- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 01 2010,23:35) If you look at anything it can appear chaotic. But chaos that is confined within a border of design is design too. e.g., a snooker table on a boat might force the balls on the table to move about chaotically, but the design around it is very much order. Not all things need to be ordered. You can have chaos within it as order is not necessary and is overkill for all things. Another example is a poker machine. When you pull the handle you might get a random row of numbers and symbols, but it would be lack of understanding to say that this demonstrates that there is no creator or design of the system that produces those numbers and symbols.
I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that a poker machine is not designed, are they?You are not giving any criteria for what you would consider is designed and what isn't, so it is impossible to consider the validity of your claim about design presenting borders to chaos. My definition of design, that an object was designed if you have evidence of the process of design and, ideally, of the historicity of the designer.
My question might be, if you have a piece of ivory that has been broken and shaped into as good a sphere as a billiard ball by the random action of a river, then you line it up next to an old ivory billiard ball, the design of which is demonstrated by the manufacturer's name on the outside of the box in which it came and the anecdote of one who worked in the billiard ball factory, then what qualities of design distinguish the two balls?
If there is no observable difference just looking at them, what is the value of claiming design even when one of the two wasn't designed?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 02 2010,20:02) I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that a poker machine is not designed, are they?
If the point was missed on you, then so be it.Quote (t8 @ Feb. 02 2010,23:30) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 02 2010,20:02) I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that a poker machine is not designed, are they?
If the point was missed on you, then so be it.
So be it then.I think your point was that just because a system produces a random output it does not mean that there is no an intention behind it to include non-random output.
Well what if your 'machine' only EVER gave random output?
Stuart
Look at the underside of a rug. In some cases it appears chaotic or without pattern. When you turn it over, you can see the pattern that is supported by what appears to be chaotic. Or think of a water boiling in a kettle. If you zoom in on the particles moving around, it might be chaotic, but when you take a few steps back and see a guy making a cup of tea, suddenly what was chaotic is really part of a higher order.
So what if the random output on one level was order at another level? Could it be a lack of seeing the bigger picture to suppose that chaos rules, when what appears as random somehow creates beautiful order higher up the stack.
If I look at a computer laden with a chip, drive, OS, and software for functionality, then it is easy to see the order when I operate the OS and the programs. When I look at what is going on at binary level, I see what appears to be random 0s and 1s.
Now to Quantum logic. A very simplistic way of looking at it is instead of a binary system we have a quantum system, i.e., 0s can become 1s and 1s can become 0s. This logic is being duplicated in Quantum computers to create what would be a computer so superior to today's binary based computers that you could create things like virtual worlds and do computational tasks way beyond anything that we see today. The only way we can achieve such computation today is to farm todays binary computers in a grid formation.
When you google something, the result is much faster than doing a search on your own hard drive. Yet how much bigger is the Internet compared to your home based computer? They are both the same X86 based computer, but Google have Data Centres where millions of computers act like they are one. So imagine the possibilities when Quantum computers are farmed.
So quantum may appear as random. but in a bigger picture we have a universe with spectacular design and function.
Anyway, here is 2 snippets from Wikipedia.
“A classical computer has a memory made up of bits, where each bit represents either a one or a zero. A quantum computer maintains a sequence of qubits. A single qubit can represent a one, a zero, or, crucially, any quantum superposition of these; moreover, a pair of qubits can be in any quantum superposition of 4 states, and three qubits in any superposition of 8. In general a quantum computer with n qubits can be in an arbitrary superposition of up to 2n different states simultaneously (this compares to a normal computer that can only be in one of these 2n states at any one time). A quantum computer operates by manipulating those qubits with a fixed sequence of quantum logic gates. The sequence of gates to be applied is called a quantum algorithm.”
Integer factorization is believed to be computationally infeasible with an ordinary computer for large integers that are the product of only a few prime numbers (e.g., products of two 300-digit primes).[7] By comparison, a quantum computer could efficiently solve this problem using Shor's algorithm to find its factors. This ability would allow a quantum computer to decrypt many of the cryptographic systems in use today, in the sense that there would be a polynomial time (in the number of digits of the integer) algorithm for solving the problem. In particular, most of the popular public key ciphers are based on the difficulty of factoring integers (or the related discrete logarithm problem which can also be solved by Shor's algorithm), including forms of RSA. These are used to protect secure Web pages, encrypted email, and many other types of data. Breaking these would have significant ramifications for electronic privacy and security. The only way to increase the security of an algorithm like RSA would be to increase the key size and hope that an adversary does not have the resources to build and use a powerful enough quantum computer.
A way out of this dilemma would be to use some kind of quantum cryptography. There are also some digital signature schemes that are believed to be secure against quantum computers.So the point is that randomness and chaos appears that way till you zoom out and look at the context it is framed in. Even the symbols and letters in a book could be considered chaotic to someone who didn't understand what a book was or that they were looking at the pages of a book.
Free will seems chaotic too. We can choose to do any number of things at random. But our free will is contained within physical laws of a physical universe that make it possible for us to do certain things that fit to either destroy or create within the physical universe, which are both part of the order of this existence.
