How does Randomness and Chaos fit in with intelligent design?

[PureX]

That kind of drives home the point exemplified by your last sentence. Maybe a freudian slip.

"Organized expressions of energy".


The tendency for intelligent design proponents to look primarily at symmetry and stability based on our propensity for pattern recognition while ignoring randomness and chaos as it relates to our perceptions of what is designed by purpose and what is naturally occurring.

Of course there are horizons that science has yet to approach, and it's clear that we have limits based on our present level of technology and capabilities.

But remember, those tools are available for creationists and intelligent design proponents as well if they find something that there that can be applied to support intelligent design.

So far I would say this "race" as it stands would have natural explanations far ahead of the pack from anything put forward that would suggest intelligent design being directly or indirectly involved which is pretty much nil to non-existent.

You seem to assume, here, that "natural explanations" must antithetically oppose "intelligent design". But that existence is an expression of design, is obvious to us. And that this design requires intelligence to recognize is also obvious to us. So the "intelligent design" of existence is likewise obvious to anyone who who does not get tripped up by the implication of an "intelligent designer". An implication that may be inferred, but is certainly not proven.

If there is something that can be pointed to it be wonderful to hear about it, but so far nothing substantial has been put forward in the same way that the sciences has discovered and found to be true In the rawest terms as it stands presently.

A blind man will never see the sun set.

Intelligent design seems to be incorrigibly focused primarily on stability and symmetry without explaining the randomness and chaos that permeates each instance where stability and symmetry are perceived for the time that it is there.

Order does not have to be absolute to create complexity. In fact, absolute order can result in nothing more than itself, just as absolute chaos can likewise result in nothing but itself. The complexity and variety of existence is the result of the combination of both order and chaos. Or as the old saying goes; "organized chaos".

Chaos introduces chance, and therefor new possibilities into the semi-ordered expression of energy. The order limits those possibilities in such a way that only the "cooperative" possibilities can find stability. And as this process continues, complexity develops.

 

[Etritonakin]

Nonetheless the variation of our decision making process is not random. We make our decisions within a limited range of choices and they follow a fractal pattern and are not random. The biggest erroneous statement I have seen from fundamentalist Creationist is the odd 'random processes.' In nature there are no 'random processes' in nature. ALL processes in the macro world are determined by Natural Laws.

Our physical existence in the macro world is fundamentally deterministic and predictable. The question of our will whether it is free or deterministic is an open question. This is a more involved complicated issue and the subject of another thread. Nonetheless I support a form of compatablism.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but it is true that even if God is responsible for the design of the physical universe, some of his design decisions were essentially "no-brainers". Though he could have decided otherwise, certain decisions are most logical. Some design decisions do not affect overall function, etc., but can be made randomly. For example... Whether or not one chooses to paint their house pink or yellow -or at all -is not predetermined or extremely important, but needing shelter is predetermined from the perspective of the individual and is more important.

Humans have more decision-making power (power to cause things to happen at will) than other species, though we are still quite limited due to our position within reality and our design.
We are "under" laws which were once not in effect -even if those laws are based on laws which have always been in effect.
A life form of a different design could have more decision-making power.
Once decision is possible, that which was otherwise inevitable can be changed.

An original, all-inclusive intelligence -essentially all that existed developing intelligence, self-awareness, etc., and then wrapping its head around itself, as it were -would then be in a position to decide upon all but the absolutely unchangeable -even though some decisions would not be the best decisions.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but it is true that even if God is responsible for the design of the physical universe, some of his design decisions were essentially "no-brainers". Though he could have decided otherwise, certain decisions are most logical. Some design decisions do not affect overall function, etc., but can be made randomly. For example... Whether or not one chooses to paint their house pink or yellow -or at all -is not predetermined or extremely important, but needing shelter is predetermined from the perspective of the individual and is more important.

