Yes. My personal philosophical worldview is based on the 21st century understanding of the dual functions of Information : both mental and physical. So, the fact that some physicists have concluded that the material world is ultimately mathematical (abstract information) supports my thesis. Of course, most people would find it inconceivable that immaterial abstract math could become concrete material stuff. But I have been developing my own hypothesis of how that phase transition might work. However, I'm not a scientist, so you don't have to take my word for it. You can research the mathematical and physical literature for yourself.Are you saying that the mathematical nature of the world is a clue? Can I then say that the programmer/architect is god? — TheMadFool
For philosophical purposes it's good that you are not prejudiced in favor of either Free Will or Determinism. In my own worldview, I've concluded that humans are both pre-determined by natural laws and free-to-choose due to inherent randomness. Thus, we can have cosmic design and local freedom too. A good example of how that freedom-within-determinism works is illustrated in computer design using Evolutionary Programming and Genetic Programming methods. In these cases, the programmers are seeking solutions that cannot be pre-determined.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
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. — TheMadFool
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
Mathematical Universe Hypothesis : "Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics" — Gnomon
As in Evolutionary Programming the system is "designed" to "unfold inevitably". Since the intention occurs before the exercise begins, it is not obvious from within the experiment. — Gnomon
I stand by that order doesn't imply designer for the reasons I mentioned to — aporiap
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
That's based on the assumption of Determinism. And Randomness does indeed allow short strings of "apparent" order, that lead to the Gambler's Fallacy. But long and progressive chains of order, such as the evolution of intelligent beings (novelty), supposedly from random collisions of atoms (disorder), cannot be explained by rigid Determinism, except as an act of faith. There is no novelty in randomness without the Direction of Selection, or the Action of Intention.*1Those intentions are not made by the supposed 'designer' intentions appear, determined past causes. — Coben
I demonstrated that your so-called "reasons" are unreasonable, so why are you falling back on this unreasonableness? Let's look again. — Metaphysician Undercover
I stand by that order doesn't imply designer for the reasons I mentioned to @TheMadFool. Designs are made ordered by something external to them, by definition.
How about : the foundation of everything is mathematical, therefore everything is made of Information? In my thesis, "Information" is equivalent to Spinoza's "Substance" (Monism). And everything in the world is a "Mode" of that Eternal Mind Stuff.But if everything is math, then nothing is math. This is the fate of all monisms? — jellyfish
Yes. Evolving programs, as opposed to calculated programs, are heuristic in that they explore random paths (mutations) and judge their fitness against the programmer's criteria. In my thesis, the Great Programmer set-up the initial conditions and natural laws that determine which options are selected for the next generation. The "unfit" paths are ruthlessly abandoned to extinction. Which could apply to humans if we prove to be unfit for future generations. In that case, we may be replaced by robots. :smile:Are you talking about genetic algorithms? Those are awesome. But we provide the fitness function. — jellyfish
By the bolded's logic, the universe must be designed by a terrestrial animal capable of design. We have never observed anything intelligent enough to design things that is not an animal capable of design, so any intelligent thing, by your logic, must be an animal capable of design. So it must be so that God is, in fact, a terrestrial animal... Well maybe a computer, so maybe God's an uncreated computer.Meanwhile, I've demonstrated that the only way we know of, that order could possibly come into existence, is from an intelligent designing agent. And, it is unreasonable, and illogical to think that we could ever know of order coming from another source. — Metaphysician Undercover
By the bolded's logic, the universe must be designed by a terrestrial animal capable of design. — aporiap
That's based on the assumption of Determinism. — Gnomon
And Randomness does indeed allow short strings of "apparent" order, that lead to the Gambler's Fallacy. — Gnomon
I don't know what pure randomness would be like, but novelty can be created and there are many simulation type programs that do this, where you have rules plus a random element. None of that leads to something like design.But long and progressive chains of order, such as the evolution of intelligent beings (novelty), supposedly from random collisions of atoms (disorder), cannot be explained by rigid Determinism, except as an act of faith. There is no novelty in randomness without the Direction of Selection, or the Action of Intention.*1 — Gnomon
No it doesn't. If having a third wing in the middle of a bat's face makes it hard for it to fly, it won't find food. There is no intention make this mutation lead to deaths and elimination. It is a consequence of the change meeting hard non-choosing reality.The Theory of Evolution was based on a> Random Mutations plus b> Natural Selection. But "selection" requires Criteria, which require Intention. — Gnomon
So, Evolution is Freedom Within Determinism, Randomness ordered by Selection, which allows Novelty despite Laws. — Gnomon
While it’s true everything we define to be ordered has a designer, it’s also true that all designers are intelligent terrestrial animals. There is nothing to suggest designers could be otherwise because we’ve never seen any other possible designer, in the same way we’ve never seen any other source for design. So it would be illogical to assume that the universe could be designed by anything other than intelligent terrestrial animals — aporiap
You said it’d be illogical to think there is any source for order other than a designer.
