How do you detect "design"?

[Subduction Zone]

Plese do not cite me to play one against another When you reject the science of evolution based on a religious agenda, Yes I prefer simians.

Regardless ALL the primates are related in the evolutionary tree of life..

Sorry about that. Of course the "monkey/ape" dichotomy is largely an English language problem. Spanish and Italian use "mono" for both apes and monkeys. German has only one term. And as pointed out by both of us the more scientific term is "simian" just as rather than saying "fish" I will say "vertebrate".

 

[Valjean]

Science does not report that life is chemically based.
So called educated people who are atheists seem to want to go with the idea that science has not found "spirit" so life must be chemically based.

No. Science believes life is chemically based because the hypothesis is adequate to explain our observations, and our observations of life uncover nothing but chemistry. Moreover, no other evidenced or testable hypothesis is known.

But these same people know they are wrong scientifically and that they just have faith that this is the situation,,,,,,,,,,, and at the same time they attack others for their belief in a designer.
It is such a curiosity.

Huh? Scientists have faith?! The scientific method is specifically designed to eliminate faith; to disprove any hypothesis that does not stand up to scrutiny.
I think you're projecting your own thought processes to a discipline you don't understand.
Attack others? Why bother? If their hypotheses are insubstantial there's no reason to attack them. We just point out the fact that they are unfounded, and won't stand up on their own.

That sounds like you believe what takes your fancy, but can't see that a designer is more likely true than not.

The designer hypotheses is entirely unfounded. There is no evidence supporting it, nor any need for design to fill any gaps.

 

[Valjean]

All that physical machination IS the “evidence”. It logically cannot have just randomly popped into being from nothingness. It is organized and purposeful and extremely complex.

Who's claiming it just randomly popped up, or came from nothingness? That sounds more like the magic poofing religion proposes.
Yes it is complex, and it's functional, not purposeful. It's accepted because the mechanisms and chemical steps necessary are largely known, familiar and observable.

Logically, how likely is magic poofing?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But inasmuch as life did appear on Earth, and no evidenced or reasonable alternatives to chemical abiogenesis are known, the hypothesis stands, as the only reasonable, known mechanism.

Yeah, it is reasonable, but not evidence.

 

[PureX]

How is it illogical? You made this claim, but offered no reasoning process that is fact based.

As is all material behaving via the natural laws. Feel free to show evidence of an alternative that we can take seriously.

"Natural law" is the mega-mechanism. The question then becomes what is the source of that "natural law"? It is not
logical to claim such organizing existential laws sprung from nothing and nowhere as there is no evidence whatever of this ever happening in any capacity or at any time within existence as we know it. The laws themselves are just our recognition of what is possible against the backdrop of what is not possible. So what is the source of the possibilities and impossibilities? We do not know. But we do know that it's not logical or evidential that they spontaneously generated by themselves. It is, however, logical to presume that whatever this source is, it transcends those possibilities and restrictions, and thereby any possibility of our proofing or comprehending it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Natural law" is the mega-mechanism. The question then becomes what is the source of that "natural law"? It is not
logical to claim such organizing existential laws sprung from nothing and nowhere as there is no evidence whatever of this ever happening in any capacity or at any time within existence as we know it. The laws themselves are just our recognition of what is possible against the backdrop of what is not possible. So what is the source of the possibilities and impossibilities? We do not know. But we do know that it's not logical or evidential that they spontaneously generated by themselves. It is, however, logical to presume that whatever this source is, it transcends those possibilities and restrictions, and thereby any possibility of our proofing or comprehending it.

@F1fan
Well, it is the believers in natural laws, who have the problem, because there is a version of science, where there are no objective natural lwas. Rather it is an axiomatic assumption, but not a fact.

So yes, in a sense they believe that universe is orderly, but that is a sort of ontological idealism, but it is not really that to them, because it is natural, because they say so.

But, yes, there is a limit to human understanding.