Your presenting too many 'what ifs?' concerning what did and how God did it, if God exists. I cut the Gordian Knot and believe God Created our existence. I believe it is a given if one believes in God, we do not 'know' how, why, or what the alternatives could be.

The physical nature of our existence is indifferent whether God exists or not. Per the thread subject concerning the nature of our existence from the perspective of Intelligent Design and randomness and Chaos is the issue. Intelligent Design remains an artificial created concept by apologists to argue for the existence of God, and does not reflect the reality of the evidence of our physical existence. There is absolutely no evidence that our physical existence is design by definition.

I interpret 'Chaos' here to be Chaos Theory which is the fractal nature of the range of the results of cause and effect events of our physical existence. By definition randomness and chance do not explain the range of outcomes of events.

Humans have more decision-making power (power to cause things to happen at will) than other species, though we are still quite limited due to our position within reality and our design.

This I explained previously. The problem is the word design. By definition it is being misused in this thread. The nature of our physical existence does not fit the concept and definition of design whether God exists or not.

We are "under" laws which were once not in effect -even if those laws are based on laws which have always been in effect.

The question of whether the laws of our universe were 'once not in effect' would hypothetically propose our present laws of the macro universe began with the beginning of our universe. As far as science can determine the properties and laws that govern the Quantum world have always existed.

A life form of a different design could have more decision-making power.
Once decision is possible, that which was otherwise inevitable can be changed.

An original, all-inclusive intelligence -essentially all that existed developing intelligence, self-awareness, etc., and then wrapping its head around itself, as it were -would then be in a position to decide upon all but the absolutely unchangeable -even though some decisions would not be the best decisions.

More hypothetical reasoning that it is obvious no one could provide a coherent answer one way or the other.

 

[Etritonakin]

Your presenting too many 'what ifs?' concerning what did and how God did it, if God exists. I cut the Gordian Knot and believe God Created our existence. I believe it is a given if one believes in God, we do not 'know' how, why, or what the alternatives could be.

The physical nature of our existence is indifferent whether God exists or not. Per the thread subject concerning the nature of our existence from the perspective of Intelligent Design and randomness and Chaos is the issue. Intelligent Design remains an artificial created concept by apologists to argue for the existence of God, and does not reflect the reality of the evidence of our physical existence. There is absolutely no evidence that our physical existence is design by definition.

I interpret 'Chaos' here to be Chaos Theory which is the fractal nature of the range of the results of cause and effect events of our physical existence. By definition randomness and chance do not explain the range of outcomes of events.



This I explained previously. The problem is the word design. By definition it is being misused in this thread. The nature of our physical existence does not fit the concept and definition of design whether God exists or not.



The question of whether the laws of our universe were 'once not in effect' would hypothetically propose our present laws of the macro universe began with the beginning of our universe. As far as science can determine the properties and laws that govern the Quantum world have always existed.



More hypothetical reasoning that it is obvious no one could provide a coherent answer one way or the other.

To clarify... I meant that when there is a new arrangement, there is a new "law" -a new reality or truth which is an arrangement of that which existed previously.

I don't think we are quite "there" yet, but as that which exists has likely "always" existed in some form, we may actually have evidence available to determine whether or not the physical universe required forethought. We may simply have not collected enough available evidence, or may not know how to read the evidence correctly.

As for the physical nature of our existence on a most basic level (not the elemental level, which once did not exist as such).... It would also be the most basic nature of anything -including God.

I do see it as logical that the most basic nature of all things would not have been by decision -but was of a nature to produce awareness, self-awareness, intelligence, etc. -making possible that which requires such.

I definitely do not know, but all that exists eventually becoming able to call itself "I" -and developing the ability to self-determine/design the rest -definitely seems the most simple explanation for the present state of things. There is certainly much evidence of such on a smaller scale all around us.

