Are Remarkable Coincidences Truly Random or Evidence of Design?

[Tojen]

Tojen,
Its very simple.
We are a part of the Universe.
If we change, die or disappear then part of the Universe changes, dies or disappears.
The Earth is part of the Universe.
We change the Earth and change part of the Universe.
If any part of the universe changes, the entire Universe changes.

Pardon me for being dense, but I was hoping we were talking about something more fundamental, not in the way a bug splatted on a windshield "changes" a car.

So every time we swat a mosquito, or unknowingly step on an ant, take a bite of a sandwich, move a finger, take a breath, vomit, etc, etc., we're channging the Universe. Even the involuntary things we do, like losing skin cells and growing hair, change the Universe. That just cheapens the meaning of "change" to such an extent that it becomes meaningless. (As in Hawking's lofty statement that by observing a single electron, we change the Universe.)

 

[Royce]

Well if you want more lofty changes, consider that we as conscious, sentient beings are the first step in the Universe becoming conscious and sentient itself. That is, of course, assuming that we are the first; but, it still holds if we but one of many. The universe is becoming conscious, sentient and self-aware. Hows that for an emergent property?

 

[nannoh]

Pardon me for being dense, but I was hoping we were talking about something more fundamental, not in the way a bug splatted on a windshield "changes" a car.

So every time we swat a mosquito, or unknowingly step on an ant, take a bite of a sandwich, move a finger, take a breath, vomit, etc, etc., we're channging the Universe. Even the involuntary things we do, like losing skin cells and growing hair, change the Universe.

Yes. I think its called Chaos theory. You know, when a butterfly's wings flap on Mars it creates universal changes resulting in a wind that throws a mosquito into your windshield. If you don't like the theory, change it by proving otherwise. A cautionary note, if you succeed in changing the theory, you will still be changing the universe.

 

[Royce]

nannoh, so your theory is that not only has the universe evolved but the physical laws and values themselves have evolved via natural selection?
I understand the many worlds idea each with different laws and parameters. Some make it and some don't.
From reading your post I got the impression that your taking about one universe evolving these laws and parameters by trail and error until it came up with the one that works, so far, and here we are.
This implies, to me at least, that there is some driving force or purpose to it. Why else would the laws change until it got it "right."

 

[Tojen]

Further to my last post, which (I think) will answer both Royce and nannoh...

The Universe is change. Electrons are getting knocked around constantly throughout the whole cosmos by unconscious processes but that doesn't change the nature of the Universe. By responding predictably to another force, they are helping to define the Universe as it is, not change it. Our little actions would be significant only if they didn't change anything.

 

[nannoh]

This implies, to me at least, that there is some driving force or purpose to it. Why else would the laws change until it got it "right."

As we already know "purpose" is relative to the observer. What we think of as "universal laws" (though no one has observed the whole universe to be able to call them that) are always changing and refining and being dismantled and rebuilt. The laws from which human kind and life itself have emerged are never "right or wrong" because right or wrong are relative only to the observer.

Saying the universe "got it right" when it produced the emergence of life is a good example of your individual freedom of "choice". It demonstrates that you are able to maintain a position in the universe and are able to voice your opinion about it. No small feat.

 

[PIT2]

That doesn't answer the question at all (which was something like, "How does the existence of life on Earth change the Universe?"), but it sure skirts it in a mysterious, religious-like way. If you can't fathom the Universe, how can you know it has changed?

This weeks Newscientist has an article about retrocausality (the present influencing the past). In it, there is a section where Paul Davis describes what retrocausality could mean for life on earth. He says the universe may be fine tuned for life, because life itself is finetuning it. The reasoning goes something like this: in the first moments after the big bang, the laws of nature weren't fixed, they were wobbly, and if retrocausality is possible then conscious observers right now may be influencing the wobbly era and shaping the laws of nature. His exact words can be read here

We all have opinions and beliefs, but not all of us seem to base them on our extremely limited observations. Again, what observations have you made that lead you to believe we have changed the Unviverse?

One can see how we have changed the universe by just looking around. Humans have transformed the planet in the past 100 years, even though our brains haven't changed much in the same timespan.