 

[PureX]

Who's claiming it just randomly popped up, or came from nothingness?

So then what is the source of "natural law" in your 'scientific' opinion? Natural law is just the mega-mechanism generating and defining existence. It simply is our recognition of what is possible and what is not possible to occur. So how were these possibilities and impossibilities set? And however they were set, how can you deny that their purpose is not their result ... existence as we know it? And how, logically, can any of this come to be without there being some transcendent source realm?

That sounds more like the magic poofing religion proposes.

At least religions acknowledge the logical necessity for that transcendent source realm. You can't even manage that.

Yes it is complex, and it's functional, not purposeful.

The purpose is the result. That is logic 101. And like it or not, this clearly implies intent. All design implies intent.

It's accepted because the mechanisms and chemical steps necessary are largely known, familiar and observable.

That explains nothing of the source.

Logically, how likely is magic poofing?

It's not logical, so why are you trying to claim this?

 

[wellwisher]

So then what do you think? In your opinion, did the universe come from Quantum Nothingness? And if so, how so, or maybe it is that scientists haven't figured it out yet.

Quantum nothingness is a concept that is relative to the place of something, that we call space-time. We live in space-time, where space and time are connected like two people in a three legged race. This tether set limits for space and time such as the speed of light, with speed d//t=c.

Say we could remove the tether of space-time, so time and space could both act as independent variables. For example, one could now move in space apart from time. This would allow for omnipresence or on a smaller scale, an electron in an orbital; probability function.

There would are no energy, where space and time are not connected, since photons need wavelength and frequency to be tethered like space-time. Instead we could have wavelength apart from frequency and frequency apart from wavelength.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is a platform concept to describe the quantum world, is an example of separated space and time. We can measure position with accuracy but not the momentum at the same time, since momentum is connected to time and is acting like it is separate from space, which is what is observed, and vice versa.

In the realm where space and time are both independent variables, there are endless combination that far exceed the limited combination we have within space-time; law of physics. This former expresses infinite entropy and complexity. The realm of separated space and time provides our space-time universe the drive we call the second law of thermodynamics. In space-time entropy has to increase back toward the infinite complexity of separated space and time, from where the primordial atom formed from nothing (nothing relative to space-time).

I developed the theory in more detail in a different post. The physics model is last three sections in the link below. This model can also be used to explain consciousness and life; entropic potentials such as evolution, creation and innovation.

Consciousness, Entropy, Water, and Hydrogen Bonding

The human imagination appears to process information in ways that can detach the information from space-time; fiction. It is the same information as space-time but in combinations that are not found in space-time, like me flying to the sun with wings to sunbath in the fusion core. Fly, sun, wings, fusion core and me, are all things in space-time but they are not found connected to that one action. However, where space and time are not connected, this combination is possible since it happens in nothingness; no space-time constraints.

This topic is connected to detecting design. That is easiest to do within the realm where design can be made in independent space, before we hit the play button; time, to add physical action in space-time. We can draw it on paper, before we use physical resources in space-time. If there is too much independent space or time in the design it will show up in space-time as a flaw or as an innovation.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, it is reasonable, but not evidence.

What is not evidence? Life on earth is not evidence of life on earth or maybe that there isn't evidence that there was a time that there wasn't life on earth. What?

 

[Pogo]

"Natural law" is the mega-mechanism. The question then becomes what is the source of that "natural law"? It is not
logical to claim such organizing existential laws sprung from nothing and nowhere as there is no evidence whatever of this ever happening in any capacity or at any time within existence as we know it. The laws themselves are just our recognition of what is possible against the backdrop of what is not possible. So what is the source of the possibilities and impossibilities? We do not know. But we do know that it's not logical or evidential that they spontaneously generated by themselves. It is, however, logical to presume that whatever this source is, it transcends those possibilities and restrictions, and thereby any possibility of our proofing or comprehending it.