 

[godnotgod]

No reconciliation needed in this case. The primary discussion here is how science functions in the macro universe, in particular the science of evolution. Quantum Mechanics describes the behavior of the basic particles of matter and quantum gravity (not fully understood yet) in the Quantum world measured in Quanta. Even though some Quantum like behavior has been observed in the macro world, but the Natural Laws we apply to the macro world do not apply to the Quantum World such as the Law of Gravity.

Regardless of what is known and unknown at present concerning the Quantum world the behavior of Quantum particles is not a mystical mystery, have predictive behaviors.

The Vedic, Buddhist, Taoist, and Baha'i spiritual view are subjective and concerning the nature of the Quantum world is a religious view and not directly related to science.

Not so. Buddhism is a science of the mind. It is not subjective in that it does not involve the self; it is a universal view of Reality exactly as it presents itself. It is, essentially, the union of the observer with the observed, so that what is observing the Universe is the Universe itself. That is not a subjective, nor even an objective view: it is a view transcendent of the duality of both views.

The world of Quantum Mechanics is the basis for the macro world, so no: there are not 'two' worlds here, but One: All big things are made up of small things.

The question here, as regards your definition of the discussion, is whether Cause and Effect acually exist. As I mentioned, Quantum Physics says that this so called 'material' Universe is in reality a 'superposition of possibilities', rather than a collection of material 'things'. So where is 'cause and effect'?

 

[godnotgod]

Based what is known of our physical existence the Natural Laws have no known origin and as far as science is concerned some sort of natural laws has always existed.

What you are calling 'Natural Laws' have their origins in Judeo-Christian dogma. Science inherited the notion of 'Laws' from this tradition, but simply eliminated the 'Law-Giver'.

 

[shunyadragon]

First off please start another thread your wandering off topic

Not so. Buddhism is a science of the mind. It is not subjective in that it does not involve the self; it is a universal view of Reality exactly as it presents itself. It is, essentially, the union of the observer with the observed, so that what is observing the Universe is the Universe itself. That is not a subjective, nor even an objective view: it is a view transcendent of the duality of both views.

What you are describing above is subjective by definition, because it cannot be objectively verified by physical evidence. The transcendent and science of the mind you describe is subjective.

The world of Quantum Mechanics is the basis for the macro world, so no: there are not 'two' worlds here, but One: All big things are made up of small things.

True all big things are made up of small things so what?!?!?!? Yes, our physical existence is indeed one world, but Quantum world is distinct 'laws' and the science of the Quantum world has different properties than the macro world The natural laws such as the law of gravity do not apply to the Quantum world.

The question here, as regards your definition of the discussion, is whether Cause and Effect atcually exist.

Actually not the subject of the thread.

As I mentioned, Quantum Physics says that this so called 'material' Universe is in reality a 'superposition of possibilities', rather than a collection of material 'things'. So where is 'cause and effect'?

The cause and effect is in the macro world. Cause and effect are simply the nature of how things happen in our world and how science evaluates using objective verifiable evidence.
Questions like: What causes birds to be able to fly? What causes certain mineral compositions to form different crystal shapes?

You appear to arguing from the Vedic/Buddhist view that our physical world is an illusion and not real, but that is a distinctly different argument than what is proposed in this thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

What you are calling 'Natural Laws' have their origins in Judeo-Christian dogma. Science inherited the notion of 'Laws' from this tradition, but simply eliminated the 'Law-Giver'.

Actually no, there is no relationship between the Law of the 'Law-Giver' (God) and the science of Natural Laws. In fact the Judeo-Christian beliefs and many old OT Laws, have been in conflict over the centuries with science. Many theist believers wrongfully accuse science of being atheistic.The science based on Methodological Naturalism basically religious belief neutral, and cannot falsify nor address religious beliefs.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Three hikers on a trail. One hiker proclaims, "that has been intelligently designed." the second hiker "proclaims its random chaos no need to invoke God" the third hiker shoves them both off the cliff into the ocean and asks himself "how does ocean manifest stupid" he contemplates for a bit and realizes " books of course!!" he tosses the books of science religion math into the ocean and asks himself "how did books, manifest the ocean, which created man Who then discovered books, manifesting the ocean creating man".