Even the involuntary things we do, like losing skin cells and growing hair, change the Universe. That just cheapens the meaning of "change" to such an extent that it becomes meaningless. (As in Hawking's lofty statement that by observing a single electron, we change the Universe.)

I don't think this cheapens the meaning of "change", but puts it in the right perspective. If this were not "change" then universal events arent either. Even if by "change" u mean changing the laws of nature, then observing an electron would qualify so long as one assumes these laws are part of the things they are changing, as opposed to assuming these laws exist in a platonic realm.

Our actions (like squashing an ant) may seem tiny compared to the rest of the universe, but can have giant implications for what the universe actually is. Compare it to a boy that enters a room which is completely red. Then he finds a tiny blue dot on a wall. Even though the dot is tiny, it does have fundamental implications for the entire room: the entire room is not fundamentaly red.

 

[Tojen]

Yes. I think its called Chaos theory. You know, when a butterfly's wings flap on Mars it creates universal changes resulting in a wind that throws a mosquito into your windshield. If you don't like the theory, change it by proving otherwise. A cautionary note, if you succeed in changing the theory, you will still be changing the universe.

I won't argue with the theory, just your example. A butterfly on Mars is impossible. I think you meant "a butterfly on Earth can set in motion events that lead to a hurricane" as I've heard it, which is at least possible, though the chances of it happening are so remote they're laughable. Now compare that with the chances of a butterfly causing a supernova, or even affecting a single atom, 10 billion light years away.

Did I just change the Universe?

 

[Tojen]

One can see how we have changed the universe by just looking around. Humans have transformed the planet in the past 100 years, even though our brains haven't changed much in the same timespan.

I can see how we've changed some things on Earth, but not the entire Universe. I can also see how the forces of nature have changed the Earth unconsciously.

I'm guessing the rest of the Universe looks the same as it would have if I hadn't been born.

I don't think this cheapens the meaning of "change", but puts it in the right perspective. If this were not "change" then universal events arent either. Even if by "change" u mean changing the laws of nature, then observing an electron would qualify so long as one assumes these laws are part of the things they are changing, as opposed to assuming these laws exist in a platonic realm.

Our actions (like squashing an ant) may seem tiny compared to the rest of the universe, but can have giant implications for what the universe actually is. Compare it to a boy that enters a room which is completely red. Then he finds a tiny blue dot on a wall. Even though the dot is tiny, it does have fundamental implications for the entire room: the entire room is not fundamentaly red.

My squashing an ant changes the configuration of matter and energy in the ant. So would a rock if it fell on the ant. Would you say the rock has changed the Universe?

To me, your red room implies a static Universe with a single anomaly. To me, the room would better represent the Universe if blue dots were appearing and disappearing constantly (representing all the changes that happen in the Universe). Now the dots are a fundamental property of the room, just as change is a fundamental property of the Universe, conscious or not.

(I haven't had time to look at the Newscientist article, but I'll get to it.)

 

[nannoh]

Our little actions would be significant only if they didn't change anything.

As far as I know "significance" is in the eye of the signifier (observer).

 

[Tojen]

As far as I know "significance" is in the eye of the signifier (observer).

In a universe where change is inevitable, unavoidable and constant, I would think everyone would find it significant if we didn't cause changes.

If I can recap here, for my own clarity at least, you (and Royce and PIT) are saying that by making a change, no matter how minor, we're changing the overall makeup of the Universe. The statement "Therefore, we change the Universe" attaches some importance to the changes that we as conscious beings cause. I say that because inanimate matter and energy are also constantly "changing the Universe" as you put it, there is nothing significant, in a universal sense, in the fact that we cause change.

 

[Tojen]

Tojen,
Its very simple.
We are a part of the Universe.
If we change, die or disappear then part of the Universe changes, dies or disappears.
The Earth is part of the Universe.
We change the Earth and change part of the Universe.
If any part of the universe changes, the entire Universe changes.

Is this also very simple?

Dirt is part of the Universe.
If dirt changes in any way, then part of the Universe changes.
The Earth is part of the Universe.
Dirt changes the Earth and changes part of the Universe.
If any part of the Universe changes, the entire Universe changes.

