Intelligent Design Vs Chance

[CCoburn]

Even if you retract back into M-theory you get even CLOSER to divinity. Now this multiverse LITERALLY allows for everything. Like there is an eternal bulk in which infinite universes with infinite variations, causes, and laws can form.

I have a big problem with M-theory though. An infinite and eternal "bulk" is at odds with a zero-point hypothesis in that one functions via a root spatiotemporal negation and the other assumes the "infinite and eternal" extreme.

Expansion theories and M-theory aren't compatible, and Occams' razor would favor the former having the least amount of unnecessary clutter.

[FlyingClayDisk]

Intelligent Design Vs Chance


I believe this to be part of a larger picture, but it can serve as entry point to a topic of interest for the time being while likely spawning other relevant threads.

This need not be a "one or the other" type scenario either but there could exist a sequence of events where these are part and parcel of a greater scheme of things such as existence and non(negative existence).

Just as mathematics implements an "order of operations" so may existence and a lack thereof.

It has been stated recently that there is "zero evidence" of intelligent design, but how can one observe any "evidence" if they cannot even properly define the anomaly in question that would yield such evidence?

Perhaps in attempting to define and possibly even understand this intelligent design anomaly, if it exists, it might also be productive in attempting to understand the parameters of its existence as well as non-existence if that is the case.

So there it is again and could have been written a hundred different ways. Intelligent design versus chance or perhaps a sequencing of both as components of a core cosmological order.

I think 'chance' is the harder of the two things to define, but I get where you are coming from.

As to the answer to the underlying question, I personally think it is a combination of both chance AND intelligent design.  "Intelligent" is kind of risky territory though because religion creeps into this definition pretty quickly.  And, while that may be the correct answer, I personally think we have to use a broader definition of 'intelligent'.  And maybe this is where my "combination" theory comes from.

My first reaction was to say things start out as 'chance' and then get refined as 'intelligent' design, but I realized this wasn't right either because I had ignored the option of 'nothing at all' in my assumption.

If we look at genetics we can get some good clues.  Take a dog for example.  A certain breed of dog has natural tendencies, say a hunting dog for example.  If you selectively breed this dog with other more refined characteristics the resultant dog becomes an even better hunter.  This is to say that it's natural "instinct" as a hunter has been enhanced through this genetic refinement process.  (I used to breed, raise and train Labradors).  Another example I can cite from personal experience is in breeding cattle.  We raise Belted Galloways.  There are just regular Galloways also, but Belted(s) are a refined strain of the larger breed.  What's interesting here is, the "Belt" follows the bull.  The cow seems to have little to do with the proper formation of the famous white 'belt' around the animal.  At the same time, the qualities unique to the Galloway breed also follow the bull, but not the cow.  So, for example, we have one cow who is 50% Angus.  I can breed her back to a Galloway bull and I'll get a Galloway calf every time, BUT I don't always get one with a belt (i.e. chance).  Do the same thing with any of my other 100% cows and I'll always get a belt if I'm breeding to a belted bull (i.e. intelligent design). 

About the only conclusion I can draw from this is there is both chance and intelligent design going on in this process.  Beyond this, I am left with a number of clues to a larger answer I'm not sure we (anyone) fully understand yet.

[CCoburn]

As to the answer to the underlying question, I personally think it is a combination of both chance AND intelligent design.

Yeah that's basically where we're at. You have an eternal construct that either harbors an ever-flowing eternal anomaly, or a periodic primordial anomaly that keeps popping in and out of existence.

It does seem to make more sense that the creative force would just emerge from the chaos followed by order, as opposed to laws and mindless forces absent any type of conductor converging upon such perfection. Perfection like beauty here though would be in the eye of the beholder.

[CCoburn]

My first reaction was to say things start out as 'chance' and then get refined as 'intelligent' design, but I realized this wasn't right either because I had ignored the option of 'nothing at all' in my assumption.

The "nothing at all" is definitely the most incomprehensibly bizarre in all of this, and at face value I'm sure most would undoubtedly get the wrong idea here and conceive of an empty universe i.e. a 3D void, and this just isn't the case. The concept of "nothing" is taken a bit further than that – to a nearly ultimate extreme actually.

