Inherent Characteristics of Design

[Etritonakin]

I'm not really on either side of the evolution vs. creationism debate, as such -but thought this was the most appropriate place to post this thread.

I have heard it said that we are able to know something is designed by comparing it with/against things found in nature.
This is true for things designed by humans which do not resemble nature, but assumes that nature was not designed.

I believe that design must have inherent characteristics (that design is self-evident) but have only begun to try to put them into words.

Is there any way to know whether something absolutely required forethought?

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not sure we can make any specific assumptions about design. Just look at some art, like process art. It's composition is based on the process, not how it looks. A bunch of rocks ordered according some algorithm for instance, like a Fibonacci sequence, wouldn't be more discernible as design to us any more than the spirals of a snail shell.

 

[Etritonakin]

I'm not sure we can make any specific assumptions about design. Just look at some art, like process art. It's composition is based on the process, not how it looks. A bunch of rocks ordered according some algorithm for instance, like a Fibonacci sequence, wouldn't be more discernible as design to us any more than the spirals of a snail shell.

At what point does something become discernible as design?

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not really on either side of the evolution vs. creationism debate, as such -but thought this was the most appropriate place to post this thread.

I have heard it said that we are able to know something is designed by comparing it with/against things found in nature.
This is true for things designed by humans which do not resemble nature, but assumes that nature was not designed.

I believe that design must have inherent characteristics (that design is self-evident) but have only begun to try to put them into words.

Is there any way to know whether something absolutely required forethought?

The short answer is no.

Although the propogandists at the Discovery Institute have so shamefully attempted to defraud the US education system on a grand scale, their invention - Intelligent Design was never developed beyond an idea. ID was a weapon, a political tool intended to circumvent the law and disguise creationism into a more scientific sounding form.

The truth is that ID proponants do not have a theory, there is no theory of intelligent design. It never even got as far as having a testable hypothesis.

So no there is no test for design, never has been. ID proponants never even got as far as proposing one. And of course without a test for design ID is stillborn.

 

[Riverwolf]

French writer, poet, and early aviation designer said that, "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

In order for something to be well-designed, it has to be efficient; a complicated design is a bad design. Something well-designed also has a very clear purpose; by observing its mechanical characteristics, even someone unfamiliar with the particular field can determine the task for which it was designed. Furthermore, it not only has to be efficient, it has to be effective. Many animals, including us, have our wind pipes and esophogi both at the back of the mouth, which creates the serious potential problem of choking; if our bodies were well-designed, it's highly unlikely that this would have been a problem at all.

So, while there may not be a test to determine whether or not something is natural or designed, if the universe were "perfectly" designed by a supposedly "perfect" designer, we would expect to see in the natural world examples that adhere to this very fundamental principle of design; we don't.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is there any way to know whether something absolutely required forethought?

That is a pretty strict determination.

IMO it would be complied with if the "something" in question had a high degree of complexity and lots of opportunity to work against its own goals or interests if not intentionally designed yet consistently turned out to "refuse" to do so.

Needless to say, such is not even remotely the case of Earthly life, nor of Earth itself. Somehow the claim is made nonetheless, but it lacks any reasonably foundation.

 

[Ouroboros]

At what point does something become discernible as design?

To us humans, when it reminds us of something that we consider useful and recognizable. If it looks like random stuff, we won't think of it as designed, even if it was.

 

[Etritonakin]

So, while there may not be a test to determine whether or not something is natural or designed, if the universe were "perfectly" designed by a supposedly "perfect" designer, we would expect to see in the natural world examples that adhere to this very fundamental principle of design; we don't.

Except..... if the designer were designing designers..... who would necessarily be able to distinguish between the imperfectly and perfectly designed....

....the designer would seek to illustrate that perfection is the arrangement of things toward a purpose which is not in conflict -and would allow the disarrangement of things -allow conflict -toward the purpose of teaching new designers to arrange things toward a purpose -to design together without conflict.

The fact that we are able to consider it (perfect systems) -potentially design and create it (at least in microcosm) -yet not immediately observe it..... essentially creates a vacuum for it -draws it out of us.

We see how things could be perfect -yet we see that they are not perfect -and thereby we discern how they might be made perfect -and desire that they be made perfect -and even desire to make them perfect ourselves.

 

[Whiterain]

Very few of the early beasts were subject of perfect design, maybe flawed evolution. The giant Orthocone is subjected to evolutionary criticism. That squid eventually 'evolved' into giant squids by its flawed design.

