The Appeal to Order and Intelligent Agency

[RestlessSoul]

A nearly ubiquitous argument in theological and religious debates is that of order, or the notion that because a given observer perceives order in the universe or in how life has evolved, then there must be an intelligent or conscious agent behind the processes that gave rise to the universe or its laws.

However, picture two people, whom we will call Joe and Jane. Joe is an avid fan of mosaic, and this is one of the decorations he admires most:

Besides ceramic mosaic, Joe has never seen any type of tiles or floors in his entire life—no marble, no glass, and no porcelain. No checkered tiles or hardwood floors. To him, the perfect arrangement of tiles can only produce a depiction as that of the cat seen above.

Jane, though, is in love with checkered marble floors. They're not the most colorful, granted (or granite, possibly), but her ideal floor looks like this:

And like Joe, she has never once seen any other type of floor. To her, there's only one perfect way to arrange tiles, and it is the one you see above.

But one day, Joe invites Jane to see the incredible work of art he now has at his house. She asks him to describe it, and he mentions black and white tiles. In her mind, this immediately conjures images of her own favorite, perfectly ordered checkered tiles.

Upon seeing the Siamese cat formed by the black and white mosaic, though, she finds it to be direly chaotic and disorganized. After all, there's only a specific notion of order that tiles can follow, and she already has a preconception of that.

She then shows Joe pictures on her phone of her checkered floor, much to his frowning. He can't fathom how someone could possibly be so untidy and so wasteful as to arrange black and white tiles in a checkered pattern instead of drawing a Siamese cat via the arrangement.

When we think of "order" in the universe and gasp in awe at such, what is our reference against which we judge what is or isn't "order"? Are we comparing life on Earth to our own creations, for example? Or the laws of the universe to our own constitutions and rules?

Who is to say that, instead of the universe really being "perfectly ordered," we just haven't seen any other kind of tile arrangement to which we can compare it?

You seem to be asking what part Joe and Jane’s consciousness plays in creating order? Some, certainly. A lot, probably. But If consciousness creates order, what creates consciousness? And which is a priori, objective reality or conscious perception?

This brings us to the heart of a paradox that has troubled philosophers for millennia, and scientists for a century (science takes it’s time getting round to the big questions, but is finally catching up); since it is impossible to separate the observer either from the act of observation, or from the object being observed - the whole being in an entangled state - how is it possible to know what is objectively real; and what part does the consciousness of the observer(s) play in the creation of reality?

Neither science nor philosophy have so far been able offer a satisfactory answer to these questions. Nor can they, separately or in tandem, answer the questions, “What is my place in the universe? And what does it mean to live a finite, fragile life in an infinite eternal universe?”

Confronted with these seemingly insurmountable dilemmas, in order to go on living a meaningful existence, we must have faith; without faith, we end up like Camus’ protagonist in The Outsider - completely lost, in a world where morality and motive are entirely subjective.

Leo Tolstoy, writing just over a century ago, observed that the greatest superstition of the modern age, was the superstitious belief that man can live without faith.

Happy Christmas.

 

[Ella S.]

I think your reference to "the laws of the universe" gives the game away, though. Do you accept there are such things? If you do, you agree there is objective order, surely?

I actually agree entirely. I think it's quite evident that there is a natural order to the universe. I can even understand personifying that order in some form of Deism or Pantheism.

I think the question of whether there is order or not is the wrong one. It borders on post-modernism. The question is which came first: intelligence or order?

In my opinion, the capacity for intelligence is something that biological organisms developed as a consequence of the laws of nature, but such intelligence probably couldn't have formed before the existence of matter. So the answer in my case is "order."

I don't really see why the order of the universe would need an intelligence to create or sustain it. I also don't think it makes any sense to think that any form of agency could have existed early on in the universe, much less at its earliest point or before. I just don't understand why the fact that the universe is ordered is seen as some kind of win for theism, when the very order of the universe is why I'm an atheist.

I suppose that's a discussion that's already been done to death, though.

 

[Ella S.]

You seem to be asking what part Joe and Jane’s consciousness plays in creating order? Some, certainly. A lot, probably. But If consciousness creates order, what creates consciousness?

"Consciousness" is an imprecise term, but the mind creates an abstract concept of order as a category for real things.

And which is a priori, objective reality or conscious perception?

Reality. Thinking that perception comes a priori is magical thinking and a form of mistaking the map for the territory. Our perception is a limited and indirect model of reality, but it's still grounded in a world that exists independent of us.

