The Constraints of Design

one design constraint i would like the IDers to comment on is purpose ... when you design something it is for a purpose .. a watch to tell time .. a house to provide shelter and sercurity ...even use humans design our herd animals , by sleective breeding , sheep for wool , cattle for meat , horses for carrying capacity and speed ...so Any Designer would have to address the purpose of the design when planing the work ....so if all of this is designed .. whats is it for ?

Art for art's sake?

im never sure if there can be art for art's sake .. any bit of art seems to come with a purpose .. ever if its a little obscure ... like the artist wishing to expresse their happy mood .. it still carries a purpose of showning that feeling and event ...yes you could have a painting of a lighthouse .. because you want a picture of a lighthouse .. but thats still has a purpose .. and here we can clearly see the restriction on nthe design .part of where i was going with this come round to the point purpose would normally predate the design , , and therefore place its constraint from the very beguining , and affect the whole chain of steps the design goes through .thus are comception of what the purpose might be would help understanding how the design evolXXXX err changed during the early phases of the process ..

Absolutely. So much of what is designed by humans is either to satisfy a need or solve a problem . and by careful examination of those designs, it becomes possible to identify the needs being satisfied or the problems being solved. This process in commonplace in the field of archaeology, where a very great deal can be learned about the way earlier cultures lived simply by examining the artefacts they have left behind.

I don't know if your Designer is limited to the universe or if it's working within a multiverse system. If it's the latter, then there are no constraints to the Designer and this just happens to be a universe, in a multiverse system, where the proper conditions for life manifested. Thats not to say that no other universe within the multiverse systems has life and it only appears in ours, but since we don't know I don't see the point in speculating. But it could very well be possible, if not down right normal, for there to be a multiverse designed by 1 Designer without any constraints and where many of the universes have produced life.To conclude, IMO, in a multiverse system I see no reason why a Designer would have any constraints.However, to me this would rule out purpose, unless we view the Designer as a chemist of sorts, working with many variables for the purpose of design. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Just to avoid any ambiguity, I’m not making the case for intelligent design within nature; I’m simply inviting those that do to answer a couple of questions.Which is why I prefer to work back from the proposed design to the proposed designer, asking if there’s anything in the design that would allow judgements to be made about the designer, the environment in which they design and any constraints that would affect what they could actually design.In the scenario you propose, you start with questions regarding multiverses, etc, which is effectively working forward from the proposed designer to the proposed design, with hypothetical assumptions about what said designer might be capable of, etc.In other words, it appears to me you're starting with your hypothesis and surmising what we'd expect to see rather than trying to examine the evidence and form a hypothesis based on your findings.

Intelligent design, as understood here, really involves the type of interventionist designer proposed by the I.D. movement, rather than a designer who creates the universe, gets it right, and doesn't have to tinker.An interesting point is that, if the designer is both a creator of the universe and intervenes to design specific things within it, then he appears to have set his own constraints.What I.D. is looking for in the universe are signs of intervention, as the universe would appear the same without them, designer or no designer.So, we're looking for things that do not appear to be possible in the natural course of the universe.How helpful is Paley's watch analogy? With the watch, we can quickly identify the creature responsible from experience, and we can recognise not only function, but purpose.Does this help us when we look at biological "machines", in which we can identify function, but no specific designer or purpose? What can we tell about speculative designers from what's designed? And is it true that design itself is only required when there are constraints?A supernatural designer without constraints surely wouldn't need to design "machines", because he is not constrained by the laws of physics. If he wants a flying elephant that speaks Chinese, an unconstrained designer could just poof it into existence.So, do I.D. arguments point to a constrained and probably natural rather than supernatural designer?It would be nice to hear I.D. supporters' views on these questions.

You will just have to look at the history to be sure what kind of decisionmaking was involved. But the fact tha the order of DNA is similar to peoples language indicates intelligent design of some sort, reasoned an informed decisions where there are whole organisms in the future, rather then decision between bits as in natural selection.

Hi cavediver, Instanton = a mathematical equation developed in physics as a method of calculating Feynman's integral.The Instanton I have been referring to is the one proposed by Hawking Turok.Hawking Turok Instanton = a mathematical equation that is a twist in matter and spacetime which has a fleeting existence in time.This instanton does not exist within any thing, there is no before, and there is no outside to it.It is a sort of elementary particle that lasts for an instant.This instanton is the spark that ignites inflationIf you have this instanton, it will instantly turn into an inflating infinite universe.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANT,Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi bluegenes, The God of the Bible did create machines. They are called angels and do exactly what they are programed to do. Even Satan did exactly what he was supposed to do. To me most I. D. arguments make less sense that does many of the cosmology and evolutionist arguments.My only argument here is that an entity (be it God or the Instanton or some such particle) that could bring this universe into existence which is some 75 billion light years across and growing by the second could not have any constraints placed upon it.That entity could place constraints on the universe by setting natural laws in place that the universe and everything in it could not break even though they could be bent.And yes there is a purpose but I don't think that would be on topic and I have wavered a little far away in my answer to cavediver.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Nor am I. I guess I may have misunderstood the OP, I though a 'Designer' was aleady established. Also, I believe you are making an argument against the IDer proposed by the Discovery Institute. An IDer that is constantly intervening in nature. I do not side with anything like that. I was proposing a Designer that works with the laws of physics, but is not constrained by them.So I was not proposing a Designer based off of evidence that I have seen, I thought you said there was a Designer and what in nature can give evidence that said Designer has constraints.My bad

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Yeah after re-reading the OP I realized this very thing, my bad I don't suppost ID, nor the idea of a required Designer, however, I would say that intervention by a Designer doesn't necessarily have to be visable, nor understandable, to 1 specific species, in 1 particular corner of the universe. The intervention may be completely un-noticable and thus no evidence for intervention would ever be seen. Again I do not support the ID movement. Again, you're limited in your ability to comprehend reality. A Designer that intervenes does not have to be noticable in our reality. I agree. If all we are going with is what we can determine as funtion or purpose, then NO, no such Designer is evident. But, and I think you and I were in agreement here with Dawkins, that I'm a 6 on the atheist scale. One of the reasons that I would consider myself a 6 is because my only understanding of reality is how I, or rather we as humans, perceive it. If reality can be perceived in a different way, I have no idea what that way may be, maybe all of the evidence for funtion and purpose get revealed. I would say that that is the only reason one would require a Designer. How do we know that does not exist? This is just 1 planet. Surely you don't suggest that a flying elephant is impossible? Perhaps on another planet bi-pedal monkeys that speak English is a ridiculuos idea, and yet... ID is wrong as proposed by the ID movement, however, the reality and nature that we as humans on the planet Earth perceive says nothing about the possibilities, and therefore places no constraints on a Designer. Again, I am not talking about the ID movements Designer. You are absolutly right, so please ignore my entire post Edited by onifre, : spellingEdited by onifre, : more shit to add...

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

You’ll have to forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea what you are referring to in the above. Despite the fact I suspect the possibility of a great dollop of ”pseudo science’ is headed my way, I need to ask you to supply more detail.Thanks.

Just in case anyone was wondering, this is a pile of crap - a collection of soundbites ranging from merely dubious to utterly stupid. Yet another example of ICANT trying to give credence to his views by quoting material of which he has no understanding. Not understanding this is not the issue - it is highly advanced theoretical physics, and I woudln't expect anyone outside the field to understand it. But ICANT dishonestly wields these quotations and half-truths to give false authority to his blathering. Pathetic.Oh, I do have to ask (even though as per Admin's request you shouldn't be posting here), but who or what is this 'Hawking Turok'? It sounds like the bastard offspring of Stephen and Neil...