Easy proof for Inteligent Design

quote:

---

If you consider all above statements we have following:

​

Laws of physics depend on mathematics which depends on logic which in turn depends on necessary truths and abstract concepts which depends on a conscious mind.

---

I think this argument is confusing our descriptions of reality with reality itself. The laws of logic and mathematics are tools we use to build our descriptions and models. Those descriptions and models obviously require a conscious mind. But we cannot say that reality itself - what is described - depends on our descriptions.In fact the whole point of necessary truths is that they are necessarily true. They cannot be false in the absence of a conscious mind because - by definition - they cannot be false under any circumstances. If your argument denies this , then your argument is wrong.

As I pointed out, necessary truths are necessarily true. They can't be false just because there isn't a mind there to observe that they are true. So on the matter of necessary truths your argument fails.I think that you are confusing a vague idea of what it means for a statement to exist with what it means for a statement to be true. If we accepted that a statement could not exist without someone to think of it, it could still be true, even if nobody existed.

quote:

---

Just saying that necessary truth is necessarily truth is not the answer.

---

But it is, if you understand it. Your argument relies on denying that simple and obvious fact, and that is why it is the answer.

quote:

---

We have to analyze and see what this statement means. How can it be that something that its necessarily is endorsed and workout by a mind its existence is not dependent on it?

---

A statement - as it relates to the actual world - is a purported description of reality. If it accurately describes reality we say that it is true. But it is the statement that depends on a mind for it's existence not the reality it describes. And that is your mistake - to assume that reality is dependent on the statement.

quote:

---

Give a necessary truth that doesn't need mind and can be created from random physical substance.

---

Again you are confusing the existence of a statement with the truth of a statement. Show me a necessary truth that can be false and maybe you'd have a case. But you can't because by definition a necessary truth cannot be false.

quote:

---

May be you are mistaking two simple obvious facts.

---

No, I'm not. You are denying an obvious fact.

quote:

---

I agree that as soon as mind exists then automatically logical truth exist. But because these two are so close together you are mistaking one and forgetting the other

---

Again you keep making the same mistake. I am not speaking of existence, I am speaking of truth. They are not the same thing. We can speak of a hypothetical universe that has no minds we can speak about what would be true there - and your argument does this very thing. If the statements are true in that universe, then their truth must be independent of the existence of minds in that universe - the very thing that your argument denies. The fact that the statement cannot "exist" in that universe does not make it untrue in that universe.

quote:

---

What if the reality is that statement itself?!

---

You mean what if there were no objective reality, just what we say ? I would say that our universe does not appear to be that way.

quote:

---

Through physics we increasingly become aware that information plays a fundamental role in the structure of universe. Per our experience, information is created by mind. If you don't have it then you will only have random noise.

---

You must have some strange experiences if it includes minds controlling the collapse of quantum superpositions. I've only seen that in science fiction.

quote:

---

The truth is the statement itself!

---

If that were true, how could a statement be false ? I already explained what the truth is when making statements about the real world (and you need to know that necessary truth tell us nothing about the real world).

quote:

---

Like for example 1+1=2 does not require anything in material world to exist to be true. But everything in material world depends on it.

---

I disagree with everything there. If 1 + 1 = 2 is simply the consequence of an axiomatic model (and since I believe that minds are based on the material world even that does not fit your bill) it has no necessary connection to reality. If it is considered as a model of some aspect of reality, then reality is still primary and does not depend on the model.

quote:

---

For the same reason I can't show a logical truth that is not truth with no mind as if mind doesn't exist then no statement exist

---

All I am asking for is a logical truth that would be false in a universe without minds. You have a mind. You can make statements. That's all that is needed. If you cannot talk coherently about a universe without minds then you cannot even say that statements would not exist in such a universe. If you can then you should be able to tell me which logical truths would be false in such a universe - and in fact you need to be able to for your argument to work. (But of course, if you could then you wouldn't be able to talk coherently about that universe after all. So your position is necessarily false).

quote:

---

So I answered your question but you didn't! My question was assume that there is no mind and we have a random soup of energy and mass in existence. How can you create a 'necessary truth' from it?

