Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#61  Postby Shrunk » Jul 26, 2010 3:38 pm

amused wrote:
Shrunk wrote:For that matter, what does a poorly designed, or undesigned universe look like?


I don't really know, but a cold universe filled with nothing but a little dust would qualify as a universe that is poorly designed to support life. Yes, I added a qualifier, sue me.

A lot of people take the built environment for granted, like it's always been here. It takes a lot of very hard work by a lot of people to put it in place. I wonder if that same attitude affects these arguments against any possibility for design in the universe.


But that is contradicted by the comment you made earlier:

Go to a construction site. It's a violent attack on the surface of the planet. All the materials are ripped from the ground, processed, handled by hundreds of people, and forcibly put in place. There's nothing natural about it. The built environment is a temporary affront to nature, a nature that works every day to tear it down.


IOW, your analogy is, at the very least, an imperfect one. You readily acknowledge the difference between the "natural" universe and those environments we know to be designed. Of course, the difference could be because the "designer" of the natural universe did a better job than any human could do, such that the universe does not need regular maintenance in order to avoid collapsing into a state of chaos (although, too my understanding, it is far from a settled question whether the universe is in fact doing just that). My point is, your analogy could work either way. We perceive the "built environment" only in contrast to the natural state of affairs. Having no similar comparison for the universe, we are left with no means by which to determine whether it, too, was designed.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#62  Postby amused » Jul 26, 2010 3:40 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned ... _cosmology

Top-down cosmology

Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed that the universe's initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today.[22] According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the current existence of a multiverse.


There's a nicely self-contained mechanism by which a universe can design itself.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#63  Postby Onyx8 » Jul 26, 2010 3:43 pm

Amused wrote: I wonder if that same attitude affects these arguments against any possibility for design in the universe.


I don't believe the possibility for design is being disputed. More like: how could you tell?
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 63
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#64  Postby hotshoe » Jul 26, 2010 3:44 pm

Can design itself ?

Well, that rather puts paid to your claim that our universe looks like "it was designed" -- unless by that, you mean strictly that it looks like "it was designed by itself".

Good one, that.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#65  Postby Shrunk » Jul 26, 2010 3:47 pm

amused wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Top-down_cosmology

Top-down cosmology

Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed that the universe's initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today.[22] According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the current existence of a multiverse.


There's a nicely self-contained mechanism by which a universe can design itself.


OK, then, you're obviously using the term "designed" in a different way than it usually is. Perhaps you should borrow Richard Dawkins term "designoid."
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#66  Postby MrGray » Jul 26, 2010 3:49 pm

Do you understand what Hawking's trying to say?

It's like a universe on being capable of supporting life thinking, "Well jolly god I must have been designed, I'd never planned on supporting life."

TOP DOWN COSMOLOGY. You look back straight to the origin and claim that because everything that happened lead to your existence, it is proof that the universe conspired for you to exist.
Hnau wrote:..we mournfully slice off their heads while loving them.

hackenslash wrote:Because the mind is a blank slate at birth. It is impossible to have a conception of a really fuckwitted idea until you've actually grown some stupidity.
User avatar
MrGray
 
Posts: 753
Male

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#67  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jul 26, 2010 3:53 pm

This universe is just one where life is feasible in some tiny spots here and there. A well designed universe that was designed for life would surely be more efficient. If I leave the surface of this earth for only 30 kilometers, I am sucking pretty much on vacuum. Pretty piss-poor design if you ask me. Most of THIS sun's energy is "wasted" on empty space, or dead worlds. Good design?? The universe is not eternal-good design????
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 64

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#68  Postby Shrunk » Jul 26, 2010 4:05 pm

Darwinsbulldog wrote:This universe is just one where life is feasible in some tiny spots here and there. A well designed universe that was designed for life would surely be more efficient. If I leave the surface of this earth for only 30 kilometers, I am sucking pretty much on vacuum. Pretty piss-poor design if you ask me. Most of THIS sun's energy is "wasted" on empty space, or dead worlds. Good design?? The universe is not eternal-good design????


amused can certainly speak for himself, but I think he's making a more subtle and reasonable point than this. He seems to be suggesting that there may be natural forces or factors that favour a dynamic, changing universe settling into a state that allows complex entities, such as living organisms, to arise. Much in the same way that evolution, though proceeding without a defined goal or impetus from a "designer", nonetheless is predisposed to give rise to certain biological structures that give the appearance of design.

