Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, April 22, 2007

A Thought Provoking ID proposal

With permission from (the) Thought Provoker I have re-posted his ID proposal:


Here is what I would consider the beginnings of a logically consistent ID Proposal. For practical reasons this lacks a lot of detail. It would be more appropriate to call it an outline. Whether an outline or proposal there needs to be a justification for even considering it. Suggesting it is the best explanation available is a subjective opinion and isn't enough justification, IMO. What is needed is a compelling requirement.

ID proponents generally argue that only intelligence can create intelligence without getting too picky about the meaning of the word “intelligence”. Being an electrical engineer, this is the basis for a feedback loop. How do you create a sine wave output? Use a sine wave input and amplify it. Where do you get the input? From the output. It is called an oscillator circuit. Nothing magical or supernatural about it (except, maybe, the AA battery).

However, even an oscillator circuit needs a framework from which to operate. Cosmologists like Steven Hawking make it their calling to model just such a framework. Steven Hawking’s work is freely available via the web and, unlike some other PhD types, he explains both the math and logic in a way that it can be understood and vetted by anyone who wishes to do so. While Steven Hawking isn’t infallible (he famously lost a bet with another physicist), he knows a lot more about cosmology than I do (big understatement).

Here is a link where he explains the concept of time as just another dimension like North/South directions on a globe with the South Pole being the beginning of time and the North Pole being the end of time. Questions about events before the beginning of time are like questions about locations South of the South Pole. Both are paradoxical, but neither requires the supernatural.

I realize some people don’t accept this explanation as the Truth (capital “T”). This is where NOMA (Non-Overlapping_Magisteria) comes in. I have discussed this in other posts here and here. Embracing NOMA means everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and the need for resolving a dispute stops here. Rejecting NOMA results in OMA (Overlapping Magisteria) and a forces a search for a single, mutual OMA Truth. So, without further ado, I boldly use the Hawking Model as my starting point for a proposed, OMA Truth (this ID proposal/outline). I am sure that some will not like this choice. To these people, I suggest they write a beginning to end proposal/outline like this one and allow it to also be vetted publicly.

The Hawking Model includes the multiverse paradigm…
“The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size.… A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse.”


A complaint to this is that the multiverse still doesn’t solve the improbability problem. In other words, why is this universe so lucky. I suggest changing the bubbles analogy to lightening strikes. The only universes that get beyond the recollapse stage are those that can complete the circuit from the beginning to the end of time. Think of the improbability of a lighting striking hitting a specific, small piece of metal out of acres of other targets. However, when that piece of metal is a lighting rod that completes a circuit, the improbable becomes very probable.

I offer this as a reason for a telic universe. The purpose of the universe is to be internally consistent. The universe must do what it needs to complete the consistency circuit from the beginning to the end of time, or it won’t exist. “Retrocausality” is a term that came up in TT. Here is the link to the newspaper article that initiated the discussion. A future state (cause) that completes the consistency circuit will influence the historical time-path (effect) much like a lightening strike steers towards a lightening rod.

This proposed model may help explain why this universe appears finely tuned. It had to be, or it wouldn’t have even started. It may also explain why historical events appear too fortuitous (retrocausality). This still doesn't explain why intelligence is needed as opposed to simply possible.

One trivial answer (and not very believable) is that our SETI activities has provided just the right amount of focused electromagnetic energy to assist in allowing a symmetrical collapse at the end of time. The reason I bring up this silly example is to illustrate that while the universe needs to reach the end of time, intelligent life may not have to. To the contrary, intelligent life may have already outlived its usefulness.

However, there are a few Billion people out there who are predisposed to believe at least some kind of intelligence will exist at the end of time. Let’s call this intelligence an “Intelligent Designer”. This has the effect of elevating the problem. The purpose of intelligent life is to eventually grow into the Intelligent Designer. Now, what is the purpose of the Intelligent Designer? Well, for one, the designer could use retrocausality to create intelligent life. This is the oscillator circuit mentioned earlier. Beyond that, I will just assume an Intelligent Designer would be useful in completing the consistency circuit of the Universe in other ways too.

There are many, many details left out of this presentation. For example, several people insist a lack of progress in the origin of life research and certain features at the molecular level (DNA, proteins, etc) posit some kind of direct intervention of an Intelligent Designer. This proposal/outline is agnostic to these kind of details. Using ID lingo, everything looks designed because everything IS designed. The purpose/design of the universe is to be internally consistent. Does that mean absolutely everything that exists is necessary for that purpose? no. But a sloppy design doesn't mean there is no design.

It could be claimed that this is just a restatement of various Anthropic Principles. I wouldn’t disagree with that and I apologize for not giving all the people who deserve credit their due. I have no interest in claiming this as my idea. My real interest is in getting it presented and observing the reactions. I will gladly answer any questions you may have. Comments and suggestions are also welcome.

