The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Intelligent design

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 363
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Sculptor1 » July 6th, 2019, 6:48 am

devans99 wrote:
July 5th, 2019, 3:48 pm
Mark1955 wrote:
July 5th, 2019, 3:29 pm

Well you obviously think so, some of us may choos to differ. The concept of 'first' anything is a product of a limited human consciousness that cannot think beyond the limiited sensory inputs except by describing things in the limited terms that it can perceive. If there was no begining and there will be no end then there is no need for a creator because nothing has been created just changed and our observations of physics and chemistry and biology show that lots of change is going on.
My view is that every state of the universe is a function of the previous temporal state. If things have existed 'forever' then there is by definition no first state. If there is no first state, then the second state is undetermined, and the third, so by induction, the universe has no present state and does not exist.
Non sequitur.
A temporal infinity does not imply a first state, and the non existence of a first state , doe not imply a second state. You are imposing arbitrary boundaries, which cannot exist in the sense that one becomes the other. We all move through time at different rates according to our vector's ration to the speed of light. There is no "second state" determinable or not. Since all things according to their velocity are moving through time at their own rates the idea of a present state is not coherent, but it does not follow that the universe does not exist.
Nothing exists in a time bubble.
The universe is existing.

devans99
Posts: 275
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Intelligent design

Post by devans99 » July 6th, 2019, 8:08 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
July 6th, 2019, 6:48 am
devans99 wrote:
July 5th, 2019, 3:48 pm


My view is that every state of the universe is a function of the previous temporal state. If things have existed 'forever' then there is by definition no first state. If there is no first state, then the second state is undetermined, and the third, so by induction, the universe has no present state and does not exist.
Non sequitur.
A temporal infinity does not imply a first state, and the non existence of a first state , doe not imply a second state. You are imposing arbitrary boundaries, which cannot exist in the sense that one becomes the other. We all move through time at different rates according to our vector's ration to the speed of light. There is no "second state" determinable or not. Since all things according to their velocity are moving through time at their own rates the idea of a present state is not coherent, but it does not follow that the universe does not exist.
Nothing exists in a time bubble.
The universe is existing.
What I mean is a temporal infinity implies NO INITIAL STATE and everything requires an initial state to be fully defined/determined:

- A system (like the universe) has a state
- That state is determined by the previous states
- Existing forever implies no initial state
- So none of the states of the system can be fully determined (they all depend on that missing initial state)

An example would be from pool. The initial state is the balls racked. That initial state is a determinant all the subsequent states. If the initial state is removed (take the balls away) there are no subsequent states.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 363
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Sculptor1 » July 7th, 2019, 2:45 pm

devans99 wrote:
July 6th, 2019, 8:08 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
July 6th, 2019, 6:48 am

Non sequitur.
A temporal infinity does not imply a first state, and the non existence of a first state , doe not imply a second state. You are imposing arbitrary boundaries, which cannot exist in the sense that one becomes the other. We all move through time at different rates according to our vector's ration to the speed of light. There is no "second state" determinable or not. Since all things according to their velocity are moving through time at their own rates the idea of a present state is not coherent, but it does not follow that the universe does not exist.
Nothing exists in a time bubble.
The universe is existing.
What I mean is a temporal infinity implies NO INITIAL STATE and everything requires an initial state to be fully defined/determined:
No. in a temporal infinity there is no meaning to "initial state". Nothing has an initial state and determinism requires no initial state.
All effect have multiple causes. You are using one way to look at reality and then applying a different one to offer a paradox
- A system (like the universe) has a state
- That state is determined by the previous states
- Existing forever implies no initial state
- So none of the states of the system can be fully determined (they all depend on that missing initial state)
No. There is nothing missing. "A state" is only a matter of perspective, in just the same way the idea of initiating an effect, is also a perspectival problem. Since we apply a sense of initiating things; we are born, we die. We switch from childhood to adulthood. Yet these are all subjective to our lived experience. But when you step back for a moment NONE of these things ever has an initiation. A birth is just part of a process of growth.