The Great White Shark is one of the few inarguable perfect beast, and it had remained the same for eons, only shrinking, to modern observations. The Orca though is also a perfect beast, slaying White Sharks on the regular, even going out of its way to protect humans, as do Dolphins.

Primitive creatures are almost subject to flawed design.

Some of the earliest creatures may seem flawed.

It's up to interpretation.. Whatever your argument.

 

[Riverwolf]

Except..... if the designer were designing designers..... who would necessarily be able to distinguish between the imperfectly and perfectly designed....

....the designer would seek to illustrate that perfection is the arrangement of things toward a purpose which is not in conflict -and would allow the disarrangement of things -allow conflict -toward the purpose of teaching new designers to arrange things toward a purpose -to design together without conflict.

The fact that we are able to consider it (perfect systems) -potentially design and create it (at least in microcosm) -yet not immediately observe it..... essentially creates a vacuum for it -draws it out of us.

We see how things could be perfect -yet we see that they are not perfect -and thereby we discern how they might be made perfect -and desire that they be made perfect -and even desire to make them perfect ourselves.

Basically SimCity, or any of the Tycoon games.

The universe still falls flat. A properly designed tutorial on design would have better positive reinforcement for design exploration (something many of the above games fall flat on, IMO, but that's beside the point). Instead, most times when we try to make "perfect" a perceived "imperfection" in nature, we typically end up with a bunch of other problems and have no idea what's going on.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Is there any way to know whether something absolutely required forethought?

Then there would have to be a residue of the forethought in the designed product. In designing the future is made the present, the potential state becomes to be an actual state. It does not seem impossible that one could get a fair indication by looking at an actual product, of an actual product being derived from 1 potential, instead of 2 potentials.

If 2 people independently decide to go to the supermarket, and they meet each other there, then it is 2 times forethought, but the event of meeting is not forethought. Certainly one would be surprised to meet the other at the supermarket, compared to if they had decided on it together to meet at the supermarket. But after a time the surprise of it wears off, and it is the same as if they had decided to meet each other at the supermarket.

Still one would expect that something which is produced by many independent decisions to show some history of the independent decisions colliding, compared with it being chosen as a whole there would not be a trace of such collisions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At what point does something become discernible as design?

When one of two things happens:

- when you have direct evidence of a thing being designed (e.g. if you watch a painter paint a painting, then you know that the painting was designed, regardless of any other attributes of the painting)

- when you can rule out all other possibilities.

The second approach requires omniscience.

 

[viole]

I'm not really on either side of the evolution vs. creationism debate, as such -but thought this was the most appropriate place to post this thread.

I have heard it said that we are able to know something is designed by comparing it with/against things found in nature.
This is true for things designed by humans which do not resemble nature, but assumes that nature was not designed.

I believe that design must have inherent characteristics (that design is self-evident) but have only begun to try to put them into words.

Is there any way to know whether something absolutely required forethought?

Does forethought itself, or any agent capable of it, require design?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

Does forethought itself, or any agent capable of it, require design?

Ciao

- viole

Excellent question.

If we view ourselves as part of nature, then our ability to design is natural -design is integral to nature.

Some believe that we were designed by nature (we are still more complex and capable than anything similar to ourselves that we have designed, therefore nature is a better designer than we are as a species) but not by forethought or decision.
I don't see that as possible. It seems to me that some sort of decisive force and that which it could act upon must have always existed together -and that our present state and abilities are a continuation of the same -even if in different form. What is is what was -but in a different arrangement.

Trying to prove that something was designed by comparison would be rather difficult -to say the least -if everything we can see or experience was designed to some degree.

Yet -if we, and the stuff around us, is similar to what has always been -the same stuff arranged differently -we should be able to determine what can and cannot happen in the absence of decision -because we can decide to not act.

It is said that nature seeks equilibrium. If we completely isolate a portion of nature and it reaches equilibrium, it remains so until acted upon -or until no longer isolated. Yes? No?
When we act, we move that which was at equilibrium -or was seeking equilibrium -creating an imbalance toward rearrangement -and things settle into the new arrangement unless
sustained imbalance keeps things moving.

Could anything have happened without an initial basic animate force acting on that which was otherwise at rest/equilibrium (or cosmic symmetry, as I believe they call it these days)?