23 Comments:

  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID proponents generally argue that only intelligence can create intelligence without getting too picky about the meaning of the word “intelligence”.

    With the exception of the Dembski article and the Ratzsch book ("Nature, Design and Science").

    A complaint to this is that the multiverse still doesn’t solve the improbability problem.

    A multiverse scenario just multiplies the problems. IOW now you have much more to explain from a materialistic anti-ID position. As if explaining the origin of this universe hasn't been problem enough (for that position).

    Hawking gave up and now states "the universe 'just is' (the way it is)"- see "A Briefer History of Time". I would say that is as metaphysical as any supernatural/ non-natural origins.

    Also a multiverse does not exclude ID. Nothing would prevent any designer(s) from designing a multiverse system.

    Using ID lingo, everything looks designed because everything IS designed.

    But everything doesn't look designed.

    "Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.

    Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important."
    - Dr Behe

    Have you read (or watched) "The Privileged Planet"?

    Or how about "DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation" by Stephen C. Meyer?

    I take the approach that we exist, there are only so many options possible/ available and only one reality behind that existence.

    And according to the scientific data it sure seems like safe to infer that our place in the cosmos (and the cosmos in general) were designed for discovery (The Privileged Planet).

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Hi Joe - Thank you for making the effort to put this up on your Blog. I appreciate it.

    Joe wrote - With the exception of the Dembski article and the Ratzsch book ("Nature, Design and Science").

    The only definition I got out of the link was...

    Dembski wrote - "Intelligent," after all, can mean nothing more than being the result of an intelligent agent, even one who acts stupidly.

    Otherwise, the article was Dr. Dembski justifying the use the word and how a poor design can still be considered intelligent design.

    Joe wrote - A multiverse scenario just multiplies the problems. IOW now you have much more to explain from a materialistic anti-ID position.

    Joe, the idea is to come up with a single, mutual OMA truth regardless of labels.

    Maxwell's equations explain how the propagation of light can logically happen. Propagation of light happens (i.e. it "just is"). Hawking's (and others') equations are well on their way to explaining how a multiverse can logically happen. This allows for a "just is" presumption.

    Joe wrote - But everything doesn't look designed.

    I think everything does. The moon, stars, trees, rocks, etc all look designed. The fact that I can explain the origin of a rock was volcanic and I can explain the reason for volcanoes doesn't make the rock any less design-looking to me. Remember, a sloppy design is still design.

    I readily concede this proposal/outline extends past the area of focus for some ID proponents (e.g. Dr. Behe). If it helps, we could change the title from an ID Proposal to an OMA Proposal.

    Joe wrote - I take the approach that we exist, there are only so many options possible/ available and only one reality behind that existence.

    In the proposal, I agree there are a limited number of multiverse paths that "complete the circuit from the beginning to the end of time."

    Joe wrote - And according to the scientific data it sure seems like safe to infer that our place in the cosmos (and the cosmos in general) were designed for discovery (The Privileged Planet).

    I stipulate the possibility that intelligence is needed for this particular bubble/lightning-strike in the multiverse. Since, to me, intelligence means an ability to learn, it wouldn't do any good to have intelligent beings in a place where they can't learn anything. Retrocausality would, therefore, make the appropriate adjustments (steer the lightning around that obstacle).

     
  • At 12:34 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Pardon me, I want to say right off the top that this is one of the better posts I've read here. I do have a few questions though.

    1. What is this a proposal of? Is it merely a proposal of how things might be? As that, it IS merely a restating of the anthropic principle. Nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing terribly new about it.

    2. Has Thought Provoker expanded this into some sort of testable proposal? That would be extremely exciting. Because, as is, for me it is not that thought provoking; we've been down this path before.

    3. The phrase (or similar) "purpose of intelligence" was used many times. How do we know what the purpose of intelligence is? Don't we have to assume a specific starting point in order to assign purpose to intelligence or especially to an Intelligent Designer?

     
  • At 3:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Otherwise, the article was Dr. Dembski justifying the use the word and how a poor design can still be considered intelligent design.

    Umm the point is to define the terms the way they are applied to the debate.

    Also you are still missing Del's book, as well as book's like "Signs of Intelligence".

    Hawking's (and others') equations are well on their way to explaining how a multiverse can logically happen.

    Again a multiverse does nothing to ID.

    But everything doesn't look designed.

    I think everything does.

    By what definition of design? Are you saying the way the leaves fall from the trees, and the pattern they form on the ground, is designed?

     
  • At 3:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Pardon me, I want to say right off the top that this is one of the better posts I've read here.

    Of course what blipey means is this OP is the first OP he has read here.

    Perhaps he has tried to read other OPs but all the evidence (ie his comments) demonstrates he has a reading comprehension issue.

