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

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.

I prefer not to use the traditional term for a creator deity, because of the superfluous religious baggage attached. But I found that more scientific (Multiverse) or philosophical (First Cause) terms don't convey the real world implications as completely (quanta and qualia). So, I compromised on the novel spelling "G*D" to indicate that the Cause of our world's existence is in most ways equivalent to the ancient notion of a Creator. Then, in the glossary I try to define that neologism in such a way as to dispel the anthro-morphic & magical & anti-science meanings attached to the conventional term that don't apply to my thesis. I also use other metaphors, such as "Programmer", to convey the concept of the Enformer of our world. The key difference between "God" and "G*D" is that the latter doesn't have to intervene in the process of natural evolution. The Programmer just runs He/r program, and waits for the final output.


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" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

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

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.

For those who cannot see any signs of design in nature, I can only say that even atheists, like Stephen ("know the mind of god") Hawking, are forced to use "design" terminology to describe how the world began and proceeds to evolve, presumably without intention. In my own training as a designer, we once did an exercise called "design by accident". But even though we allowed objects to arrange themselves randomly, the exercise would never get started without the intention of the designer to set-up the system and then allow it to evolve freely. 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.

Evolutionary Programming : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)

Order From Randomness : https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2FZxTKTAtDs2bnfCh/order-from-randomness-ordering-the-universe-of-random

Order Within Chaos : https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/discover-the-hidden-order-in-chaos/

Freewill Within Determinism : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

Those intentions are not made by the supposed 'designer' intentions appear, determined past causes. The supposed 'designer' does not choose to intend, the intention arises just like freckles do and waves do in the ocean and a boulder finally slips loose and rolls down a hillside. The intention and the design that it leads to are caused by things prior to the so called desinger. In determinims, there can be no desire, just patterns emerging inevicatably.

Now let's say you are right and there is a random element. That doesn't lead to design or choice either. Random effects are not under anyone's control or choice.

None of that leads to anything like freedom or design.

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

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?

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

I agree, we have no idea why the universe is the way it is. Why particles move at all. Why they move in characterizable ways. I think, however, theories that presuppose anthropocentric things like 'demons', 'dragons' moving objects that are similar to us with respect to being intelligent agents with a will to move things is just ridiculous- not saying you believe that, but a god in the sky designer, a computer scientist who's simulating/designing a universe on a computer and we're all in it, whatever other anthropocentric idea for why the universe operates the way it does is just absurd. Living things with brains that can interact and manipulate things physically etc. only exist on a single mote of dust in the middle of [basically] an infinite space of swirling stuff. Humans or anything conceivably like them do not have the capacity to manipulate the universe in a way that leads to ordered movements which obey the same equations at all points in space and time. Everything points to these movements and their order being generated intrinsically from reality itself and not something external to it.. it would also be very difficult for me to imagine what it would mean for something to be external to reality, since reality is defined as everything there is, observable or unobservable.

My point is while, sure, the world could just be a design, there is nothing that makes it the most likely explanation - 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.

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

But let's think about this. To me it says something like: if we lift the curtain of appearance, we'll find math. A smile is mathematics. Even the idea that the physical universe is mathematics... is somehow itself 'really' mathematics. But if everything is math, then nothing is math. This is the fate of all monisms?

I don't see how it can float without the husk/kernel metaphor. It's something like the end of The Matrix. But why call the husk illusion?

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

Are you talking about genetic algorithms? Those are awesome. But we provide the fitness function. I can imagine watching a population without knowing the fitness function and trying to deduce it. Perhaps that's what you have in mind. Fascinating theme.

I stand by that order doesn't imply designer for the reasons I mentioned to — aporiap

I demonstrated that your so-called "reasons" are unreasonable, so why are you falling back on this unreasonableness? Let's look again.

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

You now agree that we don't know the mechanisms well enough to say that these processes do not require an external intelligent designing agent. And now, all you say is that this idea of an intelligent designing agent is "ridiculous", without any reasons for this claim.

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.

So who's position is really the ridiculous one?

Those intentions are not made by the supposed 'designer' intentions appear, determined past causes. — Coben

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.*1

The Theory of Evolution was based on a> Random Mutations plus b> Natural Selection. But "selection" requires Criteria, which require Intention. So, Evolution is Freedom Within Determinism, Randomness ordered by Selection, which allows Novelty despite Laws. :cool:


"In a godless universe with no design or purpose, the emergence of consciousness is an unexplained anomaly." http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page66.html

Gambler's Fallacy (non-independent events are not completely random) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

*1 Intention : Darwin's theory was based on the example of humans intentionally selecting canines for certain functions over thousands of years, which resulted in dogs that could hardly survive in the wild without the help of humans.

Human Selection :


Natural Selection :

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 was not referring to the snowflake example, I was referring to the definition of design; he has not addressed that point.

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.

But if everything is math, then nothing is math. This is the fate of all monisms? — jellyfish

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.

"According to Spinoza, everything that exists is either a substance or a mode (E1a1). A substance is something that needs nothing else in order to exist or be conceived." https://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

Are you talking about genetic algorithms? Those are awesome. But we provide the fitness function. — 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:

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. 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.