---

I wouldn't create one. But I could say that "if we have a random soup of energy of mass then we have a random soup of energy and mass" is true - and that is a necessary truth.

quote:

---

Ok, may be you should define truth. Assume we have a universe with no mind in it. Now, how do you define truth in that universe?

---

I already did. A statement is true for that universe if it corresponds to the reality of that universe. Thus "there is no mind in the universe" would be true in that universe. And it would be true despite the fact that there is nobody in that universe to think of that statement.Logical truths of course do not speak of anything in the universe - they are true because of their structure. But since, by their structure, they must be true they are true anywhere and everywhere whether anyone thinks of them or not. (And I have no doubt that there are a huge number of logical truths that nobody has thought of).

quote:

---

You don't realize that how you are contradicting yourself! How can a statement exists in a universe without mind to be able to evaluate it? Statement is an illusion. Is an abstract thing. You simply can't have it with no mind.

---

I'm not contradicting myself because I have pointed out the fact that statements may be true in that universe EVEN IF THEY DO NOT EXIST in that universe. And in the case of necessary truths, they MUST be true, even if nobody has thought of them. And if you disagree with that then YOU are contradicting yourself because you are denying that necessary truths are necessary truths.

quote:

---

Are you saying that an abstract concept can't be real?!

---

Since the argument is primarily about concrete entities the question of the reality of abstracts needn't arise. So it would be better for me to ask if you are denying the reality of concrete entities.

quote:

---

I don't want to get into physics now.

---

You raised the issue of information in physics, and your claim was incorrect.

quote:

---

When you have a mind in existence then that mind creates an statement then it can evaluate its logical value

---

Which goes back to the existence question, not whether the statement is true or not. Please stop thinking about the existence of statements because it only confuses the issue. Concentrate on their truth.

quote:

---

Your problem is that you think that reality is only in physical world and nothing else. But the very definition of logical truth is that they are real and they are timeless. Just look it up in the wikipedia if you don't believe me. Logical truth are real and they are more real than physical truth.

---

My "problem" is apparently in thinking that necessary truths are necessary truths. As for the reality of logical truth I would want to read the article (and if it agreed with you without qualification I would want to check the edit history !) - and it's up to you to provide a link. Since you haven't even provided the title of the article your citation is worthless. I'm not about to go searching for an article that I can't reliably identify.

quote:

---

And reality means?!

---

In this case it would be the concrete objects that actually exist. (I don't consider abstractions to exist in the same sense and I don't wish to confuse the issue - but let us note that your position doesn't seem to be too friendly to the reality of abstract objects).

quote:

---

Ah! You see! So you even agree that you need to have a mind to create the logical truth!

---

Only to formulate the logical truths - not to make them true. They are true whether they have been formulated or not. If they weren't they wouldn't be necessary truths.

quote:

---

Therefore, logical truth doesn't exist with no mind. Now you are forcing that mind to be outside that universe. Well I am saying the same thing! I am saying a mind existed before that universe unless you won't and can't have logical truth.

---

Obviously you are NOT saying the same thing. Again you confuse the truth of a statement with the existence of a statement. Even worse you assume that I make the same mistake even after telling you again and again that it is a mistake.

quote:

---

But my logical answer would be if we assume that there is a universe that there is no mind in it. Logical truth doesn't have any meaning or definition in that universe. Logical truth is a mind created phenomena.

---

Which doesn't tell us that logical truths wouldn't be true in that universe. And since they must be true then it is proven that the truth of a statement need not be mind-dependent.

quote:

---

This was a joke really! What is 'true'?!!

---

See above. And consider what it means to say that that statement is false.
In fact consider what it means to deny that there can be true statements about such a universe when your whole argument relies on making such claims...

quote:

---

Can you just give an example so we can work on it? Give an statement which the characteristics you are claiming.