This brings us to the heart of a paradox that has troubled philosophers for millennia, and scientists for a century (science takes it’s time getting round to the big questions, but is finally catching up); since it is impossible to separate the observer either from the act of observation, or from the object being observed - the whole being in an entangled state - how is it possible to know what is objectively real; and what part does the consciousness of the observer(s) play in the creation of reality?

That's not really how entanglement works, so this is a loaded question with false implicit premises.

Neither science nor philosophy have so far been able offer a satisfactory answer to these questions. Nor can they, separately or in tandem, answer the questions, “What is my place in the universe? And what does it mean to live a finite, fragile life in an infinite eternal universe?”

Philosophy has answered those second two questions for about as long as philosophy has existed. Whether you find any of those answers personally satisfying is another matter.

Perhaps you mean they cannot answer in a way that satisfies some implicit criteria you have in mind, but evidently not everyone agrees that your criteria is a relevant or useful way to measure their answers by.

Confronted with these seemingly insurmountable dilemmas, in order to go on living a meaningful existence, we must have faith; without faith, we end up like Camus’ protagonist in The Outsider - completely lost, in a world where morality and motive are entirely subjective.

Yet Camus also wrote The Rebel, demonstrating how to live in such a world without reverting back to relying on faith.

Leo Tolstoy, writing just over a century ago, observed that the greatest superstition of the modern age, was the superstitious belief that man can live without faith.

I've heard a lot of different definitions of faith, but I have a feeling you would have to stretch yours passed its breaking point to assert that men can't live without it.

 

[sayak83]

A nearly ubiquitous argument in theological and religious debates is that of order, or the notion that because a given observer perceives order in the universe or in how life has evolved, then there must be an intelligent or conscious agent behind the processes that gave rise to the universe or its laws.

However, picture two people, whom we will call Joe and Jane. Joe is an avid fan of mosaic, and this is one of the decorations he admires most:

Besides ceramic mosaic, Joe has never seen any type of tiles or floors in his entire life—no marble, no glass, and no porcelain. No checkered tiles or hardwood floors. To him, the perfect arrangement of tiles can only produce a depiction as that of the cat seen above.

Jane, though, is in love with checkered marble floors. They're not the most colorful, granted (or granite, possibly), but her ideal floor looks like this:

And like Joe, she has never once seen any other type of floor. To her, there's only one perfect way to arrange tiles, and it is the one you see above.

But one day, Joe invites Jane to see the incredible work of art he now has at his house. She asks him to describe it, and he mentions black and white tiles. In her mind, this immediately conjures images of her own favorite, perfectly ordered checkered tiles.

Upon seeing the Siamese cat formed by the black and white mosaic, though, she finds it to be direly chaotic and disorganized. After all, there's only a specific notion of order that tiles can follow, and she already has a preconception of that.

She then shows Joe pictures on her phone of her checkered floor, much to his frowning. He can't fathom how someone could possibly be so untidy and so wasteful as to arrange black and white tiles in a checkered pattern instead of drawing a Siamese cat via the arrangement.

When we think of "order" in the universe and gasp in awe at such, what is our reference against which we judge what is or isn't "order"? Are we comparing life on Earth to our own creations, for example? Or the laws of the universe to our own constitutions and rules?

Who is to say that, instead of the universe really being "perfectly ordered," we just haven't seen any other kind of tile arrangement to which we can compare it?

A simple objective goalpost will be entropy. It's different from our subjective views of order, but rather a scientifically objective redefinition of something akin to order (like our everyday ideas of energy vs scientific understanding of energy).

 

[RestlessSoul]

"Consciousness" is an imprecise term, but the mind creates an abstract concept of order as a category for real things.



Reality. Thinking that perception comes a priori is magical thinking and a form of mistaking the map for the territory. Our perception is a limited and indirect model of reality, but it's still grounded in a world that exists independent of us.



That's not really how entanglement works, so this is a loaded question with false implicit premises.



Philosophy has answered those second two questions for about as long as philosophy has existed. Whether you find any of those answers personally satisfying is another matter.

Perhaps you mean they cannot answer in a way that satisfies some implicit criteria you have in mind, but evidently not everyone agrees that your criteria is a relevant or useful way to measure their answers by.



Yet Camus also wrote The Rebel, demonstrating how to live in such a world without reverting back to relying on faith.



I've heard a lot of different definitions of faith, but I have a feeling you would have to stretch yours passed its breaking point to assert that men can't live without it.

I haven’t read The Rebel, will try to get hold of a copy; so thanks for that.