     
  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Hi Joe and Blipey,

    Joe, this isn't the first time that we have a conflict when it comes to definitions. It isn't just you. Most ID proponents respond to my query by explaining how to detect "Signs of Intelligence" without worrying too much about what intelligence is.

    I am uncomfortable with that, but rather than belabor the point, I have simply agreed to use the fuzzy term in this mutual, OMA proposal.

    Joe asked - By what definition of design? Are you saying the way the leaves fall from the trees, and the pattern they form on the ground, is designed?
    Yes, I am saying "design" includes the way leaves fall from the trees.

    Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
    Main Entry: de·sign
    Pronunciation: di-'zIn
    Function: noun
    : a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (especially a scientific experiment); also : the process of preparing this —design transitive verb


    The Telic Universe has a purpose ("carrying out or accomplishing something"). That purpose is to make the Universe internally consistent. The way the leaves fall support that purpose. Therefore, design.

    Blipey asked - Is it merely a proposal of how things might be? As that, it IS merely a restating of the anthropic principle.
    We need to walk before we run. As long as NOMA is in effect anything goes and nothing can be argued. This is an OMA proposal. It is a proposal of how things actually are. This may still be just an academic exercise, but it is better than trying to nail jello to a wall.

    Blipey asked - Has Thought Provoker expanded this into some sort of testable proposal?
    It would be my intent to explore the testibility avenue if we get that far. But first, we need a general agreement of a mutual OMA hypothesis before we discuss how to test it.

    Blipey asked - How do we know what the purpose of intelligence is?
    lol, GOOD QUESTION. I don't even know if we have a mutual understanding of what intelligence IS, much less its purpose. That is why I am interested in hearing the ID perspective.

     
  • At 6:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Most ID proponents respond to my query by explaining how to detect "Signs of Intelligence" without worrying too much about what intelligence is.

    It's all about counterflow. As in "is it present?". If it is we know, or can safely infer, there was prior agent activity.

    Yes, I am saying "design" includes the way leaves fall from the trees.

    Then good luck with that. I doubt you will get many people to agree with you. And that certainly doesn't follow from the definition you provided.

    You really should read "Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science", by Del Ratzsch.

     
  • At 7:21 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Hi Joe,

    Not surprisingly, we are getting hung up in definitions again. Let me try a different tact.

    Let's look at "counterflow" with liquid as an example. Liquid counterflow would be evidence of a pump. A definition of a pump could be "any device capable of causing liquid counterflow". By this definition a water-filled balloon would be a “pump”.

    I see no other way but to try and put words in your mouth. Is the definition of an “Intelligent Designer” = “any agency capable of causing counterflow"?

    Leaving the task of defining the word "counterflow" for later.

    I wrote - Yes, I am saying "design" includes the way leaves fall from the trees.

    Joe wrote - Then good luck with that. I doubt you will get many people to agree with you. And that certainly doesn't follow from the definition you provided.

    I don't care what how many other people agree or disagree with it. Right now, the only people who have to agree are you, me and, possibly, Blipey.

    I do think it matches the definition and here is why,

    What if instead of falling down, the leaves fell up? This would be an inconsistency in the Universe. It would be against the Universe's "plan" to be consistent. Falling down instead of up is part of the Universe's design. Therefore "design" includes the way the leaves fall from the tree.

    The purpose of this Telic Universe is to be internally consistent.

     
  • At 9:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Excellent Joe. I see even though you think I've changed my habits, you will not change yours. Thanks for not answering any of my questions, you know--the on topic ones.

    Now, thanks Thought Provoker for answering questions. I would sill like a little clarity on your proposal. I think I see now a part I overlooked earlier:

    Namely, that I will acept your starting principles as is. However, by doing this I don't understand what it is that we're trying to accomplish. If I accept that "the purpose of intelligence" is to become the intelligent designer, etc., what can I then get out of it? I can't wrap my brain around a proposal that could test this without adding something to our accepted universe.

    Is it your purpose to somehow define "the purpose of intelligence"?

     
  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I see even though you think I've changed my habits

    I don't think you have changed anything- including your underwear.

    Thanks for not answering any of my questions, you know--the on topic ones.

    Umm your questions are for Thought Provoker. It is HIS proposal.

    Only a complete imbecile would think I would answer questions pertaining to something someone else posted.

    Thanks for once again exposing your true self.

     
  • At 8:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Is the definition of an “Intelligent Designer” = “any agency capable of causing counterflow"?

    Or "anything that is capable of creating counterflow".

    Also the word "intelligent" is just an adjective- as you know- to differentiate between optimal on one side and apparent on the other.

    Del doesn't use it. He just includes it in his definition of "design". IOW he pre-empts the use of apparent design.

    My advice is that you read his book before continuing.