I can sort of see the end goal in this little tale, but it needs a lot of fixing up. Just some top of mind problems here:

One hiker proclaims, "that has been intelligently designed."

What does the word "that" refer to here? The trail? The ocean? Completely unclear.

...the third hiker shoves them both off the cliff into the ocean...

First time we're introduced to either a cliff or that they were near the ocean, yet you refer to it as "the cliff", as if its presence were obvious.

... and asks himself "how does ocean manifest stupid"

It seems to me that you're wanting to convey that the third hiker has wherewithal over the other two hikers to become aware of something profound, and yet here he is asking himself a question worded so stupidly, that it becomes almost impossible to put the third hiker in any sort of superior position. In fact he has possibly just announced himself as the stupidest of the 3 men.

"books of course!!"

Oh, right! Of... uh... course? No. This is probably the biggest falling down of the story. Books did what now? Why in the world did you choose "books"? So... books manifested stupidity? That's what we're supposed to buy into here? Are you sure it wasn't man who manifested stupidity and then wrote it down in books? Also, as to the content of said books... math is definitively removed from the category of "stupid" - you can't place "math" there in any way, shape or form. Math is hard and fast rule for comparing objects/subjects and quantities. The knowledge imparted cannot, by definition, contain any subjectivity. If you think it can, and can therefore seem "stupid", then I suggest you write a book about yourself and title it "Math", then maybe you can be correct on a technicality. I can see building a case for stupidity in "science" - while the strivings of science itself are exempt, there have been some pretty stupid conclusions made and accepted throughout history, but the scientific community is ever-adapting, and always trying to root out the "stupid", of that you can be sure. Religion, however... well... that one is an over-achiever in qualifying in the particular category you chose. Completely subjective in nearly all respects, interpretable in any number of ways, having borne confusion and contradiction in man for ages, and many religions (initially at least) refuse to move one iota on any point, preferring instead to throw apoplectic fits of apologetics - that one in the list I understand.

asks himself "how did books, manifest the ocean, which created man Who then discovered books, manifesting the ocean creating man".

I can only guess that you're attributing creation stories in religious books and perhaps "big bang theory" in science books with "manifest[ing] the ocean." It's something... not clever, mind you, but something. What little potential the point had is squandered in the inanity of choosing "books" as the descriptor, and the problematic selection of "math" (a discipline in which there exists precisely ZERO interest in describing the start of the universe, or the ocean) as one of the subjects of these "books." I mean seriously... what did math ever do to you? Still have nightmares that your grade-school homework is due in the morning or something?

 

[Sanzbir]

Given that we have a propensity to recognize patterns and see symmetry in nature, it leads to IMO, erroneous conclusions that such things are intentionally designed. Concepts and beliefs come about because we do see patterns and symmetry in a state of stability, therefore people come to the conclusion that it is somehow manufactured or created by a higher power or supernatural intelligence.

Very rarely have I ever seen creationist address chaos and randomness that is common place in nature. So I ask it here.

How does Randomness and Chaos fit in with intelligent design?

It doesn't fit in with ID and doesn't fit in with ToE. "True Randomness" isn't a real thing in this world, as far as we can tell.

I mean you roll a die and it isn't "random", the laws of physics determine on which side the dice will fall.

 

[David T]

I can sort of see the end goal in this little tale, but it needs a lot of fixing up. Just some top of mind problems here:

What does the word "that" refer to here? The trail? The ocean? Completely unclear.

First time we're introduced to either a cliff or that they were near the ocean, yet you refer to it as "the cliff", as if its presence were obvious.

It seems to me that you're wanting to convey that the third hiker has wherewithal over the other two hikers to become aware of something profound, and yet here he is asking himself a question worded so stupidly, that it becomes almost impossible to put the third hiker in any sort of superior position. In fact he has possibly just announced himself as the stupidest of the 3 men.