An example would be from pool. The initial state is the balls racked. That initial state is a determinant all the subsequent states. If the initial state is removed (take the balls away) there are no subsequent states.
Just a matter of convenience. Ask yourself this. Is the initiating moment of a game of pool, when they balls are stacked; when the rack frame comes off the balls; when the first shot happens; when someone offers you a game; or when you decided to go out tonight and find a pool hall. Maybe it was the moment those balls came off the production line?
So where is your initial state?
Nowhere.

devans99
Posts: 275
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Intelligent design

Post by devans99 » July 7th, 2019, 3:23 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
July 7th, 2019, 2:45 pm
devans99 wrote:
July 6th, 2019, 8:08 am


What I mean is a temporal infinity implies NO INITIAL STATE and everything requires an initial state to be fully defined/determined:
No. in a temporal infinity there is no meaning to "initial state". Nothing has an initial state and determinism requires no initial state.
All effect have multiple causes. You are using one way to look at reality and then applying a different one to offer a paradox
- A system (like the universe) has a state
- That state is determined by the previous states
- Existing forever implies no initial state
- So none of the states of the system can be fully determined (they all depend on that missing initial state)
No. There is nothing missing. "A state" is only a matter of perspective, in just the same way the idea of initiating an effect, is also a perspectival problem. Since we apply a sense of initiating things; we are born, we die. We switch from childhood to adulthood. Yet these are all subjective to our lived experience. But when you step back for a moment NONE of these things ever has an initiation. A birth is just part of a process of growth.

An example would be from pool. The initial state is the balls racked. That initial state is a determinant all the subsequent states. If the initial state is removed (take the balls away) there are no subsequent states.
Just a matter of convenience. Ask yourself this. Is the initiating moment of a game of pool, when they balls are stacked; when the rack frame comes off the balls; when the first shot happens; when someone offers you a game; or when you decided to go out tonight and find a pool hall. Maybe it was the moment those balls came off the production line?
So where is your initial state?
Nowhere.
Everything has to an initiation. Or are you are saying you think you could exist without being born?

Would you agree that any system, studied over a finite period of time, has an initial state that determines all subsequent states? It is that initial state that makes all the subsequent states real. So if we now extend out to a system studied over an infinite period of time, then there is no initial state (because -∞ / past eternity has no start by definition). A start of time is required to make the contents of the universe 'real'.

So with pool, the choice of the initiating moment can be varied according to the period of time we consider, but there must be an initiating moment and that is not possible with a past infinity of time - no pool and no universe.

One example I gave on another thread: imagine an eternally existing clock. What time does it read now? Past eternity has no start - so the clock never started keeping time - so it cannot have a current time. In fact the clock never started existing either so it does not exist. Same argument applies to the universe.

So past time must be finite. There are many other arguments for this. Here is one:

1. If past time is infinite the universe should go through all possible states eventually
2. But some states are equilibrium states
3. Isolated systems naturally tend towards equilibrium with time
4. Once equilibrium is reached, no further change in the universe is possible
5. Example equilibrium states would be all matter in the universe in one gigantic black hole, or all matter converted to energy
6. So because we are not in equilibrium, time must be finite

Or I could argue from the BB, or entropy, or the measure problem, or the impossibility of the actually infinite, or BGV theorem. I think 'past time is infinite' is not a defensible position - there is just too much evidence on the other side of the debate.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 363
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Sculptor1 » July 7th, 2019, 6:06 pm

devans99 wrote:
July 7th, 2019, 3:23 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
July 7th, 2019, 2:45 pm

No. in a temporal infinity there is no meaning to "initial state". Nothing has an initial state and determinism requires no initial state.
All effect have multiple causes. You are using one way to look at reality and then applying a different one to offer a paradox

No. There is nothing missing. "A state" is only a matter of perspective, in just the same way the idea of initiating an effect, is also a perspectival problem. Since we apply a sense of initiating things; we are born, we die. We switch from childhood to adulthood. Yet these are all subjective to our lived experience. But when you step back for a moment NONE of these things ever has an initiation. A birth is just part of a process of growth.