Quote So quantum may appear as random. but in a bigger picture we have a universe with spectacular design and function.
No we haven't.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 04 2010,19:22) Quote So quantum may appear as random. but in a bigger picture we have a universe with spectacular design and function.
No we haven't.Stuart
So the universe does not function?Anything that follows a pattern is a sequence of LOGIC
What do you think LOGIC means in the term of RatioQuote (Stu @ Feb. 04 2010,19:22) Quote So quantum may appear as random. but in a bigger picture we have a universe with spectacular design and function.
No we haven't.Stuart
Oh, I should mention that you need sight, or insight to see design. Otherwise if you are blind, you cannot see it.Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 05 2010,14:11) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 04 2010,19:22) Quote So quantum may appear as random. but in a bigger picture we have a universe with spectacular design and function.
No we haven't.Stuart
So the universe does not function?Anything that follows a pattern is a sequence of LOGIC
What do you think LOGIC means in the term of Ratio
I'll ignore the last sentence which means absolutely nothing to me.Tell me, what is the function of the universe? I don't mean in the sense of wavefunction, a quantum mechanical description of it, I mean in the sense you mean, of the intent of the job the universe has.
What is it?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 05 2010,18:30) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 04 2010,19:22) Quote So quantum may appear as random. but in a bigger picture we have a universe with spectacular design and function.
No we haven't.Stuart
Oh, I should mention that you need sight, or insight to see design. Otherwise if you are blind, you cannot see it.
What you are saying is that you need your voraciously pattern-seeking brain to identify a pattern that is actually an illusion.All those who cannot see the pattern that you can see are 'blind', in your view.
Actually those you call blind can see more than you: they can see WHY you think there is a pattern but understand that it is really an illusion.
How would you distinguish something that is designed from something that isn't?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 05 2010,23:41) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 05 2010,18:30) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 04 2010,19:22) Quote So quantum may appear as random. but in a bigger picture we have a universe with spectacular design and function.
No we haven't.Stuart
Oh, I should mention that you need sight, or insight to see design. Otherwise if you are blind, you cannot see it.
What you are saying is that you need your voraciously pattern-seeking brain to identify a pattern that is actually an illusion.All those who cannot see the pattern that you can see are 'blind', in your view.
Actually those you call blind can see more than you: they can see WHY you think there is a pattern but understand that it is really an illusion.
How would you distinguish something that is designed from something that isn't?
Stuart
Why does the brain seek patterns?Quote (Stu @ Feb. 05 2010,23:41) Actually those you call blind can see more than you: they can see WHY you think there is a pattern but understand that it is really an illusion. How would you distinguish something that is designed from something that isn't?
Stuart
Ha ha. Nice one Stu.The hierarchy of biological classifications is divided into into domains, which are subdivided into further groups.
Do you think that they are divided into these domains by similar design or is it just a random thing?
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,01:32) What does the description of gravity have to do with all the multitudes of imagined gods?
OK, so all the imagined gods deletes any possibility that there is a God. Does all the imagined theories about how life began negates the existence of life? Funny how logic is not applied without bias in your case. You simply decide to apply logic, only when it fits your limited imagination.Logic is not a tool that you can manipulate for your own purposes, but something that you should adhere to without bias.
Also if you valued logic, you would know that of all life, there must be a life form that is above all others in intelligence and ability. Can you please tell me what or who? If not, then no point in denying that there is a God because you have no proof to the contrary.
Sorry to blow your imaginations away Stu, but it you need to think outside of the square in order to see the cube.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 06 2010,09:59) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 05 2010,23:41) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 05 2010,18:30) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 04 2010,19:22) Quote So quantum may appear as random. but in a bigger picture we have a universe with spectacular design and function.
No we haven't.Stuart
Oh, I should mention that you need sight, or insight to see design. Otherwise if you are blind, you cannot see it.
What you are saying is that you need your voraciously pattern-seeking brain to identify a pattern that is actually an illusion.All those who cannot see the pattern that you can see are 'blind', in your view.
Actually those you call blind can see more than you: they can see WHY you think there is a pattern but understand that it is really an illusion.
How would you distinguish something that is designed from something that isn't?
Stuart
Why does the brain seek patterns?
You haven't paid your last tuition bill yet.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 06 2010,12:21) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 05 2010,23:41) Actually those you call blind can see more than you: they can see WHY you think there is a pattern but understand that it is really an illusion. How would you distinguish something that is designed from something that isn't?
Stuart
Ha ha. Nice one Stu.The hierarchy of biological classifications is divided into into domains, which are subdivided into further groups.
Do you think that they are divided into these domains by similar design or is it just a random thing?
Neither, obviously.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 06 2010,12:25) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,01:32) What does the description of gravity have to do with all the multitudes of imagined gods?
OK, so all the imagined gods deletes any possibility that there is a God. Does all the imagined theories about how life began negates the existence of life? Funny how logic is not applied without bias in your case. You simply decide to apply logic, only when it fits your limited imagination.Logic is not a tool that you can manipulate for your own purposes, but something that you should adhere to without bias.