 

[viole]

It is said that nature seeks equilibrium. If we completely isolate a portion of nature and it reaches equilibrium, it remains so until acted upon -or until no longer isolated. Yes? No?

Nope.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

Nope.

Ciao

- viole

Care to explain?

I understand the difficulty -perhaps impossibility -of completely isolating a portion of nature and allowing it to reach true equilibrium (because it is all essentially a part of what has already been set in motion and is still in motion) -but I still believe the principle is true/sound overall -and observable on some level.

 

[viole]

Care to explain?

Ok. Let's forget for a moment that time is also a natural thing and does not obviously seeks anything.

Suppose you have a system in state X very far from equilibrium in an insulated box. After a while it will reach equilibrium.

After a much longer while it will go back to state X.

This is the consequence of a mathematical theorem about mechanics: Poincare theorem of recurrence.

The funny thing is that while it moves from equilibrium back to state X, its arrow of time will be reversed, compared with the arrow it had when moving towards equilibrium.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

Ok. Let's forget for a moment that time is also a natural thing and does not obviously seeks anything.

Suppose you have a system in state X very far from equilibrium in an insulated box. After a while it will reach equilibrium.

After a much longer while it will go back to state X.

This is the consequence of a mathematical theorem about mechanics: Poincare theorem of recurrence.

The funny thing is that while it moves from equilibrium back to state X, its arrow of time will be reversed, compared with the arrow it had when moving towards equilibrium.

Ciao

- viole

As that applies to "isolated mechanical systems subject to some constraints" would not state X be an artificial equilibrium - and true equilibrium effectively an imbalance only from the perspective of the isolated system? Still -equilibrium is sought -whether true or artificial.

As it is an isolated system, time itself does not truly reverse -but the order of occurrence is reversed.

That is my problem with the question of time travel -the present is a rearrangement of the past -and the only way to visit the past is to reverse or recreate the order of things -while we still technically move forward in time because the past would happen after the present.

 

[viole]

As that applies to "isolated mechanical systems subject to some constraints" would not state X be an artificial equilibrium - and true equilibrium effectively an imbalance only from the perspective of the isolated system? Still -equilibrium is sought -whether true or artificial.

As it is an isolated system, time itself does not truly reverse -but the order of occurrence is reversed.

That is my problem with the question of time travel -the present is a rearrangement of the past -and the only way to visit the past is to reverse or recreate the order of things -while we still technically move forward in time because the past would happen after the present.

F th

As that applies to "isolated mechanical systems subject to some constraints" would not state X be an artificial equilibrium - and true equilibrium effectively an imbalance only from the perspective of the isolated system? Still -equilibrium is sought -whether true or artificial.

As it is an isolated system, time itself does not truly reverse -but the order of occurrence is reversed.

That is my problem with the question of time travel -the present is a rearrangement of the past -and the only way to visit the past is to reverse or recreate the order of things -while we still technically move forward in time because the past would happen after the present.

It does not matter.

You can have things like Boltzmann brains arising in this box as it leaves equilibrium spontanously. Brains capable of forethought (actually, backthought, lol), at least in principle. Nothing in the laws of physics can prevent that from happening.

Ergo, forethought can be the result of completely naturalistic and statistical principles. Providing thereby a completely statistical ultimate explanation of any of their designs.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not really on either side of the evolution vs. creationism debate, as such -but thought this was the most appropriate place to post this thread.

I have heard it said that we are able to know something is designed by comparing it with/against things found in nature.
This is true for things designed by humans which do not resemble nature, but assumes that nature was not designed.

I believe that design must have inherent characteristics (that design is self-evident) but have only begun to try to put them into words.

Is there any way to know whether something absolutely required forethought?

I think it's a matter of probability, a sliding scale, e.g.

a rough line of rocks on a beach could have been placed there but probably just washed up that way
a discernible ring of rocks may be a fluke, or remains of a fire circle
the word 'HELP' is no less likely than any other pattern, but design is clearly the most likely explanation

because what makes design unique is purpose, right? not simply complexity as the watchmaker strawman usually goes. the more potential motive, the more explanatory power creative intelligence has. a watch isn't designed because it's complicated, but because it exhibits purpose, a function which is particularly useful for a being who has purpose- and hence imagines the future.

So re. evolution, the fact that the system ultimately developed purpose itself... to me suggests that purpose was probably involved in the system.