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

By the bolded's logic, the universe must be designed by a terrestrial animal capable of design. — aporiap

But we see design in plants as well, so design is not limited to animals. It's not the argument which is ridiculous, it's the way you interpret it which is.

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.

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. 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

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.

That's based on the assumption of Determinism. — Gnomon

Well, sure. That's been the working assumption - one I do not make in general since I am agnostic regarding it - all through my discussion with Mad Fool. I generally state this or make subjunctive starts, like 'if determinism is the case....'

And Randomness does indeed allow short strings of "apparent" order, that lead to the Gambler's Fallacy. — Gnomon

I didn't say anything about randomness not allowing order, apparent or 'apparent' or real order.

Order and free will or design are not the same thing.

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

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.

We might call it design, but it is simply unfolding, just like the pretty patterns in these programs.

The Theory of Evolution was based on a> Random Mutations plus b> Natural Selection. But "selection" requires Criteria, which require Intention. — 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.

So, Evolution is Freedom Within Determinism, Randomness ordered by Selection, which allows Novelty despite Laws. — Gnomon

Natural selection is precisely intentionless.

And nowhere in this did you explain how randomness and determinism lead to freedom.

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

Exactly.

All the artefacts we know have been designed are also artefacts of the late Pleistocene, so that puts a limit on the age of the universe too.

Also, of all the artefacts we know have been designed, none of them are larger than the earth, so the universe must be pretty small.

Intelligent Design logic is great, we'll have all the mysteries of the universe sorted in no time at this rate.

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

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’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

This is illogical, and not an extension of my logic. We find designed order within the bodies of animals and plants, about which we cannot say that the designer is the animal and plant itself. The design comes from the genetics and underlying processes. So an animal such s a human being, designing something, is just an extension of this underlying designing which is occurring in all plants and animals all the time.

Therefore your proposed extension of logic is a composition fallacy. You are proposing that what is true of some instances of design, that the designers are "intelligent terrestrial animals", is true of all instances of design. But in reality we see design in lower level life forms, without intelligence, so we cannot restrict our conception of "designer" in such a way.

What we do, in philosophy and metaphysics is observe very closely, and analyze the intentional acts of human designers, which are very evident to us, so that we can develop an understanding of the underlying designing process which is responsible for the existence of living bodies. This designing is what Aristotle called final cause.

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

Again, this is unsound logic. We often see designed things where the designer is nowhere to be found. You are not respecting this obvious premise, which along with the fact that our spatial-temporal perspective for observation is extremely limited, makes it very likely that there are many designed things where the designer is not evident to us. So when we see a thing which looks like it was designed, yet we cannot see the designer, there is no reason to conclude that it wasn't designed. In fact, this is the conclusion which I explained is pointless, because it can never be justified. And a conclusion which cannot be justified is an unsound conclusion and ought not be accepted.

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

Right, strictly speaking, we don't "see" the design in plants. We see the order, and with the aid of equipment we might say we "see" the DNA etc., but we don't "see" the design. And this is consistent with human designs. We do not "see" the person's intent, or plan, it exists immaterially in the mind of the person. This is why understanding the nature of final cause, and how the object, as the goal, exists immaterially before it has material existence is very important to understanding the nature of design.

So, we know how to recognize order. And, we know a little bit about how ordered things come into existence through acts of human intent. So, when we see other things which have order, we can apply these principles, toward understanding how that other order (things ordered by design other than human intent) came into existence through design. Then we find consistency between these two, and we know we are on the right track. Your criticism appears to be that since there is not a necessary connection between order and design, we ought not proceed in this way. To answer your criticism, I would say that you need to understand the relation as one of probability rather than as one of necessity. It is this lack of necessity which validates the concept of "free will". There is not a relation of necessity between the thing ordered, and the design which orders it, there is a "free" act required.

And nowhere in this did you explain how randomness and determinism lead to freedom. — Coben

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.

But, if you have the patience to follow the thread, these excerpts from a Quora Forum topic may explain how I rationalize human Freewill. It uses a mathematical analogy (Bell Curve) to illustrate that neither directionless Randomness nor cause & effect Determinism is absolute. Statistically, the Bell Curve makes the behavior of collective systems predictable, but the actions of individuals remains unpredictable, hence free from determinism. But this is not the kind of FreeWill that most people imagine. Instead, it's restricted conditional freedom. Humans are both free-ish and predetermined.

Freedom Within Determinism : http://enformationism.info/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12&p=58#p58
Begin at third panel : 08/04/2018

BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Random effects are not under anyone's control or choice. — 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.

As an architect, I created Dumb Designs that depended on construction workers to interpret and implement the designer's intentions. And sometimes they got it wrong, so I had to intervene to get the project back on track. Yet the Cosmic Designer created a system that constructs itself from nothing but a metaphorical blueprint (or recipe, or DNA kernel) encoded in the Singularity. The Programmer's Intention was translated into the operating system code. From the Big Bang onward, the system is self-creating and self-directing.