Oh, right! Of... uh... course? No. This is probably the biggest falling down of the story. Books did what now? Why in the world did you choose "books"? So... books manifested stupidity? That's what we're supposed to buy into here? Are you sure it wasn't man who manifested stupidity and then wrote it down in books? Also, as to the content of said books... math is definitively removed from the category of "stupid" - you can't place "math" there in any way, shape or form. Math is hard and fast rule for comparing objects/subjects and quantities. The knowledge imparted cannot, by definition, contain any subjectivity. If you think it can, and can therefore seem "stupid", then I suggest you write a book about yourself and title it "Math", then maybe you can be correct on a technicality. I can see building a case for stupidity in "science" - while the strivings of science itself are exempt, there have been some pretty stupid conclusions made and accepted throughout history, but the scientific community is ever-adapting, and always trying to root out the "stupid", of that you can be sure. Religion, however... well... that one is an over-achiever in qualifying in the particular category you chose. Completely subjective in nearly all respects, interpretable in any number of ways, having borne confusion and contradiction in man for ages, and (initially at least) refuses to move one iota on any point, preferring instead to throw apoplectic fits of apologetics - that one in the list I understand.

I can only guess that you're attributing creation stories in religious books and perhaps "big bang theory" in science books with "manifest[ing] the ocean." It's something... not clever, mind you, but something. What little potential the point had is squandered in the inanity of choosing "books" as the descriptor, and the problematic selection of "math" (a discipline in which there exists precisely ZERO interest in describing the start of the universe, or the ocean) as one of the subjects of these "books." I mean seriously... what did math ever do to you? Still have nightmares that your grade-school homework is due in the morning or something?

I scrambled it up intentionally. Random chaos is simply beyond measurent. It's like saying beyond the event horizon of observation is random chaos. Actually it's dragons.

Seems a bit of a rather absurd notion actually but maybe dragon s are there!!! . Since I said ID is random and thus chaotic itself I just started thrashing order linguistically and structurally. We then have word salad. So how did the cosmos which apparently is word salad create order!!!! I say the dragon laid out a golden egg and it hatched into the cosmos. So there!!

It's all absurd even my question it is symptomatic itself. I am playing here in words to show that they have some wierd spells they play!!!! Lol..

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I scrambled it up intentionally.... I just started thrashing order linguistically and structurally

So, you're saying you don't always do this? Are you sure?

 

[David T]

So, you're saying you don't always do this? Are you sure?

LOL I do it a lot!!! Now are we talking car engines!? Because I can give a perfect linear layout! Right here. In the Image- nation.

Really I was just walking over to the boundary here in the image-nation in regards to random chaos. Odd I have never actually seen it literally! Do we mean cathode tube TV white noise? I actually can explain that it's actually not random or chaos at all.

So how far is this point from its center! Well probably an inch maybe. This image-nation is a rather remarkable container we can capture both God nature cosmos here!! In a 2"space and argue it. Wierd to me but reality for most. Here is the kicker it's just a thumb.

 

[Scott C.]

Given that we have a propensity to recognize patterns and see symmetry in nature, it leads to IMO, erroneous conclusions that such things are intentionally designed. Concepts and beliefs come about because we do see patterns and symmetry in a state of stability, therefore people come to the conclusion that it is somehow manufactured or created by a higher power or supernatural intelligence.

Very rarely have I ever seen creationist address chaos and randomness that is common place in nature. So I ask it here.

How does Randomness and Chaos fit in with intelligent design?

I believe God created the world. It's not easy to tell how much God allows to happen randomly and how much God causes to happen.

 

[David T]

I believe God created the world. It's not easy to tell how much God allows to happen randomly and how much God causes to happen.