If that's not his point, I'll gladly take credit for it. :mrgreen: I don't think it's a position I would advocate myself, but it's one that I think is worthy of serious consideration, without just being dismisssed as covert theism.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#69  Postby HughMcB » Jul 26, 2010 4:07 pm

FFS this is not rokket sience guyz... its OBVIUOS!

This is teh stone tool rite here, teh big fucking pointy won MORANS! :facepalm:

Image

CREATIONISTS 1 - EVILUSHUNISTS 0
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 35
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#70  Postby Largenton » Jul 26, 2010 4:17 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:This universe is just one where life is feasible in some tiny spots here and there. A well designed universe that was designed for life would surely be more efficient. If I leave the surface of this earth for only 30 kilometers, I am sucking pretty much on vacuum. Pretty piss-poor design if you ask me. Most of THIS sun's energy is "wasted" on empty space, or dead worlds. Good design?? The universe is not eternal-good design????


amused can certainly speak for himself, but I think he's making a more subtle and reasonable point than this. He seems to be suggesting that there may be natural forces or factors that favour a dynamic, changing universe settling into a state that allows complex entities, such as living organisms, to arise. Much in the same way that evolution, though proceeding without a defined goal or impetus from a "designer", nonetheless is predisposed to give rise to certain biological structures that give the appearance of design.

If that's not his point, I'll gladly take credit for it. :mrgreen: I don't think it's a position I would advocate myself, but it's one that I think is worthy of serious consideration, without just being dismisssed as covert theism.


I think Dawkins made a point against it though with the ant program. I forget the book it was in (The Blind Watchmaker possibly?) but it made a good point on how a simple set of instructions could lead to something unexpected.
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#71  Postby MrGray » Jul 26, 2010 4:18 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:This universe is just one where life is feasible in some tiny spots here and there. A well designed universe that was designed for life would surely be more efficient. If I leave the surface of this earth for only 30 kilometers, I am sucking pretty much on vacuum. Pretty piss-poor design if you ask me. Most of THIS sun's energy is "wasted" on empty space, or dead worlds. Good design?? The universe is not eternal-good design????


amused can certainly speak for himself, but I think he's making a more subtle and reasonable point than this. He seems to be suggesting that there may be natural forces or factors that favour a dynamic, changing universe settling into a state that allows complex entities, such as living organisms, to arise. Much in the same way that evolution, though proceeding without a defined goal or impetus from a "designer", nonetheless is predisposed to give rise to certain biological structures that give the appearance of design.

If that's not his point, I'll gladly take credit for it. :mrgreen: I don't think it's a position I would advocate myself, but it's one that I think is worthy of serious consideration, without just being dismisssed as covert theism.


You look back straight to the origin and claim that because everything that happened lead to your existence, it is proof that the universe/evolution conspired for you to exist.

Your existence is the result of evolution (the universe), but you cannot claim that your existence is the reason evolution (universe) occurred (exists).
Hnau wrote:..we mournfully slice off their heads while loving them.

hackenslash wrote:Because the mind is a blank slate at birth. It is impossible to have a conception of a really fuckwitted idea until you've actually grown some stupidity.
User avatar
MrGray
 
Posts: 753
Male

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#72  Postby hotshoe » Jul 26, 2010 4:27 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:This universe is just one where life is feasible in some tiny spots here and there. A well designed universe that was designed for life would surely be more efficient. If I leave the surface of this earth for only 30 kilometers, I am sucking pretty much on vacuum. Pretty piss-poor design if you ask me. Most of THIS sun's energy is "wasted" on empty space, or dead worlds. Good design?? The universe is not eternal-good design????


amused can certainly speak for himself, but I think he's making a more subtle and reasonable point than this. He seems to be suggesting that there may be natural forces or factors that favour a dynamic, changing universe settling into a state that allows complex entities, such as living organisms, to arise. Much in the same way that evolution, though proceeding without a defined goal or impetus from a "designer", nonetheless is predisposed to give rise to certain biological structures that give the appearance of design.

If that's not his point, I'll gladly take credit for it. :mrgreen: I don't think it's a position I would advocate myself, but it's one that I think is worthy of serious consideration, without just being dismisssed as covert theism.