Therefore, dirt changes the Universe.

 

[PIT2]

I can see how we've changed some things on Earth, but not the entire Universe. I can also see how the forces of nature have changed the Earth unconsciously.

I'm guessing the rest of the Universe looks the same as it would have if I hadn't been born.

We actually don't know if the forces of nature act on the universe unconsciously. Also if u weren't born, it could have the same meaning for the universe as one star that should have collapsed into a black hole but did not.

My squashing an ant changes the configuration of matter and energy in the ant. So would a rock if it fell on the ant. Would you say the rock has changed the Universe?

Yes the rock changes the universe. A rock falls because of gravity (falling rock = gravitational pull), and this gravitational force has all kinds of influences on the universe. The thing about humans changing things is that consciousness is involved. We don't know what this means, but it could mean that conscious change is fundamental.

 

[Tojen]

We actually don't know if the forces of nature act on the universe unconsciously. Also if u weren't born, it could have the same meaning for the universe as one star that should have collapsed into a black hole but did not.

If it turns out the Universe is acting consciously, that would be disappointing for those who think we're different or special because we're conscious. In that case, consciousness by itself would make us no different of special from anything else in the Universe.

And just to get technical, if a star should collapse into a black hole, it will, according to the laws of nature. If it doesn't, there would be a physical reason that it doesn't, so that it was never meant to become a black hole in the first place. It's like saying, "I should have traveled at the speed of light but for some reason I didn't", or, "He should have been born but for some reason he wasn't".

Yes the rock changes the universe. A rock falls because of gravity (falling rock = gravitational pull), and this gravitational force has all kinds of influences on the universe. The thing about humans changing things is that consciousness is involved. We don't know what this means, but it could mean that conscious change is fundamental.

Irregardless of consciousness, I was just disputing the claim by some people that we humans are special because we cause changes in the Universe. If a mere rock can also "change the Universe", that nullifies that claim. Also, I'm not sure if you mean the rock changes the Universe by falling, or if the force of gravity changes it and the rock is its unwitting agent.

By saying "The thing about humans changing things is that consciousness is involved", doens't that imply that the rest of the Universe is not acting consciously?

 

[nannoh]

In a universe where change is inevitable, unavoidable and constant, I would think everyone would find it significant if we didn't cause changes.

I don't think anyone would notice. How many people's attention does it take to make an event or non-event significant? (way off topic)

If I can recap here, for my own clarity at least, you (and Royce and PIT) are saying that by making a change, no matter how minor, we're changing the overall makeup of the Universe. The statement "Therefore, we change the Universe" attaches some importance to the changes that we as conscious beings cause. I say that because inanimate matter and energy are also constantly "changing the Universe" as you put it, there is nothing significant, in a universal sense, in the fact that we cause change.

I don't think Royce and Pit are saying that because we change the universe we are special or significant. They are saying that along with all the other components of the universe we too are involved in its evolution of change. We effect the course of the evolution of the universe and, in turn, we are affected by the same.

So what you are saying is true; there is nothing significant in the fact that we cause change because everything causes change in the universe. This includes butterfly wings, a rock falling on an ant, and one gene that eventually and "significantly", produced 6,000,000,000 Homosapiens.

 

[PIT2]

And just to get technical, if a star should collapse into a black hole, it will, according to the laws of nature. If it doesn't, there would be a physical reason that it doesn't, so that it was never meant to become a black hole in the first place. It's like saying, "I should have traveled at the speed of light but for some reason I didn't", or, "He should have been born but for some reason he wasn't".

Yes, so u can see that such events could have implications at a more fundamental level(all our theories about black hole formation might have to be rewritten perhaps). I was originally going to give the example of a rock that fell upwards instead of downwards, and the consequences this would have for our understanding of gravity.

Also, I'm not sure if you mean the rock changes the Universe by falling, or if the force of gravity changes it and the rock is its unwitting agent.

I think somehow gravity and the things that it acts on are co-dependant on each other, and that they are in fact both the same thing. So a change in either will affect the other.