Faith is required, if for nothing else, to overcome solipsism. You confirm this yourself when you state, without equivocation, that reality has priority over consciousness. I note that you don’t distinguish between internal and external reality, but I assume you mean the latter? A Monist would argue that they are inseparable, but that is another question really.

Anyway, in dismissing as magical thinking the uncomfortable idea that consciousness, however we define it, may come before reality, you are making a leap of faith; you trust in the existence of a world independent of your perception of it. And you trust, it seems, in logic and reason to help you under something of that reality. It is but a small step from faith in logic and reason, to faith in the proposition that we are each part of something far greater than ourselves, and that some great and incomprehensible (to us) purpose underlies all.

 

[LuisDantas]

It still surprises me that the claim that there is order in the universe is made.

I just don't see it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In my opinion -- and whatever the attribution -- the arc from microbe to Mozart should inspire awe and, perhaps, gratitude.

 

[PureX]

I accept that there are physical and logical laws, yes. To not accept that would be an utter denial of established scientific and logical facts.

However, whether these laws constitute a "perfect" or otherwise optimal order...

How did perfection become a logical necessity, here? How would a mere human even determine a "perfect order"? You posted that:

"A nearly ubiquitous argument in theological and religious debates is that of order, or the notion that because a given observer perceives order in the universe or in how life has evolved, then there must be an intelligent or conscious agent behind the processes that gave rise to the universe or its laws."
​

Where in this statement is perfection necessitated? How would such perfection be determined? And by whom? ... Us? What do we know about existence that gives us the ability to determine it's perfections or imperfections?

 

[PureX]

Surely if this is the form existence took, instead of any other form or just nonexistence, then that means existence as it is is the perfect order, as it is exactly how it's supposed to be.

And how could we know otherwise?

 

[PureX]

It depends on if you agree with hard determinism. If you consider that all matter and energy is reacting in accordance to all universal, physical, and mathematical laws that govern it, then there is only one way they could've reacted (and their reaction is what shapes the universe)

Except that one of those universal laws is the law of chance. Which under specific conditions, allows for an "undetermined" outcome.

 

[PureX]

But are those things truly random, or are we just not able to measure it yet?

Chance happens when the difference between opposing causal influences becomes so small that they are overwhelmed by the mechanisms of the influence.

 

[PureX]

It still surprises me that the claim that there is order in the universe is made.

I just don't see it.

What is it that you think scientists are seeking to understand?

 

[PureX]

I actually agree entirely. I think it's quite evident that there is a natural order to the universe. I can even understand personifying that order in some form of Deism or Pantheism.

I think the question of whether there is order or not is the wrong one. It borders on post-modernism. The question is which came first: intelligence or order?

In my opinion, the capacity for intelligence is something that biological organisms developed as a consequence of the laws of nature, but such intelligence probably couldn't have formed before the existence of matter. So the answer in my case is "order."

I don't really see why the order of the universe would need an intelligence to create or sustain it. I also don't think it makes any sense to think that any form of agency could have existed early on in the universe, much less at its earliest point or before. I just don't understand why the fact that the universe is ordered is seen as some kind of win for theism, when the very order of the universe is why I'm an atheist.

I suppose that's a discussion that's already been done to death, though.

Order is intelligence expressed. Intelligence IS order. It's not an either/or, first/last phenomenon. These are aspects of each other.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is it that you think scientists are seeking to understand?

Whatever there is that can be understood and predicted, of course.

It just happens that wherever I look I get the sense that existence as a whole is almost proud of how accidental and purposeless it is. What little "order" is to be found seems to be what could not be avoided by random chance.

 

[PureX]

Whatever there is that can be understood and predicted, of course.

It just happens that wherever I look I get the sense that existence as a whole is almost proud of how accidental and purposeless it is. What little "order" is to be found seems to be what could not be avoided by random chance.

The rules of possibility govern everything that happens (and does not happen) in the universe. You think you see chaos before you, when in fact everything happening before you is "allowable". And everything that is not happening before you, is not. And the former is a very small set of possibilities compared to the latter which is an infinite set of impossibilities. What is possible determines everything that happens or doesn't happen. And not anything or everything is possible. In fact, only very specific things are possible within ANY given or chosen situation or circumstance. And very often only ONE result is possible (determinism). Chance is actually quite rare. It exists, but does not occur, often. It requires a specific balance of influences for chance to become a determinant actor.(Which is why determinism as an absolute ideal is wrong.)

