What is the nature of “nature”?

[paarsurrey]

As Galileo said, nature is the executor of God's laws, i.e. the processes by which his creation operates.

It also solves the infinite regression paradox unique to naturalism- where the laws of nature must be accounted for by- those very same laws. It provides a creative capacity and purpose for those laws existing

Thanks and regards

 

[Valjean]

As Galileo said, nature is the executor of God's laws, i.e. the processes by which his creation operates.

It also solves the infinite regression paradox unique to naturalism- where the laws of nature must be accounted for by- those very same laws. It provides a creative capacity and purpose for those laws existing

So Nature is a process? That really doesn't tell me much. What sort of process? How does this process work?
When I hear "executor" I think agent, ie: a personage of some sort. How is a process an agent?

Finally, where are you getting a "creative capacity" (please define) and "purpose" from this process? A process is a mechanism.

"Purpose" implies an intentionally designed function. "Natural process" implies neither intention nor design.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So Nature is a process? That really doesn't tell me much. What sort of process? How does this process work?
When I hear "executor" I think agent, ie: a personage of some sort. How is a process an agent?

Finally, where are you getting a "creative capacity" (please define) and "purpose" from this process? A process is a mechanism.

"Purpose" implies an intentionally designed function. "Natural process" implies neither intention nor design.

Apply your questions to the code running this web page

We can examine some of the automated mechanisms, processes, information that is necessary to make it work, but those are not self explanatory, they cannot write themselves for no reason.
A purpose and creative capacity are required for the 'automated / natural' processes to exist, they exist to serve a predetermined purpose.

And it's not clear that any process can exist without purpose as an ultimate initiator, and purpose can only exist in
consciousness

Creative capacity, intelligence, arguably it is the only phenomena that can ever truly create anything, unrestrained by an otherwise infinite regression of cause and effect.

 

[Valjean]

Apply your questions to the code running this web page

We can examine some of the automated mechanisms, processes, information that is necessary to make it work, but those are not self explanatory, they cannot write themselves for no reason.
A purpose and creative capacity are required for the 'automated / natural' processes to exist, they exist to serve a predetermined purpose.

False equivalence. Yes, code is intentially and purposively created, but this does not follow for all natural or organized processes.

And it's not clear that any process can exist without purpose as an ultimate initiator, and purpose can only exist in
consciousness

Non sequitur. There is no reason to assume this, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this extraordinary claim.

Creative capacity, intelligence, arguably it is the only phenomena that can ever truly create anything, unrestrained by an otherwise infinite regression of cause and effect.

Still waiting for said argument.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

False equivalence. Yes, code is intentially and purposively created, but this does not follow for all natural or organized processes.

Non sequitur. There is no reason to assume this, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this extraordinary claim.
Still waiting for said argument.

Quite the opposite, we can demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt, that truly novel automated processes can be fully accounted for by ID. Whether automated processes can do the same?
We can't rule it out, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And as I said, this presents a unique self-explanatory paradox of creation without creativity.


Because we see in nature the same fingerprints of nested design hierarchies as we do in our own creations, the code running this page is relatively simple superficially, (like classical physics)
but this in turn relies on deeper more sophisticated operating systems, hardware, that is even more difficult to account for by chance. (like quantum mechanics)

Similarly I can show you a fully automated watch factory, and conclude that no creative intelligence is required for making the watch,- just as some may do for natural mechanisms
but the factory is even more in need of intelligent design than the watch to account for it

So too in nature, the deeper we look, the further we get from self explanation, not closer

 

[Valjean]

Quite the opposite, we can demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt, that truly novel automated processes can be fully accounted for by ID.

First you'd have to establish the existence of an Intelligent Designer. A false equivalence between designed and natural order won't do it.

Whether automated processes can do the same?
We can't rule it out, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And as I said, this presents a unique self-explanatory paradox of creation without creativity.

Natural order and complexity is an observed fact; a given. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a natural explanation is the reasonable default position. It's intentionality and planned design that's the extraordinary claim begging evidence.

Because we see in nature the same fingerprints of nested design hierarchies as we do in our own creations, the code running this page is relatively simple superficially, (like classical physics)
but this in turn relies on deeper more sophisticated operating systems, hardware, that is even more difficult to account for by chance. (like quantum mechanics)

Similar complexity doesn't assume similar causes. The mechanisms of evolution should demonstrate how non intentional, natural mechanisms can produce highly complex and ordered systems.
High complexity doesn't require highly complex algorithms. We see fractal geometry in everything from mountains to forests to bacteria, for example.

Similarly I can show you a fully automated watch factory, and conclude that no creative intelligence is required for making the watch,- just as some may do for natural mechanisms
but the factory is even more in need of intelligent design than the watch to account for it

Unlike a cat or planet, there are no natural mechanisms to account for a watch. It's a false equivalence.

So too in nature, the deeper we look, the further we get from self explanation, not closer

Au contraire. The deeper we look the more we see the natural, unintentional mechanisms underlying Nature's observed order.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

First you'd have to establish the existence of an Intelligent Designer. A false equivalence between designed and natural order won't do it.

establish?! what evidence for multiverses or any other naturalistic creation stories? we're all taking our best guesses here, I think ID is the least improbable answer.

Natural order and complexity is an observed fact; a given. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a natural explanation is the reasonable default position. It's intentionality and planned design that's the extraordinary claim begging evidence.

and artificial order and complexity is also an observed fact. Both exist, our question concerns the origin of each.