Just a matter of convenience. Ask yourself this. Is the initiating moment of a game of pool, when they balls are stacked; when the rack frame comes off the balls; when the first shot happens; when someone offers you a game; or when you decided to go out tonight and find a pool hall. Maybe it was the moment those balls came off the production line?
So where is your initial state?
Nowhere.
Everything has to an initiation. Or are you are saying you think you could exist without being born?
My being born was just one event in a long line of events. There was no initial stage.
The egg from which my body was formed had been in my mother's ovaries since the moment she was born in 1931. The seed which bonded with that egg was formed in my father's testicles in 1959. Every day I live, I change. There is not a molecule in my body that was there seven years ago.
When was I ?

devans99
Posts: 275
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Intelligent design

Post by devans99 » July 7th, 2019, 6:34 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
July 7th, 2019, 6:06 pm
devans99 wrote:
July 7th, 2019, 3:23 pm


Everything has to an initiation. Or are you are saying you think you could exist without being born?
My being born was just one event in a long line of events. There was no initial stage.
The egg from which my body was formed had been in my mother's ovaries since the moment she was born in 1931. The seed which bonded with that egg was formed in my father's testicles in 1959. Every day I live, I change. There is not a molecule in my body that was there seven years ago.
When was I ?
Yes there was an initial stage - all of your matter is part of a wider system - the universe - and that matter/wider system has to start existing at some point - else it does not exist. It has to have an initial state or else there are no subsequent states.

Another example using a pool analogy: Imagine a frictionless perfect pool table. The balls are all wizzing around. We know they cannot have been wizzing around eternally - we can infer an initial state of the white being set in motion by the player. If that initial state did not exist, then there would be no motion. With your view of eternal past time, the balls would be wizzing around and would never have been set in motion - which is clearly impossible.

Past eternity has no start so everything within it is undefined - there is no initial state so there can be no subsequent states.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 363
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Sculptor1 » July 7th, 2019, 6:58 pm

devans99 wrote:
July 7th, 2019, 6:34 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
July 7th, 2019, 6:06 pm


My being born was just one event in a long line of events. There was no initial stage.
The egg from which my body was formed had been in my mother's ovaries since the moment she was born in 1931. The seed which bonded with that egg was formed in my father's testicles in 1959. Every day I live, I change. There is not a molecule in my body that was there seven years ago.
When was I ?
Yes there was an initial stage - all of your matter is part of a wider system - the universe - and that matter/wider system has to start existing at some point - else it does not exist. It has to have an initial state or else there are no subsequent states.

Another example using a pool analogy: Imagine a frictionless perfect pool table. The balls are all wizzing around. We know they cannot have been wizzing around eternally - we can infer an initial state of the white being set in motion by the player. If that initial state did not exist, then there would be no motion. With your view of eternal past time, the balls would be wizzing around and would never have been set in motion - which is clearly impossible.

Past eternity has no start so everything within it is undefined - there is no initial state so there can be no subsequent states.
The universe has no interest in your self appointed "initial stages". That is just the tendency of the human mind to organise things to understand them better.
As far as reality goes I'm just another collection of atoms, which continually collect and disperse.

Here is the point where you are confusing yourself;
"We know they cannot have been wizzing around eternally..."
This is ********. You cannot say this. You don't know this. You cannot have the perspective.

All the evidence points to ball wizzing all the time. In your brief life all the evidence points to wizzing balls, with NO remittance. Nothing is still, not ever. You have no evidence of ANY initial state.

devans99
Posts: 275
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Intelligent design

Post by devans99 » July 7th, 2019, 7:18 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
July 7th, 2019, 6:58 pm

The universe has no interest in your self appointed "initial stages". That is just the tendency of the human mind to organise things to understand them better.
As far as reality goes I'm just another collection of atoms, which continually collect and disperse.

Here is the point where you are confusing yourself;
"We know they cannot have been wizzing around eternally..."
This is ********. You cannot say this. You don't know this. You cannot have the perspective.

All the evidence points to ball wizzing all the time. In your brief life all the evidence points to wizzing balls, with NO remittance. Nothing is still, not ever. You have no evidence of ANY initial state.
What evidence can you provide for infinite past time?