However, I suspect that if you have not so far come to recognize this, it's because you have some internal bias causing you not to see it. But that's your business.

 

[wellwisher]

A nearly ubiquitous argument in theological and religious debates is that of order, or the notion that because a given observer perceives order in the universe or in how life has evolved, then there must be an intelligent or conscious agent behind the processes that gave rise to the universe or its laws.

However, picture two people, whom we will call Joe and Jane. Joe is an avid fan of mosaic, and this is one of the decorations he admires most:

Besides ceramic mosaic, Joe has never seen any type of tiles or floors in his entire life—no marble, no glass, and no porcelain. No checkered tiles or hardwood floors. To him, the perfect arrangement of tiles can only produce a depiction as that of the cat seen above.

Jane, though, is in love with checkered marble floors. They're not the most colorful, granted (or granite, possibly), but her ideal floor looks like this:

And like Joe, she has never once seen any other type of floor. To her, there's only one perfect way to arrange tiles, and it is the one you see above.

But one day, Joe invites Jane to see the incredible work of art he now has at his house. She asks him to describe it, and he mentions black and white tiles. In her mind, this immediately conjures images of her own favorite, perfectly ordered checkered tiles.

Upon seeing the Siamese cat formed by the black and white mosaic, though, she finds it to be direly chaotic and disorganized. After all, there's only a specific notion of order that tiles can follow, and she already has a preconception of that.

She then shows Joe pictures on her phone of her checkered floor, much to his frowning. He can't fathom how someone could possibly be so untidy and so wasteful as to arrange black and white tiles in a checkered pattern instead of drawing a Siamese cat via the arrangement.

When we think of "order" in the universe and gasp in awe at such, what is our reference against which we judge what is or isn't "order"? Are we comparing life on Earth to our own creations, for example? Or the laws of the universe to our own constitutions and rules?

Who is to say that, instead of the universe really being "perfectly ordered," we just haven't seen any other kind of tile arrangement to which we can compare it?

An analogy to your example is Evolutionary theory. The theory defines order with respect to life based on a large collection of fossils that extend over time. Although this order seems reasonable based on the data used, the theory cannot be used to predict the future.

The theory appears from what we know and can observe from the past, but it gets stumped when applied to what will be, but which is not yet manifest; unknown future data. The theory is biased by its own limited vision, and has a hard time seeing outside that box for future applications.

If I add the theory that water; H2O, is a copartner of life, to the blend of evolution, this is like adding a Siamese cat to the tile; reasonable but does not fit expectations. Fossils do not use water. Living things use water but fossils, which are the basis for evolutionary theory, do not.

Evolution is not about the natural order in life, but more about how we wish that order to be based; what we know from dead things.

 

[LuisDantas]

The rules of possibility govern everything that happens (and does not happen) in the universe.

Or, more likely, things just happen to be as they are.

I mean, "rules of possibility"? Does that even have any meaning?

You think you see chaos before you, when in fact everything happening before you is "allowable".

Aren't those two different forms of the same statement?

And everything that is not happening before you, is not.

How would you know? How would anyone know?

I don't think that there is justification for concluding quite so much from a simple lack of perception.

And the former is a very small set of possibilities compared to the latter which is an infinite set of impossibilities.

Arguable if not fully speculative, but also irrelevant.

What is possible determines everything that happens or doesn't happen. And not anything or everything is possible. In fact, only very specific things are possible within ANY given or chosen situation or circumstance.

Perhaps. I am honestly not sure whether that is either discernible or meaningful.

And very often only ONE result is possible (determinism). Chance is actually quite rare. It exists, but does not occur, often. It requires a specific balance of influences for chance to become a determinant actor.(Which is why determinism as an absolute ideal is wrong.)

Sounds like a personal dogma of yours.

However, I suspect that if you have not so far come to recognize this, it's because you have some internal bias causing you not to see it. But that's your business.

So kind of you to decide that between the two of us I am biased and implicitly you are not...

Myself, I think that appeals to order are a purely aesthetical claim that are weirdly treated as some sort of epistemological argument by some people. Not me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It just happens that wherever I look I get the sense that existence as a whole is almost proud of how accidental and purposeless it is..

..and wherever I look, I see people going about there business, that appears far from accidental and purposeless.

 

[LuisDantas]

..and wherever I look, I see people going about there business, that appears far from accidental and purposeless.

If you say so.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Chance happens when the difference between opposing causal influences becomes so small that they are overwhelmed by the mechanisms of the influence.

Such as?