So again, we can fully establish certain orders and complexities as being accounted for by ID, the jury is still out on 'natural' ones, we just don't know, that's what we are all trying to figure out

There is no 'default' explanation, we simply have no precedent for how universes are 'usually' created. The laws of nature being the result of the laws of nature.. offers an inherent unique paradox never before observed, not a default answer!

Similar complexity doesn't assume similar causes. The mechanisms of evolution should demonstrate how non intentional, natural mechanisms can produce highly complex and ordered systems.
High complexity doesn't require highly complex algorithms. We see fractal geometry in everything from mountains to forests to bacteria, for example.

circular argument, you would have to first establish that evolution can produce highly complex ordered systems- without guidance or instructions. Again people once used classical physics to demonstrate ordered systems spontaneously organizing without instructions on how to do so, we now know this is not the case. A similarly superficial observation of this software by a child would give the same conclusion of magical spontaneous system organization

Unlike a cat or planet, there are no natural mechanisms to account for a watch. It's a false equivalence.

There are automated systems in each, which also rely on specific instructions. They both coexist

And that gets to the real difference here:

ID has no need to banish natural mechanisms from the playing field to win the match, They are both integral to reality.

Not so the other way around, naturalism must utterly forbid ID as an unsupported conclusion from the get go, in order to allow chance 'a chance' to win out as the only remaining 'default' explanation


We know that both phenomena exist in the universe, without any basis to rule ID out, it has the superior power of explanation.

It comes back to 'help' being written in rocks on the beach, with no sign of anyone ever being there- do you choose your 'default' answer of natural mechanisms? the waves washed them up that way?!

why not?

 

[paarsurrey]

Quite the opposite, we can demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt, that truly novel automated processes can be fully accounted for by ID. Whether automated processes can do the same?
We can't rule it out, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And as I said, this presents a unique self-explanatory paradox of creation without creativity.


Because we see in nature the same fingerprints of nested design hierarchies as we do in our own creations, the code running this page is relatively simple superficially, (like classical physics)
but this in turn relies on deeper more sophisticated operating systems, hardware, that is even more difficult to account for by chance. (like quantum mechanics)

Similarly I can show you a fully automated watch factory, and conclude that no creative intelligence is required for making the watch,- just as some may do for natural mechanisms
but the factory is even more in need of intelligent design than the watch to account for it

So too in nature, the deeper we look, the further we get from self explanation, not closer

"Similarly I can show you a fully automated watch factory, and conclude that no creative intelligence is required for making the watch,- just as some may do for natural mechanisms
but the factory is even more in need of intelligent design than the watch to account for it"

All automatic machines need more thoughtfulness and expertise to create than the non-automatic one.
Is that your argument? Please
Regards

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Similarly I can show you a fully automated watch factory, and conclude that no creative intelligence is required for making the watch,- just as some may do for natural mechanisms
but the factory is even more in need of intelligent design than the watch to account for it"

All automatic machines need more thoughtfulness and expertise to create than the non-automatic one.
Is that your argument? Please
Regards

If I understand you correctly, yes.

One hundred and fifty years ago, back in the days of classical physics and Darwinism, we knew little about information systems that nature, or now we, rely on. We still believed that nature ran on a handful of simple 'immutable laws' and human machines were fairly crude interfaces between operator and mechanism.

But nature and software are beholden to the same cold hard math, automated information systems no longer denote some magical spontaneous blind mechanism. We recognize the fingerprints of design.

They are no longer subjective, they are objectively distinct from unguided processes. Principally in that they specify pre-determined outcomes, but in many other ways also.

So much so that academic atheists have been forced to resort to imaginary infinite probability machines 'multiverses' to try to account for any possibility of these information systems being created without creativity.

If we simply remove the unwarranted limitations on possible explanations, we do not need to resort to such absurd philosophical speculations. We already know that creative intelligence exists right here in the universe. We already have an empirical solution if we do not abhor it's implications.

 

[paarsurrey]

If I understand you correctly, yes.

One hundred and fifty years ago, back in the days of classical physics and Darwinism, we knew little about information systems that nature, or now we, rely on. We still believed that nature ran on a handful of simple 'immutable laws' and human machines were fairly crude interfaces between operator and mechanism.

But nature and software are beholden to the same cold hard math, automated information systems no longer denote some magical spontaneous blind mechanism. We recognize the fingerprints of design.

They are no longer subjective, they are objectively distinct from unguided processes. Principally in that they specify pre-determined outcomes, but in many other ways also.

So much so that academic atheists have been forced to resort to imaginary infinite probability machines 'multiverses' to try to account for any possibility of these information systems being created without creativity.

If we simply remove the unwarranted limitations on possible explanations, we do not need to resort to such absurd philosophical speculations. We already know that creative intelligence exists right here in the universe. We already have an empirical solution if we do not abhor it's implications.

"cold hard math"

Who taught Nature the "cold hard math" that the Mathematicians play with to start with and later the scientists? Any idea? Please
Anybody, please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

"cold hard math"

Who taught Nature the "cold hard math" that the Mathematicians play with to start with and later the scientists? Any idea? Please
Anybody, please

To add further:
Mathematics does not exist in nature, yet the Mathematicians gets it from the nature, it is his language to understand Mathematics. Please
Regards

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To add further:
Mathematics does not exist in nature, yet the Mathematicians gets it from the nature, it is his language to understand Mathematics. Please
Regards

Yes, he is a master mathematician & engineer, certainly, but also a great artist. If we are lucky we inherit some tiny fraction of his talent!