     
  • At 11:43 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe,

    what is the point of not using the word "intelligent"? It would seem to me that its inclusion in a discussion of ID would be necessary. If "intelligent" is merely an adjective to differentiate between optimal and apparent design, it would seem that that is the crux of the matter.

    Shouldn't you be arguing for the inclusion of "intelligent" wherever you can get it in?

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    what is the point of not using the word "intelligent"?

    As Dembski stated- the word "intelligent" is just to clarify the position from optimal on one side and apparent on the other.

    Del takes it a step further by defining design as it was meant to be used- that is design implies an intellligent agency activity.

    It would seem to me that its inclusion in a discussion of ID would be necessary.

    Only as a clarifier. And that is only because buttheads like Dawkins use the word outside of intended meaning.

    If "intelligent" is merely an adjective to differentiate between optimal and apparent design, it would seem that that is the crux of the matter.

    The crux of the matter is that people use the word "design" as it was not intended. Therefore a clarifier was required. However that is not required when "design" is properly used.

    Shouldn't you be arguing for the inclusion of "intelligent" wherever you can get it in?

    It shouldn't be required. However seeing that many people bastardize teh use of the word "design" IDists have included it for the reasons already given.

    IOW either something was designed or it was the result of nature, operating freely.

    So the bottom-line is anti-IDists misuse the word "design" and because of that the adjective "intelligent" was added.

    Anti-IDists use the word "design" because the correct phrase- sheer dumb luck- would turn more people away from "science".

     
  • At 11:26 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Okay. I think I'm with you on this point of "design". I will agree that design implies an intelligent agency.

    I will disagree with you that Dawkins uses it incorrectly, however. He uses hisown modifier, "apparent", to clarify his meaning of the word. I think this adequately states his position that nature is not designed as per our agreed definition.

     
  • At 6:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose."- Richard Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker" pg 21.

    Reality blipey. Reality... ;)

     
  • At 7:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To clarify my last post-

    It could very well be that Dawkins uses "apparent design" as well as the phrase "the design is illusory".

    However I have never read or heard of the methodology used to make the determination of "apparent design" or how to tell the "design is illusory".

    In the big picture what I have read or heard is pretty meaningless, but I have been asking for several years and have yet to receive an answer.

    IOW it appears I am not alone in that "apparent design detection methodolgy" ignorance.

     
  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe: However I have never read or heard of the methodology used to make the determination of "apparent design" or how to tell the "design is illusory".

    Isn't this exactly what ID purports to do? I, also, have never read or heard of the methodology used to separate "apparent design" from the real thing.

     
  • At 10:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    However I have never read or heard of the methodology used to make the determination of "apparent design" or how to tell the "design is illusory".

    Isn't this exactly what ID purports to do?

    No. ID does not have any criteria for determining the design is illusory.

    IDists do use the current methodology employed by scientists today to determine the existence of design, along with new schemes outlined by Dembski, Meyer and Behe (et al.).

    Counterflow is one such methodology currently used, although archaeologists refer to it as "work".

    The criteria for inferring design from the microscopic biological evidence is as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin 's Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components" (emphasis added)

    But anyway I will start a new thread for this discussion (later today) on design.

    I do not want this thread to deviate (any more than it already has) from Thought Provoker's ID proposal.

    And yes I realize that I am the one who led us down this tangent.

     
  • At 3:29 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    thought provoker: "Yes, I am saying "design" includes the way leaves fall from the trees."

    Is there anything, then, that is not "designed". If not, then this is not empiricism, but metaphysics -- just so we're clear.

    thought provoker: "A complaint to this is that the multiverse still doesn’t solve the improbability problem. In other words, why is this universe so lucky."

    If there are a multitude of possible universes and only a few that lead to intelligent reflection, then if you are a reflective mind, then you are in one of those few possible universes with a certainty of one. This is also metaphysics as the assertion has no known empirical consequences.

     
  • At 7:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    By what definition of design? Are you saying the way the leaves fall from the trees, and the pattern they form on the ground, is designed?

    Thought Provoker:
    Yes, I am saying "design" includes the way leaves fall from the trees.

    I would say THAT leaves FALL from trees may be internally consistent.

    However the WAY they fall would be left up to chance. Also the pattern they form on the ground would also be left up to chance.

     
  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If there are a multitude of possible universes and only a few that lead to intelligent reflection, then if you are a reflective mind, then you are in one of those few possible universes with a certainty of one.

    We couldn't make that determination without observing all those other (alledged) universes.

    And in the end we would still have to weigh the data against the options.

     
  • At 7:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Is there anything, then, that is not "designed". If not, then this is not empiricism, but metaphysics -- just so we're clear.

    That appears to be no more than an assertion. Just so we're clear.

     
  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    FYI-

    Thought Provoker's blog can be reached by clicking on these words.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home