The Big Bang points to a start of time. The low entropy of the universe points to a start of time. The fact we are not in equilibrium points to a start of time. I am not aware of any evidence that things have existed forever in time and as I've pointed out, that's logically impossible.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 363
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Sculptor1 » July 8th, 2019, 8:19 am

devans99 wrote:
July 7th, 2019, 7:18 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
July 7th, 2019, 6:58 pm

The universe has no interest in your self appointed "initial stages". That is just the tendency of the human mind to organise things to understand them better.
As far as reality goes I'm just another collection of atoms, which continually collect and disperse.

Here is the point where you are confusing yourself;
"We know they cannot have been wizzing around eternally..."
This is ********. You cannot say this. You don't know this. You cannot have the perspective.

All the evidence points to ball wizzing all the time. In your brief life all the evidence points to wizzing balls, with NO remittance. Nothing is still, not ever. You have no evidence of ANY initial state.
What evidence can you provide for infinite past time?
Duh!
None. Neither can you say anything about it either, yet you pretend it is impossible on no logoc or reason at all.


The Big Bang points to a start of time.
BB is a theoretic construct, in which the very laws of nature are in flux. Nothing can be know about what existed before that point. Sadly nothing can even be said about that point either.
The low entropy of the universe points to a start of time.
No a low entropy universe points to a low entropy universe


The fact we are not in equilibrium points to a start of time.
No lack of apparent equilibrium points to lack of equilibrium.

I am not aware of any evidence that things have existed forever in time and as I've pointed out, that's logically impossible.
No what is logically impossible is that something can come from nothing.

The questions about things existing forever is not a logical point; It is an empirical claim, sadly one that is impossible to verify.

devans99
Posts: 275
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Intelligent design

Post by devans99 » July 8th, 2019, 11:24 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
July 8th, 2019, 8:19 am
devans99 wrote:
July 7th, 2019, 7:18 pm


What evidence can you provide for infinite past time?
Duh!
None. Neither can you say anything about it either, yet you pretend it is impossible on no logoc or reason at all.


The Big Bang points to a start of time.
BB is a theoretic construct, in which the very laws of nature are in flux. Nothing can be know about what existed before that point. Sadly nothing can even be said about that point either.
The low entropy of the universe points to a start of time.
No a low entropy universe points to a low entropy universe


The fact we are not in equilibrium points to a start of time.
No lack of apparent equilibrium points to lack of equilibrium.

I am not aware of any evidence that things have existed forever in time and as I've pointed out, that's logically impossible.
No what is logically impossible is that something can come from nothing.

The questions about things existing forever is not a logical point; It is an empirical claim, sadly one that is impossible to verify.
So you admit there is no evidence to support an always existing universe, but you doubt the evidence that points to a start of time. Lets review it:

The BB - as matter density increases as we get closer to the singularity, time slows down in the strengthening gravitational field. Just before the singularity time would be running incredibly slow. At the singularity we cannot say what happens to time but you have to admit it looks a lot like the start of time.

Entropy - always increases with time. So with infinite time, entropy would be at a maximum. But the entropy of the universe is low - so time cannot be infinite.

Equilibrium - with infinite time, the universe must have gone through every possible state. Some of those states are equilibrium states. Once in equilibrium, we stay in equilibrium. We are not in equilibrium. So time must be finite.

I did not say something came from nothing - it is probably the case that matter entered time at the start of time (the BB) - that is not something from nothing.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 363
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Sculptor1 » July 8th, 2019, 11:59 am

devans99 wrote:
July 8th, 2019, 11:24 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
July 8th, 2019, 8:19 am

Duh!
None. Neither can you say anything about it either, yet you pretend it is impossible on no logoc or reason at all.

BB is a theoretic construct, in which the very laws of nature are in flux. Nothing can be know about what existed before that point. Sadly nothing can even be said about that point either.

No a low entropy universe points to a low entropy universe

No lack of apparent equilibrium points to lack of equilibrium.


No what is logically impossible is that something can come from nothing.

The questions about things existing forever is not a logical point; It is an empirical claim, sadly one that is impossible to verify.
So you admit there is no evidence to support an always existing universe, but you doubt the evidence that points to a start of time. Lets review it:

The BB - as matter density increases as we get closer to the singularity, time slows down in the strengthening gravitational field. Just before the singularity time would be running incredibly slow. At the singularity we cannot say what happens to time but you have to admit it looks a lot like the start of time.