The assertion above about "control" assumes, erroneously, that any postulated designer would have to reach into the system (intervene) to make any course corrections. But if you think of the universe as a Black Box functioning automatically, then the designer had to think "outside the box". In other words, the system was designed to work autonomously. This is not how the bible-god works. But it is how the postulated Enformer is presumed to work. The universe is an Autonomous Self-Directing Evolution System. Once set in motion, it requires no further inputs. It works by inherent (built-in) Teleology, not by ad hoc interventions (miracles).

That's why my reasoning is hard for Black/White thinkers to grasp. — Gnomon

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.

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

How about if we look at it in a different way:

Let's say grass has 100 calories total and herbivores extract 10 calories from it (10%). This, at first, looks like poor design but what if the usable calories in grass is actually 15 calories. Extracting 10 calories gives us an efficiency of 66.66% which is quite good.

Are you saying determinism voids logic and rationality making argumentation pointless and thus belief meaningless?

Can you expand on that a bit. Thanks.

:smile: :up: Thanks

I think one could argue that, but not I am not going that far. I am saying that once you think everything is determined, you have to wonder if the reasons you think an argument makes sense are correct and also if they are the reasons you believe something. If everything is determined, then your sense that argument A is correct is determined. Now, it might be determined by argument A making sense. But the quale that the argument makes sense is also determined. The 'this argument makes sense' quale is determined also.

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

Does your theory include an explicit fitness function? Or it more like Darwin generalized?

There's no need to get into this kind of implicit insult. — Coben

No insult was intended. The Black/White reference was intended to show what the BothAnd philosophy is supposed to provide an alternative to.

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

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.

Enformationism has some similarities to Panpsychism, but the fact that all things in the world are composed of generic Information, does not imply that they are self-conscious. Again, self-consciousness is an emergent feature of creatures that are freewill agents. Consciousness is necessary for animals to live. But self-consciousness allows some creatures to thrive, by merging their individual creativity into a species Culture. :smile:

Does your theory include an explicit fitness function? Or it more like Darwin generalized? — jellyfish

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.

But, judging from the evidence we've collected so-far, the upward trend of Evolution probably requires physical complexity and mental intelligence, and even some level of FreeWill. Put those traits together and you find that Evolution has already created little creators of its own. That is not what you would expect from an accidental universe. Some even speculate that a future creative species, whether silicon or carbon based, might create something like a god-on-earth. I'm not smart enough to see that far ahead.

Note : what qualifies as "better" depends on the applicable Fitness Function.

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

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.

Logically, in eternity-infinity all things are possible. Once an organic system has been created (by magic, if you like), all subsequent order would be produced by cause & effect Necessity, not magic. But we now know that the space-time universe is not eternal or infinite. So its origin must lie outside the boundaries of space-time, in the infinite "unbounded" -- what I call G*D, as the job-title for Creator, Designer, Programmer, Energizer, World-Maker functions.


Spontaneous Generation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
"Anaximander, who believed that all things arose from the elemental nature of the universe, the apeiron (ἄπειρον) or the "unbounded" or "infinite,"

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

First of all the argument is circular. Your discounting natural cases of order as having an alternative source of order depends on your [in all honesty, narrow-sighted] conclusion that there are no other sources of order. You then use this assumption to conclude that there are in fact no other sources of order.

This is despite the dis analogies in man-made and natural cases of order pointed out by @Isaac - i.e. (1) that hurricane Katrina, black holes, snowflakes, the spherical ordered tangle of the rubber bands in my pocket, and mars, were not made with any clear purpose or intent; (2) that natural order results from self organization as opposed to an external agent or individual. These clearly provide enough justification to assume the things generating natural and man-made order are different .

Secondly, there is a chicken and egg dillema here. The thing which allows humans to be intelligent, the their brain [we know this unambiguously because of lesioning studies, in which damage to the brain directly causes deficits in intelligence], is itself a natural object operating by universal natural principles. So, fundamentally, the patterns it generates are patterns that nature itself is generating as a deductive consequence of the way it is structured (which, in one local region of reality at one local time in reality, happens to be a 'designer'). So, 'design', then isn't really the result of 'designers', it is fundamentally a result of the way the universe is intrinsically structured. So, in this view, there is only ever one ultimate source of order [and disorder] which is nature itself.

Anyway I've gone on a limb and did a cursory search for clear examples of order arising from entirely unpredictable, random processes. I was able to find a nice article which provides an example of pendulums which take on an orderly state of swinging when swung at in entirely random ways. In this case the ordered properties of the system - the orientation and swinging of the pendulums - results entirely from the disorder of the inputs to the system. So here is one case in which order comes out of disorder.

Of course we also know the universe is fundamentally indeterministic or random - this is why schrodinger's equation is a probabilistic model, not a deterministic law. In fact it gives you, based on the energy of the system, only all possible locations where the system could be and the likelihoods of 'finding it' at those points - should you assume the system as actually, a conventional point particle. Alternatively, you can imagine it as telling you the object exists in all possible locations it could be given that energy.