---

OK, so you DON'T have even a basic idea of logic or logical truths. That is a bit unfortunate.
What's wrong with the example I already gave:
"if we have a random soup of energy of mass then we have a random soup of energy and mass"

quote:

---

The problem of you is that you think of mind as just human mind. You see statements of truth should exist somewhere according to your own claims. They either should be in matter or somebody's mind. We can't have statement of truth in the middle of no where. Besides, the very definition of any statement needs a mind to define it. You can't have any true or false unless you have mind.

---

Please don't try to tell me that my views are the opposite of what they really are. I keep telling you that we DON'T need statements to exist for them to be true. Their existence is a red herring.

quote:

---

I have answered that already 'NO'. Physical reality do exist. Now you answer mine!

---

In that case for all relevant statements the truth is NOT the statement itself.Your question is another red herring. In fact I don't think I should answer it until you explain what you think it means for an abstraction to be "real". There's too much risk of confusion.

quote:

---

Ok then we have to concentrate on truth with no statement is that correct?

---

I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. My point is that we should concentrate on the question of whether statements are true within whatever hypothetical situation we are considering without considering whether they would exist within it. Obviously the statements we are considering must exist in our reality.

quote:

---

My friend you are just saying what others are saying. You are basically are saying that 'logical truths' are created by matter or physical world. It doesn't need such complex discussion. I hear you loud and clear. Then our mind just discovers them formulate them.

---

That isn't what I am saying at all. I don't recognise any "creation" of logical truths other than the formulation of statements. Logical truths are simply statements that must be true - because they are tautologies. The only discovery would be like mathematical discovery, working out how the system works.

quote:

---

You see there is a problem here. I always give examples to avoid confusions. 1+1=2 is a statement that we discovered it from matter. Let's say because we had fingers we counted that's how it is. Then why when we remove the matter still this is true?

---

That depends on what you are talking about. If you mean counting on fingers it is meaningless without fingers to count on If you are talking about an axiomatic system we are back to logical truths (it must be true within that system). I say that the concept is one that we invented to describe reality, placing it closer to the axiomatic system - however how and even if it applies to physical reality depends on the nature of physical reality.

quote:

---

1- Logical truths needs a mind to create them. It is not just discovery. Because logical truths are based on some assumptions and definitions. They can't exist unless a mind exist. You are saying reality is truth. This is very vague statement. Truth is something that mind identifies. Reality or matter doesn't differentiate between truth or false. Matter just simply exist and that's it.

---

The only clarification I would make is that whether the statement is true or not - subjective opinions excepted - is a matter of objective fact. The mind's judgement does not influence or change that.

quote:

---

2- You may claim that matter includes the logical truths in itself as its properties. Then I would claim based on previous statement that then mind should also exist within matter. Therefore, my case will be rest. As I have showed you mind was a necessary force at the creation of the universe not something that came up 13billion years later.

---

I don't claim that. What I claim is that logical truths must be true, whether they exist or not, whether anyone knows that they are true or not. And as they are necessary truths, this must be the case.

quote:

---

True or false are components of logic. They depend on mind. This is you that are confusing these two. I am saying matter exists with no reason as you also accept. But you can't claim that creates logic and truth and other stuff. The only thing you can talk about is its existence. You can't say it is true or false.

---

If there is an objective reality - as you admitted - there must be things that are true of it independent of mind. Thus your argument fails.

quote:

---

It should be as the statement itself is defined by mind. Your problem is that you seriously want to keep mind at human level and that's why you fall into contradictions. If you accept that there is a universal mind before existence of everything. Then we have one source for logic and truth for us to compare everything with. Then we wouldn't need to fall into looping arguments. Simple as that.

---

Your whole argument depends on a contradiction, while you have found not one genuine contradiction in my arguments. If we accept that necessary truths ARE necessary truths we have no need of a "universal mind" to somehow make them true. That is a fact, that cannot be reasonably denied.

quote:

---

Well, I guess I don't need to point out to you how meaningless this is.