Entropy - always increases with time. So with infinite time, entropy would be at a maximum. But the entropy of the universe is low - so time cannot be infinite.

Equilibrium - with infinite time, the universe must have gone through every possible state. Some of those states are equilibrium states. Once in equilibrium, we stay in equilibrium. We are not in equilibrium. So time must be finite.

I did not say something came from nothing - it is probably the case that matter entered time at the start of time (the BB) - that is not something from nothing.
These only apply to a narrow view of the universe. The limited visible universe. One that assumes that the BB was a start and not part of a wider process.
For all we know the universe is continually expanding and contracting on and infinite cycle.
The massive problem with BB is that it asserts that something comes from nothing. Such a thing has never been witnessed.
The stuff about equilibrium is without merit. All examples where equilibrium can be seen to be achieved are all temporary.

devans99
Posts: 275
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Intelligent design

Post by devans99 » July 8th, 2019, 1:01 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
July 8th, 2019, 11:59 am
These only apply to a narrow view of the universe. The limited visible universe. One that assumes that the BB was a start and not part of a wider process.
For all we know the universe is continually expanding and contracting on and infinite cycle.
The massive problem with BB is that it asserts that something comes from nothing. Such a thing has never been witnessed.
The stuff about equilibrium is without merit. All examples where equilibrium can be seen to be achieved are all temporary.
The leading multiple universe theory is eternal inflation and it has the multiverse with a definite start in the past. Don't believe that theory personally (violates Occam's Razor and common sense).

I think a cycle of continuous expansion/contraction is not possible - the cycle length would either increase (so be infinite by now - contradicts BB being 14 billion years ago) or decrease (so everything would be one big black hole by now). A constant cycle length would appear very unlikely and fine tuned (pointing to a fine tuner). I know there are cosmologies based on this but they far fetched IMO.

The BB is not something from nothing. It could be that the zero energy universe hypothesis holds and energy/matter was created in exchange for negative gravitational energy. Or it could be that energy/matter existed timelessly and entered time with the BB.

The point with equilibrium is that there are no net forces acting - once a system is in equilibrium it does not ever come out unless some external agent acts upon it. So if the universe ever entered equilibrium (which it must with infinite time) then it would still be in equilibrium.

Here is a thought experiment of infinite time for your consideration:

1. Imagine a backwards travelling, counting, eternal, time traveller
2. Then the traveller, will from our perspective, have counted every number!
3. If this is not an actually completed infinite process, I’m not sure what would qualify
4. So a believe in an eternal past equates to a belief that it is possible to count all numbers (surely an impossible task?)
5. BTW, no number called 'infinity' will ever be counted - actual infinity is not a number IMO

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 363
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Sculptor1 » July 9th, 2019, 7:19 am

devans99 wrote:
July 8th, 2019, 1:01 pm
The BB is not something from nothing. It could be that the zero energy universe hypothesis holds and energy/matter was created in exchange for negative gravitational energy. Or it could be that energy/matter existed timelessly and entered time with the BB.ber IMO

Is that ordinary fudge, or far fetched fudge.
This is all just hot air since there is no answer possible

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2213
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Intelligent design

Post by Hereandnow » Yesterday, 9:18 am

Syamsu
The human brain is an extension of the information processing capability of the dna system.
Just a thought: If you are looking for structure or design, then you don't have far to look at all, for all you see is conditioned by your rational mind, and what is greater evidence of "design" than a hypothetical proposition, or modus ponens, or a formal argument in symbolic logic?
But it is not a question of design, it is a question of meaning. It is within the depth of experience (and I am aware there are those who don't know what I am talking about on this. Oh well) that affirmation of purpose is found, not in the formal conditions of design or reason. As Hume made clear, "Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." Design "means" nothing in itself, but the presence of love, happiness, suffering, despair and so forth--these make for what would be at the center of a "sufficient reason" argument that the argument by intelligent design seeks.
Without value, the world is a stone. Perhaps a diamond, but who cares?

Post Reply