I don't know what amused thinks, either; Hawkings and Hertog didn't mean anything about "design" or "designoid", but they do mean something like "settling into a state..."

Here's a bit from the news article about their paper which goes into a little more detail than the wiki quote:


Phillip Ball, in naturenews wrote:... “Quantum mechanics forbids a single history.” says Hertog ... in response to a problem raised by 'string theory', one of the best hopes for a theory of everything. String theory permits innumerable different kinds of universe, most of them very different from the one we inhabit. Some physicists suspect that an unknown factor will turn up that rules out most of these universes.
But Hawking and Hertog say that the countless 'alternative worlds' of string theory may actually have existed. We should picture the Universe in the first instants of the Big Bang as a superposition of all these possibilities, they say; like a projection of billions of movies played on top of one another.
This might sound odd, but it is precisely the view adopted by quantum theory. Think of a particle of light reaching our eye from a lamp. Common sense suggests that it simply travels in a straight line from the bulb to the eye. But to make correct predictions about the particle's behaviour, quantum mechanics must consider all other possible paths too, including ones in which, say, the photon bounces around the walls thousands of times before reaching us.
This summation of all paths, proposed in the 1960s by physicist Richard Feynman and others, is the only way to explain some of the bizarre properties of quantum particles, such as their apparent ability to be in two places at once. The key point is that not all paths contribute equally to the photon's behaviour: the straight-line trajectory dominates over the indirect ones.
Hertog argues that the same must be true of the path through time that took the Universe into its current state. We must regard it as a sum over all possible histories.

Read more
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#73  Postby hotshoe » Jul 26, 2010 4:39 pm

Aaaaand - here's the actual Hawkings Hertog article, free pdf:
Populating the landscape: A top-down approach

From the introduction:
S. W. Hawking and Thomas Hertog wrote:In particle physics, one usually computes S-matrix ele-
ments. This is useful to predict the outcome of laboratory
experiments, where one prepares the initial state and mea-
sures the final state. It could be viewed as a bottom-up
approach to physics, in which one evolves forward in time
a particular initial state of the system. The predictivity of
this approach arises from and relies upon the fact that one
has control over the initial state, and that experiments can
be repeated many times to gain statistically significant
results.

But cosmology poses questions of a very different char-
acter. In our past there is an epoch of the early universe
when quantum gravity was important. The remnants of this
early phase are all around us. The central problem in
cosmology is to understand why these remnants are what
they are, and how the distinctive features of our universe
emerged from the big bang. Clearly it is not an S-matrix
that is the relevant observable1 for these predictions, since
we live in the middle of this particular experiment.
Furthermore, we have no control over the initial state of
the universe, and there is certainly no opportunity for
observing multiple copies of the universe.

In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to
cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially clas-
sical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain
cosmology’s central question — why our universe is the
way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology
either requires one to postulate an initial state of the uni-
verse that is carefully fine-tuned [10] —as if prescribed by
an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion
of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predict-
ing what a typical observer would see.

Here we put forward a different approach to cosmology
in the string landscape, based not on the classical idea of a
single history for the universe but on the quantum sum over
histories [12]. We argue that the quantum origin of the
universe naturally leads to a framework for cosmology
where amplitudes for alternative histories of the universe
are computed with boundary conditions at late times only.
We thus envision a set of alternative universes in the land-
scape, with amplitudes given by the no boundary path
integral [13].

The measure on the landscape provided by no boundary
initial conditions allows one to derive predictions for ob-
servations. This is done by evaluating probabilities for
alternative histories that obey a set of constraints at late
times. The constraints provide information that is supple-
mentary to the fundamental laws and act as a selection
principle. In particular, they select the subclass of histories
that contribute to the amplitude of interest. ...


And then, it gets much more difficult. :whine:
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#74  Postby katja z » Jul 26, 2010 4:54 pm

Largenton wrote:
I think Dawkins made a point against it though with the ant program. I forget the book it was in (The Blind Watchmaker possibly?) but it made a good point on how a simple set of instructions could lead to something unexpected.