No, natural laws are just observations of consistency around us. They generally work at a human scale and so they even seem common sense.
Natural laws are descriptive not prescriptive. Nothing about a lawgiver or anything like that and oh, most if not all of them are wrong to some degree at some time and in some places.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is not evidence? Life on earth is not evidence of life on earth or maybe that there isn't evidence that there was a time that there wasn't life on earth. What?

I may have misunderstood it, but I understood it as being about evidence for abiogenesis.

 

[F1fan]

@F1fan
Well, it is the believers in natural laws,

No one believes in natural laws, they are observed facts.

who have the problem, because there is a version of science, where there are no objective natural lwas.

And how is that "version" useful for anything? Sounds like 'head stuck in the ground' science. How can it even be science when you can't get anything done? I notice you have no problem using a computer which rely on natural laws being real.

Rather it is an axiomatic assumption, but not a fact.

Semantics. These are formal axioms that are acknowledged, and then set aside. As we know these axioms are well justified, and there's no case in the physical science where results are skewed because the assumptions aren't warranted.

So yes, in a sense they believe that universe is orderly,

Order is observed and measured. There is no data that suggests order follows other laws, or that there is phenomenon that deviates from the known laws.

To say we believe these things is to put facts dependent on our whim and judgment. If Fred decides not to believe in gravity and jumps off a building he is following your way of thinking, that laws are subject to opinion. They aren't. The laws are facts. Gravity is a fact, and is related to the mass of a planet or other body of matter.

but that is a sort of ontological idealism, but it is not really that to them, because it is natural, because they say so.

You get so mired in philosophical ideas that you can't function in any practical way.

But, yes, there is a limit to human understanding.

Yes, you are an exellent example how too much focus on one thing means inability to see a bigger picture. You get lost on tangets quite often, as if a guy with a flashlight just wandering wherever the beam shines, and oblivious of what's in the darkness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No one believes in natural laws, they are observed facts.

...

Yeah, you don't understand methodological naturalism and how naturalism is axiomatic assumptions.

 

[PureX]

No, natural laws are just observations of consistency around us. They generally work at a human scale and so they even seem common sense.
Natural laws are descriptive not prescriptive. Nothing about a lawgiver or anything like that and oh, most if not all of them are wrong to some degree at some time and in some places.

They are our observed description of how existence exists as it does. They are the mechanisms of this ordered existence. And this begs the question of their origin because they are not the origin. They are only the means. They are proscriptive regardless of our somewhat errant and incomplete description of them.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, you don't understand methodological naturalism and how naturalism is axiomatic assumptions.

Notice you don't point out any errors on my part, so I reject your opinion.

 

[F1fan]

They are our observed description of how existence exists as it does. They are the mechanisms of this ordered existence.

Right, order, not design.

And this begs the question of their origin because they are not the origin.

The natural laws are part of matter itself. They are tied to energy, and likely always existed in one form or another. No origin story needed, or speculated.

They are only the means. They are proscriptive regardless of our somewhat errant and incomplete description of them.

Yup, matter behaving according to natural laws, and no spirits, no gods, no designers, no creators.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Notice you don't point out any errors on my part, so I reject your opinion.

Well, this text I link to is not mine, but only a link I provide:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pogo]

They are our observed description of how existence exists as it does. They are the mechanisms of this ordered existence. And this begs the question of their origin because they are not the origin. They are only the means. They are proscriptive regardless of our somewhat errant and incomplete description of them.

No, scientific laws are not mechanisms. Theories are our best understanding of what the mechanism is that generates the behaviour we observe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, scientific laws are not mechanisms. Theories are our best understanding of what the mechanism is that generates the behaviour we observe.

The words are a bit to human to my liking. But that is the point, we in effect end in a form of ontological idealism in part.

 

[F1fan]

Well, this text I link to is not mine, but only a link I provide:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's a dispute between what is important to you versus how science can get its work done and present valid conclusions.