By saying "The thing about humans changing things is that consciousness is involved", doens't that imply that the rest of the Universe is not acting consciously?

Not really, i just said it like that because we are certain of it in the case of humans, and this prevents us from assuming that the entire universe works unconsciously, and that the entire universe can be explained by physical descriptions.

 

[Tojen]

I don't think anyone would notice. How many people's attention does it take to make an event or non-event significant? (way off topic)

It was rhetorical of course. If we didn't cause changes in the Universe, or if the Universe didn't cause changes in us, we wouldn't exist.

I don't think Royce and Pit are saying that because we change the universe we are special or significant. They are saying that along with all the other components of the universe we too are involved in its evolution of change. We effect the course of the evolution of the universe and, in turn, we are affected by the same.

Saying "We change the Universe" without adding, in the same reverant tone, "So does everything else" fully implies that we're special. Otherwise, why would anyone say it?

So what you are saying is true; there is nothing significant in the fact that we cause change because everything causes change in the universe. This includes butterfly wings, a rock falling on an ant, and one gene that eventually and "significantly", produced 6,000,000,000 Homosapiens.

At first glance, six billion is an impressive number. It's a lot more than the number of wombats in the world, that's for sure. But compared to bacteria, it's hardly something to be proud of. Each one of us has trillions of bacteria eating, excreting waste, reproducing and dying in and on our bodies. Multiply those trillions by six billion, and add the trillions and quadrillions and googillions in the rest of the world. By numbers alone, homo sapiens is pretty insignificant compared to the "lowly" bacterium.

But numbers aren't a true measure of a species, I'm sure you'd agree, so how about something more significant: survival. Bacteria perform functions for us without which we can't live. In a world without humans, bacteria would do, and have done, very well, but take bacteria away and we'd soon be extinct. Bacteria thrive in places where we wouldn't last a second, and they've lived through epochs on Earth that would have wiped us out completely. Their short life span and quick reproduction rates make bacteria, as a species, much more adaptable to sudden changes in their environment than us sluggish humans. They have an incredible advantage over us in their ability to survive as a species, and yet they aren't conscious. I'd say consciousness, in itself, isn't a prerequisite for successful existence, although it is apparently required for a species to think it's pretty hot stuff.

 

[PIT2]

Bacteria have an incredible advantage over us in their ability to survive as a species, and yet they aren't conscious.

This is something which we just don't know. How and why do bacteria behave the way they do? What allows them to respond to the environment in a way that enables them to survive? Perhaps ur statement is based on the assumption that consciousness is a product of the brain. But even the human brain has bacterial ancestors, and the idea that our brain has something unique which bacteria and non-brainers don't turns us(or rather our brains) into 'special' beings also.

 

[Tojen]

Yes, so u can see that such events could have implications at a more fundamental level(all our theories about black hole formation might have to be rewritten perhaps). I was originally going to give the example of a rock that fell upwards instead of downwards, and the consequences this would have for our understanding of gravity.

I cant' argue that such events would have profound implications, but have such events ever happened? Has a rock ever fallen upwards? Has there ever been a star that should have become a black hole that did not become one?

I think somehow gravity and the things that it acts on are co-dependant on each other, and that they are in fact both the same thing. So a change in either will affect the other.

Certainly the rock's gravity is dependent on the rock; without the rock, there wouldn't be the rock's gravity. I'm probably missing your point again, but I don't see how the rock is dependent on the Earth's gravity.

Not really, i just said it like that because we are certain of it in the case of humans, and this prevents us from assuming that the entire universe works unconsciously, and that the entire universe can be explained by physical descriptions.

That's fun to think about and it makes good science fiction, but there is no evidence at all in the real world, that we can comprehend, to suggest it. Which leads to me to ask why you would pick consciousness as a human property that would apply to the Universe. You wouldn't say the Universe has a seventy-year life span, or that it conducts organized warfare, or that it intentionally creates other life in order to kill it and eat it.

 

[Tojen]

This is something which we just don't know. How and why do bacteria behave the way they do? What allows them to respond to the environment in a way that enables them to survive? Perhaps ur statement is based on the assumption that consciousness is a product of the brain. But even the human brain has bacterial ancestors, and the idea that our brain has something unique which bacteria and non-brainers don't turns us(or rather our brains) into 'special' beings also.

Quck answer cause I'm pressed for time:

But we do know what allows bacteria to respond to the environment. It falls under the umbrella of evolution. (And just to point out, they don't "respond" to the environment. Those that aren't suited to the environment are killed off, leaving those that are suited.)

Having consciousness makes us unique, not special. Every species has unique characteristics but that doesn't make them all favourites of the Universe.

 

[DaveC426913]

But we do know what allows bacteria to respond to the environment. It falls under the umbrella of evolution. (And just to point out, they don't "respond" to the environment. Those that aren't suited to the environment are killed off, leaving those that are suited.)

This is not the condition as I understand it.

The requirement as I have understood it, is more accurately called "irritation", as in: yes individual bacteria will actually respond to the enivronment without dying.

 

[PIT2]

I cant' argue that such events would have profound implications, but have such events ever happened? Has a rock ever fallen upwards? Has there ever been a star that should have become a black hole that did not become one?

Has a skyscraper or a computer ever been built without consciousness involved?

Certainly the rock's gravity is dependent on the rock; without the rock, there wouldn't be the rock's gravity. I'm probably missing your point again, but I don't see how the rock is dependent on the Earth's gravity.

The Earth's gravity is not just the Earth's gravity, gravity is a universal force. The same may go with human consciousness. I think gravity and the rock (and what it represents fundamentally) are codependant just like time and space are.

That's fun to think about and it makes good science fiction, but there is no evidence at all in the real world, that we can comprehend, to suggest it. Which leads to me to ask why you would pick consciousness as a human property that would apply to the Universe. You wouldn't say the Universe has a seventy-year life span, or that it conducts organized warfare, or that it intentionally creates other life in order to kill it and eat it.

Why consciousness would apply to the universe? Well we are not separate from the universe, but a part of it. Other animals are probably conscious too. Does temperature apply only to humans? Gravity? Why would consciousness?

Warfare is not unique on earth(nor is a 70-year timeperiod), the only thing about it that sets it apart, is that it causes a range of experiences in the conscious beings that are affected by it (this is assuming that consciousness is a unique ability of brains). Otherwise, warfare is just the interaction of specific physical configurations, just like rocks rumbling down a hill on mars.

This idea also applies to the distinction between living and dead matter. Is there really a distinction, or are they fundamentally both the same?

 

[PIT2]

But we do know what allows bacteria to respond to the environment. It falls under the umbrella of evolution. (And just to point out, they don't "respond" to the environment. Those that aren't suited to the environment are killed off, leaving those that are suited.)

Evolution does not tell us how bacteria respond to the environment. We know we respond to the environment, yet don't know how. Also evolution does not rule out bacteria being conscious(and responding), because we know we are conscious(and we respond) and we are shaped by evolution too. Evolution is a principle that is the result of the behaviour of living beings, it is not a force that controls this behaviour. The fact that bacteria are 'killed off' indicates that they are alive and they are alive because they manage to solve the problems the environment throws at them. The most rudimentary form of problemsolving may in fact be the very evolutionary origin of our more advanced/specialised intelligence.

If we define intelligence as "to understand and profit from experience", then it means that it requires consciousness - which i think is true. Either way, evolution is a result of this problemsolving, so id say that evolution falls under the umbrella of the organisms responding to their environment, and not the other way around.

The question is whether consciousness arose somewhere on the evolutionary timeline(how and why so?), or whether it is (and was) present in all life, and thus has its origin in the origin of life, before that, or has any origin at all.

Having consciousness makes us unique, not special. Every species has unique characteristics but that doesn't make them all favourites of the Universe.

Could u name one 'unique' characteristic which cannot be reduced to universally present elements of nature?

 

[nannoh]

Could u name one 'unique' characteristic which cannot be reduced to universally present elements of nature?

First I'd have to prove that the presently observed elements of nature actually are universal.

This is the first stumbling block to the "design" theory. There's no way we are able to prove the existence of an overall, universal presence of natural elements and laws.

Prove that a rock does not fall away from gravity in some other part of the universe. To date we are basing the "laws of nature" and "natural design" on our local knowledge of the universe. Not the entire phenomenon.

 

[PIT2]

Prove that a rock does not fall away from gravity in some other part of the universe. To date we are basing the "laws of nature" and "natural design" on our local knowledge of the universe. Not the entire phenomenon.

True, but we assume these laws are universal. Anyway I am not sure what this has to do with what I am asking, so the question remains (if somewhat changed to clarify):

Name a unique characteristic of an organism, which is not reducible to the elements of nature which we assume to be universal?

This is the first stumbling block to the "design" theory. There's no way we are able to prove the existence of an overall, universal presence of natural elements and laws.

Isnt this a stumbling block to just about any theory of the universe, design or not?

 

[nannoh]

Name a unique characteristic of an organism, which is not reducible to the elements of nature which we assume to be universal?

Since I do not have data on all the organisms in the universe I can't answer the question.

Isnt this a stumbling block to just about any theory of the universe, design or not?

Yes but it is not universally accepted as a stumbling block.

 

[PIT2]

Since I do not have data on all the organisms in the universe I can't answer the question.

U don't have to know all organisms in the universe to know that snakes have eyes. The word 'unique' in the question does not mean that the characteristic is unique to a particular species, but to any organism (whether it exists elsewhere in the universe or not). So it would be better to just leave the word 'unique' out of the question entirely.

 

[nannoh]

Name a characteristic of an organism, which is not reducible to the elements of nature which we assume to be universal?

An organism that flys in a machine(?)

An organism that wears shoes(?)

An organism that blows itself up(?)

 

[Zelos]

all organism is the product of evolution and all can be expressed by evolution and natural selection is everything but random

 

[selfAdjoint]

all organism is the product of evolution and all can be expressed by evolution and natural selection is everything but random

Actually evolution can be described as deterministic filtering (selection) of a random signal (variation). But the deterministing component is so complex (and possibly chaotic in the mathematical sense) that for most purposes it can be taken as random too.

 

[Zelos]

just becuase something is complex it doesn't make it random

 

[PIT2]

An organism that flys in a machine(?)

Is this really different from a cloud drifting through the sky on another planet?

An organism that wears shoes(?)

Shoes are ordinary slabs of matter just like planets.

An organism that blows itself up(?)

Can explosions not be reduced to chemical reactions?

In all three examples, the only thing that makes these characteristics seem unique, is the human mind interpreting them. When we gain further knowledge of these characteristics, we see that our initial view of them as unique turns out to be illusory: they are in fact the same particles/fields/forces that exist universally. However, if this were also the case with our consciousness, then it would imply that we are the illusion of a conscious being that exists universally...

 

[Tojen]

Has a skyscraper or a computer ever been built without consciousness involved?

I gather you mean that we make rocks go up, in which case they aren't "falling up" but just reacting to natural forces exerted on them by us. No need to rewrite the book on gravity there (if that's what you meant).

Could u name one 'unique' characteristic which cannot be reduced to universally present elements of nature?

Obviously not. Everything can be reduced to universally present elements of nature, but reduction is not the point. Every toy made with lego blocks can be reduced to individual blocks, but reducing them takes away the identity and function of the toy so that it no longer exists. It's the arrangement of the blocks, not the blocks themselves, that gives each toy its unique characteristics.

Some atoms are arranged to form a brain that produces consciousness, but that doesn't mean atoms themselves are conscious, or that all arrangements of atoms produce consciousness. It's the particular arrangement that matters.

 

[Tojen]

This is not the condition as I understand it.

The requirement as I have understood it, is more accurately called "irritation", as in: yes individual bacteria will actually respond to the enivronment without dying.

Thanks for pointing that out, although I meant that a bacterium can't respond by changing its DNA. But since you mention it, we all respond to our environment, and the success or failure of the response is determined by our genes. I can run from a bear but whether or not I can outrun it is determined by my DNA, and I can't change that in mid-flight. Whatever it is, I'm stuck with it. (Also, "killed off" was a poor choice of words on my part; "die off" would be better.)

 

[Darryl]

IF i did believe in a higher being, i would hate to think of him sitting in a back room, comming up with designed for "flesh eating viruses", HIV-AIDS, SIDS, and mutation to bird flu viruses. There it was gods work, i would expect his work to be perfect, so why is there cancer and desease, and natural disasters? they too would have to be 'designed'.

Your DNA and evolution does not give you the ability to outrun that Bear, but it may give you the ability to outrun YOUR MATE. you don't have to run faster than the bear, just faster than the other people the bear is chasing.
i would assume extinsion would not occur if the design was intelligent, and the engineering was don't by a master engineer.. but we have extinsions and many examples of faulty designs.. how can that be !

 

[PIT2]

i would assume extinsion would not occur if the design was intelligent, and the engineering was don't by a master engineer.. but we have extinsions and many examples of faulty designs.. how can that be !

When we observe intelligence in humans, we can see that it doesn't produce perfect and immortal systems, but this doesn't make humans unintelligent. What would happen if a 'perfect intelligence' made all species so that they didnt go extinct, or that they didnt die at all for that matter? What would become of evolution?

Btw existing biological systems are still the most complex functioning systems in the known universe. When humans design automated systems, they constantly look at nature for inspiration, because nature has done it waaaaaay better than any human so far has been able to.

 

[nannoh]

existing biological systems are still the most complex functioning systems in the known universe.

We could argue that the known universe is the most complex and functioning system beyond the biological systems that have evolved out of it. Its pretty amazing.

I can't say its been specifically designed to be that way. My contention is that what we see as the universe is a result of its own evolution. The systems in place today are there after a long (13.5 billion year) process of the natural selection of chemical, thermal, motive, gravitational and other processes. They are masterfully efficent only because if they weren't they wouldn't have lasted as long as they have and we would not be observing them and enjoying their efficency today.

 

[DaveC426913]

Btw existing biological systems are still the most complex functioning systems in the known universe. When humans design automated systems, they constantly look at nature for inspiration, because nature has done it waaaaaay better than any human so far has been able to.

2 reasons:

1] Evolution has been at it approximately 10,000 times longer than humans, give or take a few hundred million years. And evolution "failed" about 10,000 times more often than humans.

2] Evolution has a huge, huge advantage in that it does not have a set goal in mind, and no criteria for success. If you asked me to "Make a thing. I don't care what. I could throw a pile of sticks on the ground and call it a piece of art." We are not like we are because this was the goal, we are like we are just becasue that's the way the evolutionary wind blew.



So, evolution had 10,000 times as long to produce something that had no criteria for success - a lump of goo would be considered a success for evolution, whereas human have to produce a working computer to very rigid expectations in a mere 30 years.

Sounds like humans got seriously, seriously hosed in the contest.

 

[PIT2]

I can't say its been specifically designed to be that way.

We can't say that it wasnt either can we?

2 reasons ...

Those are two good reasons, but evolution does not rule out that intelligence is at work. We can see this in humans, we are intelligent and our intelligence will influence the course of evolution. There is no need for a 'set goal' (except perhaps something very abstract as survival, or having positive experiences).

 

[nannoh]

We can't say that it wasnt either can we?

No, we can't say the universe wasn't designed .
What we can do is decide if there is an omni-present designer who planned the universe - or - we can decide that matter has evolved the way it has because that is the only way it is able to under the constraints of the evolved and fundimental laws of the observable universe. What's going on beyond our powers of observation is anybody's guess.

And many people guess. And many make a lot of money doing so. And many have billions of followers. They're popularity does not mean they're right. It means they have appealed to the collective emotions of the human animal.

 

[nannoh]

One more thing Pit2. We can always say that the universe has designed itself. This does not depend on it having a consciousness or a purpose or a goal in mind. The idea simply suggests that as the universe evolved it began to develop a set of criteria for its components. If a component of the universe met the criteria that was laid out by the fundimental or primary laws that were developed during the first stages of the universe's evolution, then the component continued to exist. If the component didn't meet the criteria of being a part of the universe then it didn't continue to exist.

In this way one could feasibly say that the universe designed itself (which would include all of its components).

There are different types of designers and there are different methods of designing. There is what is perceived as calculated design and there is what is perceived to be chaotic or spontaneous design techniques.

What type of designer is the universe? First let's look at the definition of "Designer" or "Design".

I'll give one example for now of the definition of "design".

From the Oxford Dictionary

design |d??z?n|

noun 1 a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made : he has just unveiled his design for the new museum. • the art or action of conceiving of and producing such a plan or drawing : good design can help the reader understand complicated information | the cloister is of late twelfth century design. • an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or decoration : pottery with a lovely blue and white design. 2 purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object : the appearance of design in the universe.

verb [ trans. ] decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it : a number of architectural students were designing a factory | [as adj. with submodifier ] ( designed) specially designed buildings. • (often be designed) do or plan (something) with a specific purpose or intention in mind : [ trans. ] the tax changes were designed to stimulate economic growth. See note at intend .

The last note tends to want me to steer away from calling the universe a designer because it suggests that design is a function of "intent" or to intend.

I see it more like you'd see Jackson Pollack "designing" a painting. He leaves all the design work up to how the paint falls, on its own. The only manipulation of the "design" is his action in throwing the paint at the canvas.

The result of Pollack's production is a design that is at least 80% self designed. The paint, the gravity the meterological conditions and the size of brush, canvas and so on are the determiners that form the design. 20% would be the fact that Pollack has brought together a number of different paints, a canvas and has produced some actions that distribute the paint. His "designs" are much sought-after and fetch a high sale price today.

I think that with about .003% accuracy we could say that the universe is one big Jackson Pollack where the accidents and the resulting designs create a masterpiece of pure existence!

However, in the end I think that it is each individual's personal decision with regard to whether or not a configuration or mechanism has been purposely designed or is a result of an accident. This is because the concepts and precepts of design and accident are a human interpretation of nature or "anthropocentric".

From one stand point all of our concepts are conceived by nature itself because each individual is a product of nature. On the other hand as far as we know it is only that one, infinitesimal component of nature - humans - that have conceived of the ideas of accidents and designs.

What appears as an accident to one individual may appear as design. For instance a puddle of water and rust may very well appeal as a design element to one person where it may alarmingly appear as an accident to another individual.

 

[PIT2]

No, we can't say the universe wasn't designed .
What we can do is decide if there is an omni-present designer who planned the universe - or - we can decide that matter has evolved the way it has because that is the only way it is able to under the constraints of the evolved and fundimental laws of the observable universe. What's going on beyond our powers of observation is anybody's guess.

What do those fundamental laws say about consciousness and life? And do they forbid humans (which exist in the observable universe) from designing stuff?

And many people guess. And many make a lot of money doing so. And many have billions of followers. They're popularity does not mean they're right. It means they have appealed to the collective emotions of the human animal.

Ur right, this has nothing to do with whether the universe was designed or not.

^btw i agree with ur post above

 

[nannoh]

What do those fundamental laws say about consciousness and life? And do they forbid humans (which exist in the observable universe) from designing stuff?

Awareness:

Is a deep and convoluted subject. Is it fundamental? Or is it unique to biological mechanism?

Is Awareness unique to humans or is it universal to all organisms?

As for fundamental laws determining whether humans can design or not. What's tricky is what I said earlier. Humans are a component of nature biological and non-biological. When we design a sidewalk or drainage ditch, it is Nature designing the ditch and the sidewalk. So, with this in mind, I would guess that there is nothing forbidden in nature.

The only thing controlling whether or not an action or mechanism is allowed to exist in Nature is if it conforms to what seems to be quite a few laws in Nature. The overall law is balance. If a mechanism is out of balance Nature will attempt to balance the event with its other components. If that doesn't work the mechanism is dismantled. When humans design something - even civilizations - that is out of balance, the law of balance will slowly try to modify it to fit Natural criteria. If it is not adapting well, it is dismantled.

 

[nannoh]

My vote goes toward the universe being an accident that has had time to become organized enough to survive as long as it has.