Also if you valued logic, you would know that of all life, there must be a life form that is above all others in intelligence and ability. Can you please tell me what or who? If not, then no point in denying that there is a God because you have no proof to the contrary.
Sorry to blow your imaginations away Stu, but it you need to think outside of the square in order to see the cube.
No, it would be a logical fallacy to claim that the invention of lots of gods by humans disproves the existence of any gods, and in fact it proves their existence as concepts.The error you are making is that all of the empirical evidence supports one scientific description of the origin of species, whereas no evidence at all supports the existence of gods as anything more than concepts.
Why must there “be a life form that is above all others in intelligence and ability”? What principle demands that to be true?
I have no proof there is no god, just as you cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna) is the supreme creator. I don't believe it myself, but Pascal probably things you should give it some thought. After all, what do you have to lose?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 06 2010,12:49) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 06 2010,12:25) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,01:32) What does the description of gravity have to do with all the multitudes of imagined gods?
OK, so all the imagined gods deletes any possibility that there is a God. Does all the imagined theories about how life began negates the existence of life? Funny how logic is not applied without bias in your case. You simply decide to apply logic, only when it fits your limited imagination.Logic is not a tool that you can manipulate for your own purposes, but something that you should adhere to without bias.
Also if you valued logic, you would know that of all life, there must be a life form that is above all others in intelligence and ability. Can you please tell me what or who? If not, then no point in denying that there is a God because you have no proof to the contrary.
Sorry to blow your imaginations away Stu, but it you need to think outside of the square in order to see the cube.
No, it would be a logical fallacy to claim that the invention of lots of gods by humans disproves the existence of any gods, and in fact it proves their existence as concepts.The error you are making is that all of the empirical evidence supports one scientific description of the origin of species, whereas no evidence at all supports the existence of gods as anything more than concepts.
Why must there “be a life form that is above all others in intelligence and ability”? What principle demands that to be true?
I have no proof there is no god, just as you cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna) is the supreme creator. I don't believe it myself, but Pascal probably things you should give it some thought. After all, what do you have to lose?
Stuart
If you have no proof why would you try to disprove that God exists?Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,06:40) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 06 2010,12:49) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 06 2010,12:25) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,01:32) What does the description of gravity have to do with all the multitudes of imagined gods?
OK, so all the imagined gods deletes any possibility that there is a God. Does all the imagined theories about how life began negates the existence of life? Funny how logic is not applied without bias in your case. You simply decide to apply logic, only when it fits your limited imagination.Logic is not a tool that you can manipulate for your own purposes, but something that you should adhere to without bias.
Also if you valued logic, you would know that of all life, there must be a life form that is above all others in intelligence and ability. Can you please tell me what or who? If not, then no point in denying that there is a God because you have no proof to the contrary.
Sorry to blow your imaginations away Stu, but it you need to think outside of the square in order to see the cube.
No, it would be a logical fallacy to claim that the invention of lots of gods by humans disproves the existence of any gods, and in fact it proves their existence as concepts.The error you are making is that all of the empirical evidence supports one scientific description of the origin of species, whereas no evidence at all supports the existence of gods as anything more than concepts.
Why must there “be a life form that is above all others in intelligence and ability”? What principle demands that to be true?
I have no proof there is no god, just as you cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna) is the supreme creator. I don't believe it myself, but Pascal probably things you should give it some thought. After all, what do you have to lose?
Stuart
If you have no proof why would you try to disprove that God exists?
I never have.It is possible to disprove specific falsifiable claims about gods, but not the existence of the gods themselves.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,11:37) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,06:40) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 06 2010,12:49) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 06 2010,12:25) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,01:32) What does the description of gravity have to do with all the multitudes of imagined gods?
OK, so all the imagined gods deletes any possibility that there is a God. Does all the imagined theories about how life began negates the existence of life? Funny how logic is not applied without bias in your case. You simply decide to apply logic, only when it fits your limited imagination.Logic is not a tool that you can manipulate for your own purposes, but something that you should adhere to without bias.
Also if you valued logic, you would know that of all life, there must be a life form that is above all others in intelligence and ability. Can you please tell me what or who? If not, then no point in denying that there is a God because you have no proof to the contrary.
Sorry to blow your imaginations away Stu, but it you need to think outside of the square in order to see the cube.
No, it would be a logical fallacy to claim that the invention of lots of gods by humans disproves the existence of any gods, and in fact it proves their existence as concepts.The error you are making is that all of the empirical evidence supports one scientific description of the origin of species, whereas no evidence at all supports the existence of gods as anything more than concepts.
Why must there “be a life form that is above all others in intelligence and ability”? What principle demands that to be true?
I have no proof there is no god, just as you cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna) is the supreme creator. I don't believe it myself, but Pascal probably things you should give it some thought. After all, what do you have to lose?
Stuart
If you have no proof why would you try to disprove that God exists?
I never have.It is possible to disprove specific falsifiable claims about gods, but not the existence of the gods themselves.
Stuart
Then what's your point?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