---

Ultimately all logical truths are like that. That is the point.

quote:

---

But lets accept it. Now does this random soup by itself knows and recognize that it exists or is it a mind that recognize that?

---

From my position that is completely irrelevant. It doesn't need to. All it needs to do is be what it is. According to your position, in the absence of minds it can't even do that. Doesn't that sound just a little bit silly to you ?

quote:

---

Ok. But statements should be somewhere for you to evaluate them.

---

Since they don't NEED to be evaluated that is irrelevant.

quote:

---

Mean that a mind will testify its existence as of the physical world. Like I don't need to convince you or anybody that 1+1=2 as I don't need to convince you or anybody that sun exists. Both 1+1=2 and 'Sun exists' are two logical statements which are valuated as true in every logical mind. Mean equality between 1+1 and 2 exist as sun exist. They are of the same substance.

---

THe existence of the sun is NOT a logical truth. It's an example of an empirically derived truth. At the simplest level you see the sun and conclude that it exists. You can't work it out by pure reason alone.

quote:

---

That's true. That's why I claim there is a relation between existence and truth of a statement. But you are trying to separate it. You are telling me to forget about its existence.

---

And you are wrong to do so. We need the statement to evaluate it - but only for us to work out if it is true or not. Not for it to BE true. And that is why I tell you to forget about the existence of statements, it is irrelevant and it confuses the issue. That's been your problem all along.

quote:

---

Ok but there must be a source for them! l

---

It only needs us to formulate them. No other source is needed or would even add anything. Again you are hung up on the existence of statements - when it just doesn't matter.

quote:

---

But you can't simply say we formulate. From where do we formulate it from? There should be something out there that giving us this information.

---

The only information you NEED is the basic axioms - say, the truth tables for AND, OR, NOT. You could use a few other items to construct statements using them, but what they are doesn't matter (besides you could make them up - they don't need to be true)

quote:

---

We didn't invent it as it existed before us. 1+1=2 even if there was no earth or there were no humans. You might says we invented the way to present it with numbers and signs but its deep meaning existed already.

---

The things we model with it - or some of them - existed but I wouldn't call that a "deep meaning". What "deep meaning" are you talking about ?

quote:

---

Exactly! Agreed!

---

And that's what I've been saying all along. Physics doesn't need a mind. It just needs stuff to do what it does.

quote:

---

Yes that I completely agree. But my whole thread is about why that is the case?

---

Well no, you started this thread to disagree and insist that a mind had to be involved.Logical truths are true because they are constructed so that they HAVE to be true. The law of non-contradiction holds because the negation of a statement is defined as covering all possibilities excluded by the statement and only those possibilities. Thus a statement and it's negation may never both be true because each excludes the possibility that the other is true. There's nothing more to it. It's not magic, it doesn't require any knowledge beyond the basic axioms and an understanding of which ever statements you want to use. There's no need for anyone else to get involved.

quote:

---

I was trying to explain that if we accept the same fact that you pointed out we need to have a reference mind in existence before anything else. That reference mind is the source of all these logic.

---

And you are completely and utterly wrong. No source other than the human is needed. Because logic is about how you use statements, not about the external world. The laws of logic are semantic rules, not laws governing reality.

quote:

---

Yes but WHY?! that's the key!

---

And, as I said above, it's because they are constructed to be true. It's all our doing. You could do it, if you knew how (and the basic rules aren't difficult - the only hard bit is making sure that you REALLY understand the statements that you are using and that they are COMPLETELY unambiguous).

I want to try to get back to the basics.1) Do you agree that necessary truths are necessarily true ?2) How, exactly does the dependence of physics on necessary truths work ?
Is it merely a requirement that the necessary truths, must in fact be true ?
If it is not, then what is it ?

quote:

---

Yes. But that is tautology. So I have to agree!