Do you mean Langton's ant?
User avatar
katja z
RS Donator
 
Posts: 5353
Age: 39

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#75  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jul 26, 2010 5:17 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:This universe is just one where life is feasible in some tiny spots here and there. A well designed universe that was designed for life would surely be more efficient. If I leave the surface of this earth for only 30 kilometers, I am sucking pretty much on vacuum. Pretty piss-poor design if you ask me. Most of THIS sun's energy is "wasted" on empty space, or dead worlds. Good design?? The universe is not eternal-good design????


amused can certainly speak for himself, but I think he's making a more subtle and reasonable point than this. He seems to be suggesting that there may be natural forces or factors that favour a dynamic, changing universe settling into a state that allows complex entities, such as living organisms, to arise. Much in the same way that evolution, though proceeding without a defined goal or impetus from a "designer", nonetheless is predisposed to give rise to certain biological structures that give the appearance of design.

If that's not his point, I'll gladly take credit for it. :mrgreen: I don't think it's a position I would advocate myself, but it's one that I think is worthy of serious consideration, without just being dismisssed as covert theism.


Well, we all know of the "design" capabilities of NS, which are formidable sometimes and clunky at other times. As far as I can see this is a either a "weak" anthropic argument which nearly everyone accepts or a wedge type strategy to bring some sort of crypto-creationism argument in through the back door. Like Francisco Ayala and Kenneth B. Miller, both good scientists and avid creationism fighters, and yet they both believe in a god designer who reckon that evolution is just a automatic tool for building life. This can be seen most clearly when you raise the question of a soul with them, then they go into god-mode [with more subtlety than the creotards], but still ponder a possibility of god at the helm somewhere. They will never admit outright that god exists when doing science, but they make no secret of their faith. That means that they are not full-time methodological naturalists, but only temporary ones when they are actually doing science.

In other words, they are apologists for the NOMA, and as such at some level find the evidence for god compelling enough to believe in him. This is a danger to science because it puts religion on an "equal footing" with science in terms of explaining nature, and that is unscientific.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 64

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#76  Postby amused » Jul 26, 2010 5:24 pm

I'm not promoting any type of creationism that involves a creator separate from creation. I'm wondering out loud if the universe itself has intent, and thus the ability to create itself as it sees fit. Probably a derail from the OP so I'll start a new thread.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#77  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jul 26, 2010 5:33 pm

amused wrote:I'm not promoting any type of creationism that involves a creator separate from creation. I'm wondering out loud if the universe itself has intent, and thus the ability to create itself as it sees fit. Probably a derail from the OP so I'll start a new thread.


Ok, I accept that you are not plugging for a god-creator.
But to have "intent" you have to have consciousness or intelligence, how does that work. :ask: How can the universe have "intent". To be sure, when biologists are studying adaptations, they can take a fruitful "stance" from an "engineering perspective" and pretend "design" or "purpose" as a sort of metaphor, or shorthand for NS as a filtering mechanism. "What is the purpose of a bird''s wing" or "How good is this limb design for power or speed?" Is that your argument?
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 64

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#78  Postby amused » Jul 26, 2010 5:42 pm

Darwinsbulldog wrote:But to have "intent" you have to have consciousness or intelligence, how does that work. :ask:


:whisper: Midichlorians
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#79  Postby Dudely » Jul 26, 2010 6:18 pm

amused wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
PhiloKGB wrote:
amused wrote:I'm SO glad you said that. I'm an architect. I design things. When I see a good design, I recognize and appreciate the hand of the designer. I see a good design in the universe, which implies a designer.

You have an awfully inflated view of the extent of your skill. How does expertise in terrestrial architecture qualify you to detect "good design in the universe"?


For that matter, what does a poorly designed, or undesigned universe look like?


I don't really know, but a cold universe filled with nothing but a little dust would qualify as a universe that is poorly designed to support life. Yes, I added a qualifier, sue me.

A lot of people take the built environment for granted, like it's always been here. It takes a lot of very hard work by a lot of people to put it in place. I wonder if that same attitude affects these arguments against any possibility for design in the universe.

The universe we find ourselves in does work extremely well.


"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.' "
-Douglas Adams

We evolved to fit the universe. If the universe were different we would be different. There is nothing amazing about this.
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
 
Posts: 1450

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#80  Postby xrayzed » Jul 28, 2010 5:05 am

Blitzkrebs wrote:Image

Brilliant. :lol: :lol: :lol:
A thinking creationist is an oxymoron. A non-thinking creationist is just a moron.
(Source: johannessiig, here)
User avatar
xrayzed
 
Posts: 1053
Age: 61
Male

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest