Easy proof for Inteligent Design

quote:

---

We are not talking about physics now my friend. We are talking about necessary truths. This is now you who is twisting things here.

---

And the point of our discussion is to work out how necessary truths relate to physics. And physics IS the description of reality we are talking about. I'm not twisting anything here.
Either you agree with my point as you said - with the implications I pointed out, or you don't.

quote:

---

We want to know what is the source of necessary truths. You said the concept is in reality.

---

No, the concept is derived from reality. By us.

yes all summations are like this! for example 34561+1435=35996 means that the two sides are equality are actually equal and can be used instead of each other. In this definition, all accountants are doing redundant job! Because all the do is to find what is equal with what! Clearly, there is an extra information here which we are interested in. Unless the whole summation will have no meaning.

Incorrect and irrelevent - I suggest you study the development of quantum theory before continuing this line of reasoning. Layman knowledge will only tie you in knots, as we are seeing.Look, you are wandering far from your point, which still stands refuted - fundemental phsyics has shown us that reality follows a mathemtical order that leaves no room for design or choice, yet is so vast and hypothetically allows an infinitude of domains with varying physics that just about any plausible outcome will be realised at some point within the global parameter space. We see no room, nor need for any designer. That does not mean that there is no designer. But then it is not us, rather you, that is claiming a "proof". Are you ready to retract your claim? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

quote:

---

yes all summations are like this! for example 34561+1435=35996 means that the two sides are equality are actually equal and can be used instead of each other. In this definition, all accountants are doing redundant job! Because all the do is to find what is equal with what! Clearly, there is an extra information here which we are interested in. Unless the whole summation will have no meaning.

---

No, there is no extra information here. In fact - considering accountancy - the accountant is removing information, not adding it. The sum has less information that the separate amounts because the information of how much each contributed has been lost.Removing information actually helps. It is a lot easier to read the result of the summation than it is to add up all the figures ourselves.And, if you think about it the accountant CANNOT be adding information. Given the same numbers the summation must come out the same each time. Barring errors in the addition, the result MUST come out the same each time. If extra information were being added he result would depend on that extra information. And we know that that is not true, and in fact your argument depends on 1 + 1 always equalling 2, no matter what.(I suppose that I should point out that there is rather more to accountancy than just adding figures, too, but that's a side point).

Any change in information is information in itself and information equality is both ways. But in this case it is only one way(I don't accept this however we assume your original argument correct). Means 1+1 have the meaning and information of 2 so 2 can easily be omitted and redundant. However if you put 2 instead of 1+1 we will lose information. We don't know that if 2 is for example 3-1 or 0+2 or 1+1,.... So we lost this bit. That's why they are claiming that it is not strictly tautology.

We get to physics later. So you accepted that logical truths are derived from reality, correct?

Your problem is that you got stuck in physics. As I said this is the nature of probability models that gives pseudo-deterministic results on something that is random. In fact what you are claiming here is that probability models are not related to random variables and everything is deterministic. Because the same can be applied to other fields that probabilities are in use. So this will collapse whole notion of random variables and probabilities in mathematics. Do you agree on this?I suggest you read this Determinism - Wikipedia. Also refer to my messages about incompleteness theorem. A totally deterministic logical system can't be build from within itself alone and needs some true axioms to start with from outside that is not in anyway dependent on the system.Edited by MrQ, : refrence

quote:

---

We get to physics later. So you accepted that logical truths are derived from reality, correct?

---

Statements that are logically true in systems intended to model some aspect of reality are, of course, based on the aspect of reality that they attempt to model. THat does not mean that they are logically true of reality.

quote:

---

Any change in information is information in itself and information equality is both ways. But in this case it is only one way(I don't accept this however we assume your original argument correct). Means 1+1 have the meaning and information of 2 so 2 can easily be omitted and redundant. However if you put 2 instead of 1+1 we will lose information. We don't know that if 2 is for example 3-1 or 0+2 or 1+1,.... So we lost this bit. That's why they are claiming that it is not strictly tautology

---

Aside form the dodgy first sentence which appears to claim that a loss of information is a gain of information this seems to simply agree with my point. May I take it that you accept that "1 + 1 = 2' is necessarily true as a consequence of the definitions of the symbols etc. in mathematics ?

No! As I said the information in tautology should be redundant in a way you omit any part of redundant information still you have a copy. In this case, simply is not true. I gave you an example of a proper tautology. "I am alive as I have life". If you omit any parts of it it will contain the same amount of information. Both "I am alive" and "I have life" are complete and gives us the same information. In our example 1+1=2, simply it is not true. Apart from the fact that equality by itself is an additional information which is omitted.Apart from all these, incompleteness theory at least claims that you can't build a logical system from within itself consistently. Therefore, something should come from outside.

quote:

---

No! As I said the information in tautology should be redundant in a way you omit any part of redundant information still you have a copy.

---

And, as you admit, '1 + 1' carries the same information as '2'.

quote:

---

I gave you an example of a proper tautology. "I am alive as I have life". If you omit any parts of it it will contain the same amount of information. Both "I am alive" and "I have life" are complete and gives us the same information. In our example 1+1=2, simply it is not true. Apart from the fact that equality by itself is an additional information which is omitted.

---

The only difference seems to be that '1 + 1' carries more information than '2'. That really isn't a huge difference.

quote:

---

Apart from all these, incompleteness theory at least claims that you can't build a logical system from within itself consistently. Therefore, something should come from outside.

---

No, that's not what it says. Although at least you are beginning to grope towards the truth instead of writing total nonsense on the subject.

This is a joke! We are doing scientific discussion here. What do you mean by huge difference?! How much difference should be there for you to accept it! The fact is that these two are not the same in informational level either an epsilon difference or infinity still don't fit as a tautology. Ok correct the parts that I am missing. I copied for you from wikipedia which you accepted it.

quote:

---

This is a joke! We are doing scientific discussion here. What do you mean by huge difference?! How much difference should be there for you to accept it!

---

THe point is to understand that necessary truths are tautologous in the broad sense. e.g. in the same way that a valid logical argument never has more information in the conclusion than is contained in the premises. You're the one that wants to talk about the nature of necessary truths, supposedly as a prelude to explaining how your argument works.

quote:

---

The fact is that these two are not the same in informational level either an epsilon difference or infinity still don't fit as a tautology.

---

What exactly is that supposed to mean ?

quote:

---

Ok correct the parts that I am missing. I copied for you from wikipedia which you accepted it.

---

It says that you can't prove that a system (that meets the requirements, which include containing arithmetic) cannot be proven to be both consistent and complete from within itself - unless it is inconsistent. Do you know what consistency and completeness mean when discussing formal systems ? If not then you really have no business trying to talk about it.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

As I have stated, you really do not know enough about this subject to continue in this vein - the above nonsense is clear evidence of this.

Consistency means there is no contradiction between them. Now what? Basically what this theory is saying is that if you don't want to be inconsistent then you should have set of axioms that don't have any proofs. I guess if I remember it right, it was saying at least one axiom should be like that. This is of course natural because everything is build up based on axioms based on logic and axioms themselves therefore if original axioms are consistent then the rest should be consistent as well.