---

Which leaves us the question of just what role they play in your argument.

quote:

---

Yes for example we have E=MC^2. We should have some concept of equality in place before you could write such equation.

---

Neither E=mc^2 nor the concept of equality are necessary truths. And what is the relevance of writing the equation ? The equation is just a description of the relationship between mass and energy. That relationship would apply even if the equation were never known (unless you are denying that there is an objective reality).

quote:

---

These necessary truths have some roots in real world which we can't show or define.

---

Do they ? Which ones ?

quote:

---

Therefore, although necessary truths are abstract concepts but they are not like Alice in wonderland! Most of people here think that it is just an illusion. I am claiming it can't be! I provided two reasons. One is the fact that they were true even before humans. Second, physical laws need them to be present.

---

Of course necessary truths were tue before there were humans ! That isn't problematic in the slightest. But in what way do they need to be "present" for the laws of physics ?

quote:

---

The relationship is not just any kind of relationship. It is mathematical one and has got precise ratios and figures. This needs to be based on necessary truths and also logic. Exactly like 1+1=2. Basically, you have to have some sort of definition for summation and equality until you can define the relationship that you are talking about.

---

.
You mean before you can describe it. It doesn't need any sort of definitions. How could it ?

quote:

---

The fact that laws of physics are based on mathematics and logic and they always stay the same is a sign that they are not random.

---

I have never said that they were random - certainly not in the sense that you mean here. But that is getting away from the basic point I am trying to discuss.

quote:

---

I gave example for necessary truths. Like ~(~A)=A and 1+1=2. I am claiming that these not abstract and illusional concepts that have no relation to the real world. The reason for it is laws of physics like E=MC^2 and this is just a sample out of many.

---

Both of the necessary truths you list are necessary only as a product of the definitions of the terms involved. And addition was intended to represent aspects of the real world so it is not surprising that it does so.The question is, can the meaning of these statements still be true even if there is no one to define the terms or formulate the statements or evaluate their truth ?
If they are truly necessary truths then surely they must be ?

quote:

---

Yes! That's why I said these necessary truths have something concrete in them that is not dependent on human mind. Because they were there before humans.

---

I don't see why a tautology has to "be there" to be true. And I can't think of anything concrete that they would need. Your example of 1 + 1 = 2 deals entirely with abstractions,

quote:

---

Because E=MC^2 was there before us and the same equality and addition was used in it. So in fact even you don't know about mathematics you can extract them from physical laws

---

And I repeat that equality and addition are abstractions that we invented to describe aspects of reality. But the relationship described by E = mc^2 is not dependent on those concepts.So I am still waiting for some sort of explanation of how physics is dependent on "necessary truths" in a way that supports your argument.

quote:

---

Also, read my previous post about intuition.

---

Which one would that be ?

quote:

---

Ok good that you aleast agree that addition and equality describes aspects of reality. This means that there is something in real world that is related to it.

---

But not in any way that helps your case. What is in the real world is NOT necessarily true.

quote:

---

In fact necessary truths comes to us as an intuition. So there must be something in real world to give us these.

---

No, they don't. And necessary truths are true because they are tautologies. Nothing in the real world is needed.

quote:

---

Now, lets assume that what you are saying is true and E=MC^2 is not dependent on these necessary truths.

---

Actually I am asking you to explain your claims. Obviously the real phenomenon is not dependent on the terms and formulas and descriptions we invent to describe it. So which necessary truths does it dependo no, and how ? And how does this help your argument ?

quote:

---

ut these necessary truths were true since the beginning of the universe(you accepted this). Also, at least now you accept that these necessary truth are necessary to write this equation. Because it clearly has equation and summation

---

If you think that this represents any sort of change in my position, you haven't been paying attention.

quote:

---

In fact if you sum it up, you will see that what you are saying is that necessary truth were not necessary before humans come about.