Where did you get the dumb idea "I believe" has anything to with god? Oh everyone sorry bout that. Listen I will never ever attack your experience ever. Ok that stays perfect. What we have is a huge huge problem everywhere. What we experience is being hijacked by how we understand it! The intellect has hijacked the heart. That's common, that that that is totally normal. Hell that is destroying the church!!!! And culture.

 

[Scott C.]

Where did you get the dumb idea "I believe" has anything to with god? Oh everyone sorry bout that. Listen I will never ever attack your experience ever. Ok that stays perfect. What we have is a huge huge problem everywhere. What we experience is being hijacked by how we understand it! The intellect has hijacked the heart. That's common, that that that is totally normal. Hell that is destroying the church!!!! And culture.

I was asked how randonness and chaos fit in with intelligent design. I answered according to my beliefs. Did I misunderstand the question?

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe God created the world. It's not easy to tell how much God allows to happen randomly and how much God causes to happen.

Based on the present evidence God does not 'let' anything happen randomly since true randomness has not observed in the macro world, God has created our physical existence so that everything happens according to Natural Laws.

 

[David T]

I was asked how randonness and chaos fit in with intelligent design. I answered according to my beliefs. Did I misunderstand the question?

That is exactly right. This points to a huge problem we have today. Our intellect has kidnapped us and is holding us hostage in a tiny dark room about 2"across called the image-nation. Apparently this intellect is some wierd alien being as far as I can tell!!!! Lol. Some believe the image nation is virtual some believe they are the alien, some totally ignore the alien by drinking hug quantities of alcohol, and or, try to drug it to death. Some shop maddly to no end hoping to prove it actually doesnt exist! It's a mad world.... In there!!!!!

I on the other hand I take long walks in the forest it seems to be killed off, frees up ones heart and straightens out ones path for some mysterious reason!!! There is no longer random chaos being generated by a being outside reality." For when I stepped, out, what I discovered, I was really stepping in... Quote by John Muir btw the spiritual father of the landscape at one time . Who has replaced john Muir Today? its Al gore(G) . Pitiful pitiful pitiful from John to Al. We are doomed.

" " Where I walk in the forest there are no" believers" there are no" atheists," there are no" agnostics". It's then I know I am back home. " me.

 

[Scott C.]

Based on the present evidence God does not 'let' anything happen randomly since true randomness has not observed in the macro world, God has created our physical existence so that everything happens according to Natural Laws.

I may not be using the term "random" correctly. If I roll a 6 on the dice and then a 4 and then a 2, I see that as random. But, I realize it was not random at all, as it happened based on the position of the dice, weight, balance, the way I toss it, etc. Given the exact same factors, it would always come up as 6, then 4, then 2. But from a religious perspective I believe God may allow some things to happen, without being the cause. If I get hit by a car, that may be bad luck and not something that God consciously willed to happen. Granted, he knew it would happen and could have prevented it. I don't believe God sets all of the wheels in motion to intentionally create every experience that every person will ever have. In that sense I believe life has randomness. And God allows us to exercise our agency, which of course impacts our experiences.

 

[shunyadragon]

I may not be using the term "random" correctly. If I roll a 6 on the dice and then a 4 and then a 2, I see that as random. But, I realize it was not random at all, as it happened based on the position of the dice, weight, balance, the way I toss it, etc. Given the exact same factors, it would always come up as 6, then 4, then 2. But from a religious perspective I believe God may allow some things to happen, without being the cause. If I get hit by a car, that may be bad luck and not something that God consciously willed to happen. Granted, he knew it would happen and could have prevented it. I don't believe God sets all of the wheels in motion to intentionally create every experience that every person will ever have. In that sense I believe life has randomness. And God allows us to exercise our agency, which of course impacts our experiences.

The problem is random, randomness is defined as:
From: random
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.

The range of results of cause and effect events in nature including rolls of the dice follow a distinct fractal pattern, and are not random in nature.

It is probably best to drop random and chance from the vocabulary for anything relating to science and human choice, concerning human will.