What we are basically looking for here is a default state of existence from which everything springs. This default state can either be continuous or recurring, so this concept of 'nothing' does leave a bit of wiggle room, but not much, and while a recurring theme appears to solve some time problems e.g. infinite regression in a spatiotemporal sense, it also leads to the ultimate absurdity of the emergence of 'something' from absolutely 'nothing'.

It seems to me that it would be extremely difficult(but not impossible) to even arrive at such a concept of 'nothing' absent the science of cosmology, and in that particular scenario all one needs do really is just reverse the expansion to arrive at its origin – a singularity. This "singularity"(a spatial negation) is definitely in the ballpark of 'nothing', but of course it's people like me that will milk such a concept for all it's worth to arrive at some sort of eternal algorithm i.e. the way eternity actually functions.
 

If we look at genetics we can get some good clues.  Take a dog for example.  A certain breed of dog has natural tendencies, say a hunting dog for example.  If you selectively breed this dog with other more refined characteristics the resultant dog becomes an even better hunter.  This is to say that it's natural "instinct" as a hunter has been enhanced through this genetic refinement process.  (I used to breed, raise and train Labradors).  Another example I can cite from personal experience is in breeding cattle.  We raise Belted Galloways.  There are just regular Galloways also, but Belted(s) are a refined strain of the larger breed.  What's interesting here is, the "Belt" follows the bull.  The cow seems to have little to do with the proper formation of the famous white 'belt' around the animal.  At the same time, the qualities unique to the Galloway breed also follow the bull, but not the cow.  So, for example, we have one cow who is 50% Angus.  I can breed her back to a Galloway bull and I'll get a Galloway calf every time, BUT I don't always get one with a belt (i.e. chance).  Do the same thing with any of my other 100% cows and I'll always get a belt if I'm breeding to a belted bull (i.e. intelligent design). 

About the only conclusion I can draw from this is there is both chance and intelligent design going on in this process.  Beyond this, I am left with a number of clues to a larger answer I'm not sure we (anyone) fully understand yet.

The idea here is to evaluate chance as precursor to an ordered system at its deepest root. We already know that "chance"/probability can exist as part of an ordered system after the fact, but what we really want to know is who is at the helm prior to this 'ship' setting sail? Is there anyone at the helm?

The Singularity and Quantum Fluctuations

This sounds a lot to me like the mind of this primordial 'thing' is beginning to get really fired up in preparation for some sort of creative explosion – a BIG BANG!?

The QF's also align with why I would put time before space. I don't expect FCD to reply to any of this; I just used his posts as an excuse to write something.

[Creaky]

Ooh, creation v evolution.
i don’t think a forum can be a real forum without the bickering of a CvE argument
Just to test the waters
Thinking it doesn’t matter your platform, life had to have come from somewhere, without that answer, anything scientists postulate are just faith statements
in my humble opinion

Scientists told me a vaccination was in my best interests
I don’t have a lot of faith in scientists 
Arguments from authority work well on the susceptible

---

If we look at genetics we can get some good clues.  Take a dog for example.  A certain breed of dog has natural tendencies, say a hunting dog for example. 

And that would make me question the origins of “natural tendencies”? 
Are genetics natural tendencies?

Like that dog analogy, I have a tail, I just can’t catch it

[Maxmars]

I have wondered about the potential that "life" is an unrecognized 'force.'  A form of expression of the natural order which, in and of itself, has a direction (vector) as well as magnitude.

If such a thing were so.  Life itself might ultimately 'push' to model and order all information (which is everything detectable in the universe;) essentially 'consuming' information and rendering it into something of "use" to life.  Whether a creative intelligence set this state of affairs in motion or not, 'life' must resolve the deficit of positive evidence.

If the universe is actually a reductive manifestation of chaos, lacking any true vector, all the impulses to resolve a creative design are vanity... and all ideas of human 'meaning' are equally vain.

Intelligent design demands a purposeful focus... non-intelligence ultimately demands total surrender to chaos as the primal state of reality.

The ebb and flow of my own musings seems to steer me towards rejecting disorder and random chance as a precursor to meaning and substance...  but that's just me.

I'm not ashamed to say that I cannot 'convince' anyone of anything, or 'prove' what I believe; but I am still inclined to try because I don't feel it to be 'an exercise in vanity.'