---

I said no such thing.

quote:

---

Because physical laws don't depend on them and nothing else depend on them. This leads to a paradox and leads to this conclusion that necessary truth were not necessary after all and were result of human imagination. After we get exist they go away as they have no usage! This is against our intuition!

---

I don't know what you are trying to say here. If necessary truths could be false there would be a problem but as you have conceded this is not possible. If a necessary truth isn't known by any conscious being on the other hand there is no problem at all,because physical laws do not depend on that at all.So come on, explain your argument. Because my intuition says that it is obviously wrong and I want to track down the problem.

quote:

---

It is very simple my friend. I don't know why are you twisting it. Let me explain it in another way.

---

Asking for an explanation is NOT twisting your words in any way.

quote:

---

We have an intuition and that intuition gives us neccessary truths. I guess you shouldn't have problems on this.

---

I suggest reading my posts instead of guessing. If you had you would know that I do NOT agree that intuition gives us necessary truths.

quote:

---

Now everything we have in our mind it is either learned during our life or somehow programmed in our genes. Intuition is not something you learn as you can tell from its meaning. Therefore, we got it through our genes. This means that the mother nature during process of time coded it into us. How does mother nature do that? Based on physics and physical laws. Therefore, this intuition comes from reality and thus necessary truths have some roots in reality. We later on learned at the school how to present it but that doesn't undermines the fact that its inner meaning was in us since birth. Now tell me which part have problems I will explain again.

---

You are confusing the capability of intuition with the specific beliefs that are produced by intuition. Intuition is more about processing data - subconsciously - than about preprogrammed beliefs. And, as I have already said, necessary truths do not come from intuition. And in fact the necessary truths of mathematics are necessary only in the mathematical systems that we construct to represent reality - not in reality itself.However, let us get back to the point since you do not address it.In what way is physics dependent on necessary truths ? Is it dependent on them being true or on something else ? If it is something else, then what ? How does this support your argument that there must be some eternal mind ?This is the core of your argument and you will not explain it.

quote:

---

Then I suggest you read Intuition - Wikipedia

---

Which specifically says that the matter is debated. And in fact NEITHER side agrees with you.
The first side only states that our intuition can identify necessary truths, not that it provides us with necessary truths: The second side states that: Which obviously disagrees with you.

quote:

---

Processing what data subconsciously?

---

Potentially any and all data available to us, of course. We may not even have a good way of telling since it is subconscious and may use data that we are not even consciously aware of.

quote:

---

I didn't answer your second question because it is related. If we don't agree on the source and nature of these necessary truth, how can I show you that physical laws dependent on them? Therefore, I first suggest to find out were do we get it from? Is an illusion or it is some how reflection of physical world.

---

It would make thing much easier if you were to actually pay attention to my posts. The answer is neither. All necessary truths are tautologies, thus they are neither illusions nor reflections of the physical world.As I have stated there are necessary truths within the models that we build to represent aspects of the physical world. But they are necessary because they are tautologies within the model.

quote:

---

This is what I said.

---

So you DIDN'T say that we get necessary truths from our intuition. So where do YOU think we get them from ?

quote:

---

There should be a root for it somewhere that you can identify it. There are only two options, either our mind create these or it identify something that is already there.

---

In what sense would our minds create a necessary truth ? In what sense would it be "always there" ? I don't think that either option really captures the truth. It's obvious that our minds formulate necessary truths. It is obvious that they are true whether they are formulated or not. How do those facts fit with your two options ?

quote:

---

Therefore if I am not mistaken what you are implying is that we learn these unknowingly from environment. Isn't it?

---

You are heading off track. Since I don't accept that we really learn genuinely necessary truths through intuition at all how can the workings of intuition be relevant to how we learn necessary truths ?

quote:

---

I guess we have some differences in definition of tautology as well. What tautology is in 1+1=2 or ~(~A)?

---

Both follow necessarily from the axioms of the systems that contain them. Put them in a different system and they might not even be true or even meaningful.