Logical Proof of Intelligent Design

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I thought my post was clear enough that I was unconvinced by the two links I had read.

---

Yes, I know.The question I asked you was why.Why are you unconvinced? What don't you like about it? Since we seem to be able to demonstrate it and actually make use of it, what's the problem?Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics. He was quite aware of the demonstration of QM effects and he didn't deny them, but he didn't like the pure randomness of it. He was certain that there was some deeper physics involved that would be predictable and yet describe what we were seeing in QM.That's what I'm wondering about with you. You're unconvinced, but why?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I am familiar with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (as originally stated) and the necessity for humans to use wave functions as predictors for positions of electrons in orbitals.I saw no argument (not even a real thought experiment) of how this extended to necessitate a model which involves NONexistence of certain properties, or make certain poperties of one "particle" CONTINGENT on the properties of another.The example of the photon was particularly troubling for me as a photon is NOT well defined as to what it is. The rather weak example seemed to be equivocating between the product of an electron falling to a lower state (which is a release of an energy "packet") and an electron itself.While it could be true that one entity has properties tied to another entity (even all over the universe) this does not suggest to me that a particle intrinsically lacks characteristics, but rather that there is a deeper physics.I am not so troubled by a model which includes random behavior. Part of my grad research was on chaos (granted it is the order seen within apparent chaos) of atoms within molecules. All initial conditions may never be truly known for particular entities, because there may always be a source for conditions we cannot "sense".What does trouble me are scientists accepting a model as some sort of fact (which Hawking certainly seems to be doing) that because they will never be known, that they necessarily do not exist.I suppose this is very similar to the ID/evo debate. While I wouldn't want scientists dreaming up unknown causes which can never be tested, I would equally not want scientists holding such strict scepticism that they pretend they "know that it doesn't exist" rather than "know that it may never be known."What has been shown which really debunks the theory that there may be a deeper physics (mechanism) we don't understand yet? Nothing in those articles, that's for sure.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

so your argument from definition doesn't hold. (They never do, really.)

---

You're soooo arrogant, Crashy. My definition of "universe" matches word for word from my dictionary; "The totality of all the things that exists." This is the first definition, the first being the primary definition. So why do you make false, meanspirited and insulting statements like the above on the www about fellow posters who make factual statements? By dictionary definition how, pray tell, can there be many universes??

How can there be many universes, Buzz?That's because the dictionary definitions and the common uses of terms are no longer adequate to describe new concepts in cosmology and physics.For this discussion to progress the individuals involved have to specify just what they mean by the terms used.In the case at hand, one possibility is to redeclare "universe" to mean "everything" as you suggest. Then we have to have a term for what we used to call "universe" since we thought it was "everything" (and may still be). "Visable universe" is one but that doesn't really cover it since it is used for something else already. You can make up any term you like but we have to have one.

This is what I'm talking about with the dictionary games, Buz. The dictionary is wrong. (It's a crazy concept, that a book can be wrong, but when you think about it it's not so hard to wrap your brain around.)What the word means in the dictionary is not what the word means in this context. I don't understand why this is a stumbling block for you. Surely it's possible that the dictionary could be wrong, no? Or that the usage of a word could change after the dictionary had been printed?Dictionaries don't define language. They reflect it. Sometimes the reflection is wrong, or outdated.Put down the dictionary. It's not useful here, or in any other argument.

I disagree. It is a useful starting point. It is a fair assumption for all parties to make that the others are trying to stick to the most common, "dictionary" definition of words.When it starts to become clear that the definitions are not adequate or one party is using a different definition than the other (which may include a different choice of the several presented in the dictionary) then it is necessary to "throw the dictionary away" and define terms for the sake of the discussion.

Crashy, my dictionary definition is what has been used for centuries. So because I choose to agree with it as do millions of others you think it's fine to insult and belittle someone because you choose to be a revisionist and go with the minority elite and what they say it means? Frankly, I don't buy your revisionist version of what the syllable uni means relative to the universe. You near sighted people are trying to limit the universe to what puny little secularistic scientists are able to comprehend and observe, so you throw insultive remarks at anyone who doesn't revise their logical thinking to suit you.

quote:

---

When it starts to become clear that the definitions are not adequate or one party is using a different definition than the other (which may include a different choice of the several presented in the dictionary) then it is necessary to "throw the dictionary away" and define terms for the sake of the discussion.

---

OK, fine Ned. so next time we have a discussion on Biblical doctrine or prophecy we'll all throw away the dictionary and define on terms of 'a party using a different definition' for the sake of discussion. Fair enough?

I would like to interject something concerning differences between colloquial and scientific definitions. With any knowledge system that gains information over the course of history it neccesarily runs afoul of definitions that were descriptive at one time began to be used in different ways to keep concepts under wraps in language through the use of metaphors.
It is my impression that science is actually too lenient when it comes to enforcing strictures on the definitions of terms used. The difference between lay persons ideas of a given phenomena and the scientists is often far apart.Here is an example. What is the definition of energy?

There is a problem Buzz, when reading something written centuries ago. We can't talk to the individuals to clarify meanings. We have to do our best to figure out what they might have meant. Of course, there was no such thing as a dicitionary then either. In addition, no one looks up every single word in a dictionary when writing anyway.There we will, as I've suggested makes sense contrary to what Crash said, use our best understanding of what the "official" defition is.

Would you object to me using
Matchettep62 "Entities, or more generally, relative states draw together, combine because of their common urge or striving to rid themselves of their inherent energy, - thier divergence from the Absoute"
with the full force of a science PhD? when looking for" "the gearing system", "electron tube circuit" "Through which the causative action of the absolute produces the observed physical, relative orderings in the universe"p44

OK ok, Buzz. we will use "universe" to mean "everything".Now what do we call everything that we can see now after we have added to concept of other complete, separate areas of space and time with, perhaps, their own physical laws? It is exactly the attempt to deal with concepts beyond the observable that has introduced the problem but you seem to have missed that.

No, it's fine to belittle somebody who's consistently arrogant enough to insist that that it says in the dictionary is the only possible way that anything could be.We've told you what "universe" means in this context, and what we mean when we use the word. You've pointed out that our meaning is not entirely consistent with the dictionary. In this you are absolutely correct.What I don't understand is why you think that consititutes an argument against what we're saying. In the cosmological context, there can be mutliple universes, because "universe" in the cosmological context means something besides what it says in the dictionary. Pointing out what the dictionary says at that point is irrelevant. You already know what definition we're using. I don't care what supernatural stuff you think exists. If there's multiple universes, then there's more than enough room for it. I just don't understand why you think a dictionary definition is relevant in a discussion of what is and what isn't. What makes the dictionary any kind of authority in this regard?

Nothing you've said is contrary to my position, which is "if you want to know what somebody is talking about, ask them." If we're talking about what somebody wrote long ago, you're right - they're not around to ask. At that point it's anybody's guess what they really meant.But here, cosmologists are the ones talking about the universe. Instead of running to a dictionary they're not using, Buz, why don't you just ask them what they mean?

Btw, Ned and CF, my dictionary is not centuries old, but modern. Your so called scientific rendering of the meaning of universe leaves no word left then for all that exists, for in your mindset, the word for all that exists is now being revised/borrowed to mean part of that which exists. This is not conducive to good sense, imo. It tends to confuse and contradict rather than educate.------------------
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-29-2003]