Your justification is that every instance of things we conventionally define to be ordered, derives from a ‘designer’. You infer from all instances of design-designer you’ve seen, that order in the natural world must also be from a designer. — aporiap
I’m just extending the logic here. While it’s true everything we define to be ordered has a designer, it’s also true that all designers are intelligent terrestrial animals. — aporiap
There is nothing to suggest designers could be otherwise because we’ve never seen any other possible designer, in the same way we’ve never seen any other source for design. So it would be illogical to assume that the universe could be designed by anything other than intelligent terrestrial animals — aporiap
You don’t see design in plants, you instead conclude that the order in plants is designed, which you ultimately infer from the fact that all man-made designs come from human designers. — aporiap
Most discussions of this topic are argued from the assumption of a True/False dichotomy : Either/Or. But my worldview and operating philosophy are based on the Both/And assumption : Yin/Yang. That's why my reasoning is hard for Black/White thinkers to grasp.And nowhere in this did you explain how randomness and determinism lead to freedom. — Coben
Precisely! Randomness is an integral part of the "design" of Evolution. The program has two major components : a Randomizer to generate multiple options, and a Derandomizer (CPU) to select the "fittest" options to meet the Designer's criteria. Together, these components provide exceptions to Dumb Destiny, and a progressive arrow to the otherwise directionless "unfolding" of Time. But ultimate control was in the mind of the designer working outside the system. Which is why demands for empirical evidence of the Creator are fruitless. The only evidence is in the architecture of the system itself.Random effects are not under anyone's control or choice. — Coben
There's no need to get into this kind of implicit insult. I have no problem with non-binary thinking or even seemingly paradoxical answers, but while both and thinking with determinism and randomness may create not predictable actions in humans, it doesn't add up to free will. Just as it doesn't in mutation which also has deterministic and random components or processes mixed. The mutations form has not been chosen by the mutation, nor its abilities. It is the r esult of mutation plus deterministic processes. Your sense that the two add up to free will, would mean that free will is everywhere, also. I don't think it holds at all, but if it did, it would mean that any stochastic process, in your deism, would mean there is free will present. So, Brownian motion of particles in a liquid would be free will, since there are deterministic and free will facets. Heck, even the stock market comes to life as a conscious entity, making choices. Now, I'm a panpsychist, and all, but the stock market? Anyway I am gonig to leave this here.That's why my reasoning is hard for Black/White thinkers to grasp. — Gnomon
No I don't think so. A clear example is energy loss going from trophic level to trophic level. Only 10% of the energy contained in an acre of grass is transferred to consumers of grass. The energy level drops exponentially as one goes from one level of consumer to the next, due to the cost of metabolic processes which result in heat production, and due to the inability to digest or store certain bonds. An efficient ecosystem would be able to maximize the utilization of energy. And what do you think of vestigial organs, pseudo genes? — aporiap
Yes. Evolving programs, as opposed to calculated programs, are heuristic in that they explore random paths (mutations) and judge their fitness against the programmer's criteria. In my thesis, the Great Programmer set-up the initial conditions and natural laws that determine which options are selected for the next generation. The "unfit" paths are ruthlessly abandoned to extinction. Which could apply to humans if we prove to be unfit for future generations. In that case, we may be replaced by robots. :smile: — Gnomon
No insult was intended. The Black/White reference was intended to show what the BothAnd philosophy is supposed to provide an alternative to.There's no need to get into this kind of implicit insult. — Coben
No. IMHO, Evolution does indeed progress freely without any specific predetermined path -- only a general direction. But that doesn't mean that Brownian molecules have any choice in their movements. FreeWill is a feature of self-conscious creatures, who can predict the future from past experience, and choose a direction that seems desirable.I don't think it holds at all, but if it did, it would mean that any stochastic process, in your deism, would mean there is free will present. — Coben
Oh no. That's would be far above my pay grade. I'll leave the specifying of an evolutionary program to those who are experts in that field. And I leave the specifics of G*D's fitness function for Natural Evolution to the Creator. But, in general, Darwin has discovered that nature seems to be designed to experiment with a variety of species, in its search for ever "better" forms of Life & Mind. What the ultimate goal might be, I have no idea.Does your theory include an explicit fitness function? Or it more like Darwin generalized? — jellyfish
From what kind of logic could you infer otherwise? Do you have any reason to believe in spontaneous creation of organization, energy, laws? The reason Aristotle postulated a First Cause, was that an eternal regression of causation is an empty gesture that doesn't answer the question of origins. The Prime Mover concept answers the question with a "buck stops here" assertion that does not imply spontaneous emergence from nothing, but intentional creation from everything.Your justification is that every instance of things we conventionally define to be ordered, derives from a ‘designer’. You infer from all instances of design-designer you’ve seen, that order in the natural world must also be from a designer. — aporiap
There's a further aspect which I explained earlier, which you don't seem to be accounting for, and that is that it is impossible that we will ever find an instance of order which we can justifiably claim came into existence without a designer. This is why I told Isaac that this is a pointless position to take.
I — Metaphysician Undercover
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.