine what created God. But this is a false argument, because accepting God actually gets you one step closer. You must accept that there is God before you can start to understand God. So when the evidence points to God, as creator, it doesn't make sense to deny God on the account of, we still need to determine who created God. To recognize the reality of God is one step on the ladder, and regardless of how many steps there are, one step is still progress.

We are working with different definitions of inertia. Your definition, the tendency of parts of an object to remain together over time, is not the same as the traditional definition of inertia, the tendency of an object to maintain its state of motion - either continuing at a certain velocity or remaining at rest. I don't think either of these require a designer. — aporiap

It's the very same definition. The parts within an object are in motion, and that motion must remain uniform or the object will cease to exist as such. It's a matter of stability in motion.

The first case can be explained by just fundamental forces at work - at small scales [electron to maybe hundreds of kilometer range] electromagnetic force is most influential contributor to bodies maintaining their composition; at larger scales gravity is the most influential contributor.

The second case can be explained by general and special relativity. — aporiap

This is a good example of what I mean by the capacity to predict does not imply that the motion is understood. The capacity to predicted is based in the assumption of uniform motion, Newton's first law. But Newton's first law takes uniform motion for granted, it doesn't explain why the motion of a body remains constant from one moment of time to the next. And, when we get down to tiny particles, in short times we see no reason why this law ought to be upheld. Yet it is.

These explanations you refer to are not real explanations at all. To say 'mass is created by fundamental forces at work', really doesn't express an understanding of mass.

Why does a perfectly normal person infer a designer/occupant from a well-ordered room/space and then contradict him/herself by rejecting a designer for the universe which too is well-ordered? — TheMadFool

As a retired Architect, I have some understanding of Design and Blueprints. And I do see evidence of design intent in the world, but the nature of the artist can only be inferred from the nature of the artwork. However, most arguments against a designing deity, point-out the imperfections and failures of the so-called design. So I no longer use those terms in my discussions of a philosopher's First Cause.

Instead of the Genesis concept of magical creation of a perfect Garden of Eden, I view the world as evolving like a computer program from basic codes and criteria toward an answer to the programmer's "what if?" question. This notion is supported by physicists who have concluded that the material world is essentially mathematical in nature.

Of course, arguing that the world is a program won't satisfy Atheists, because they would require hard evidence of a Programmer, and it won't sit well with Theists, who prefer the traditional biblical account of seven day creation. It also won't suit those who think in terms of the Blueprint metaphor as a predestined design. It may not even make sense for those who imagine that the world is evolving toward a Technological Singularity. But, for me, a better metaphor for the Information Age is Evolutionary Programming in which the final answer is unknown until computed via a heuristic process of evolution. Hence, imperfections and failures are to be expected.

Evolutionary Programming : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

I view the world as evolving like a computer program from basic codes and criteria toward an answer to the programmer's "what if?" question. This notion is supported by physicists who have concluded that the material world is essentially mathematical in nature. — Gnomon

Thanks for the link

Are you saying that the mathematical nature of the world is a clue? Can I then say that the programmer/architect is god?

Where could true design occur, if thing, basically, just happen one thing after another? — Coben

Let's suppose determinism is true and we lack free will. However one thing is certain - we're capable of rational judgment and analysis which informs us that order is strongly associated with a designer. So, despite a lack of free will, we must conclude that the universe has a designer.

Let's suppose determinism is true and we lack free will. However one thing is certain - we're capable of rational judgment and analysis which informs us that order is strongly associated with a designer. So, despite a lack of free will, we must conclude that the universe has a designer. — TheMadFool

I don't know if that argument holds. What I am saying is we are not designers if determinism holds for us. Stuff gets inevitably made, including the plans to make.

So I am not sure we even know what 'design' means. Perhaps God has free will. But we have no coherent model for what that is. If we believe in determinism I don't think 'design' is a meaningful concept.

The difference is a designer. — creativesoul

:chin: ???

I don't know if that argument holds. What I am saying is we are not designers if determinism holds for us. Stuff gets inevitably made, including the plans to make.

So I am not sure we even know what 'design' means. Perhaps God has free will. But we have no coherent model for what that is. If we believe in determinism I don't think 'design' is a meaningful concept. — Coben

Does determinism preclude consciousness and the ability to comprehend/appreciate truths, two of which are the order of the universe and how we humans design?

It certainly wouldn't preclude consciousness nor the ability to comprehend truths - (though as a side note, if one believes one is determined, one can then never be quite sure what is making you believe X is true.) But neither of those is designing, I think. IOW you responded to me saying that determinism precludes design - and I gave a way of looking at what we produce as not design - but writing that 'how we humans design' is a truth.

I think we may be writing past each other here.

My point is if my making a pot was determined in the Big Bang, I don't think it makes sense to think of me as a designer. Nor more than a plant producing a bloom, or a could producing those beautiful, seemingly designed snowflakes.

Personally I am agnostic as far as determinism and free will. But it seems to me if one believes in determinism, design - any design, human, animal - no longer makes sense. Stuff just happens. An architect plans a house, but that plan was determined long before he was born. Atoms bash into atoms, molecules follow their paths. This isn't design, it is just inevitable unfolding.

It certainly wouldn't preclude consciousness nor the ability to comprehend truths - (though as a side note, if one believes one is determined, one can then never be quite sure what is making you believe X is true.) But neither of those is designing, I think. IOW you responded to me saying that determinism precludes design - and I gave a way of looking at what we produce as not design - but writing that 'how we humans design' is a truth.

I think we may be writing past each other here.

My point is if my making a pot was determined in the Big Bang, I don't think it makes sense to think of me as a designer. Nor more than a plant producing a bloom, or a could producing those beautiful, seemingly designed snowflakes.

Personally I am agnostic as far as determinism and free will. But it seems to me if one believes in determinism, design - any design, human, animal - no longer makes sense. Stuff just happens. An architect plans a house, but that plan was determined long before he was born. Atoms bash into atoms, molecules follow their paths. This isn't design, it is just inevitable unfolding. — Coben

So you agree that even if determinism were true, we'd still be able to recognize order in the universe and also be able to reason. If so then the argument from design should convince us about the truth, right?

So you agree that even if determinism were true, we'd still be able to recognize order in the universe and also be able to reason — TheMadFool

1) I don't think determinism precludes correctly recognizing order in the universe. Though if we believe in determinism, its seems to me there is always an asterisk, since we are compelled to believe it and then compelled to think X and Y are the reasons we believe in it, we can never be quite sure if we are being rational or not. 2) I don't see where order necessitates design. 3) I still don't know what design means in a deterministic universe.