Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Logical Proof of Intelligent Design.

  1. Jul 10, 2004 #1
    Logical Proof of I.D. of Infinite Space.

    This is an interpretation of Christopher M. Langan's CTMU and Russell E. Rierson's mathematical argument for the existence of God:

    For the purpose of this argument, I will define reason as not simply modelling thought after the process of cause and effect, but the process of cause and effect themselves.

    All cause and effect are processes too. Therefore, reason is also the process of process.

    Existence is an effect. All effects have cause. Where there is effect, there is cause. [By definition, cause is that which precedes effect. But also, effect can precede effect.]Hence, existence is[can be] simultaneous(ly) cause and effect. Since reason is a process, and all processes are cause and effect, existence is reason.

    Existence is reasonable. But reason is just a word, an expression bounded by definition not so unconstrained as the definition of "Being". To exist means "TO BE". This is a first principle which forms the basis of existence itself. Loosely, we can call it the 'definition of definition'. Bringing the word of existence to a status beyond definition. To a status of "unknown" definition.

    Cause and effect define structure. Therefore, process itself defines structure. Since existence is reason, and existence is cause and effect. Reason defines structure.

    Existence is reason(able).

    Existence takes place.................................................................................................defining time.

    All definitions are structures of that which is defined. Hence, defining time is a structure. The structure of content is known as "syntax". Where existence is content, time is the syntax of existence. Hence, reason and existence are defined through time. Mind sustainsmemory which maps time and hence existence. If something does not exist, but has once existed, the information about that something can be remembered. Yet, if something does not exist, and has never existed, the information about that nothing can too be remembered. Hence, nothing is simultaneously something which is information.

    This being true, the universe is indeed infinite.

    In the infinity of the universe, infinite structure is yet infinite randomness. Absolute chaos is absolute order.

    |chaos| = |order|

    A paradox. Existence is a dynamic, self-resolving paradox. In other words, chaos is contained by an "unknown" order. This "unknown" order, contains all order. Containment is the act or process of containing. Since containment is a process, it defines structure. Hence, order is structure.

    Structure is defined by reason. Where there is order, there is reason. Order is reason.

    The universe is indeed infinite. It is infinite information. The baffling ineffectual yet effectual simultaneous nature of infinity as both something and nothing is a reason that contains information that cannot be comprehended finitely, yet, all information is contained by reason. For reason to exist, it is necessary that mind exist. The universe is a mind.

    Nicholas I. Hosein
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 10, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What is 1-valued logic? Where is evidence that this existed, and evolved into 2-valued logic? Also, logic is not cause and effect, in fact that's way off. Well, if you're talking about deductive logic, and 2-valued logics, you're not talking about the type of "logic" that we use when we conclude, after dropping a ball 50 times, that it will fall when let go. That is inductive reasoning, and although, in some contexts, this can be called logic, it is not in the context you're using, as far as I can tell. What you're talking about is simply rationality, or just the ability to recognize patterns. Recognizing cause and effect is just recognizing a pattern. Logic, as in deductive logic, is a very simple thing that says things like, if some well formed sentence is true, then it's negation is false, etc. There is no word or symbol for "cause" or "effect" in logic. There is implication, "antecedent" and "consequent," but don't confuse the two.

    This doesn't follow.
    I agree that existence is a word beyond ordinary definition, and it is too fundamental to define in other words. In this sense, I can sort of see how it is related to your comment that it is "the definition of definitions," although I think that's a rather loose way of putting it.

    Now you're just stringing words, ideas, and sentences together. From the start, I knew this wasn't going to be a logical, as in deductive argument (and thus acceptably valid) but more of an appeal to "reason," as in, a reasonable person would say, "hmm... yup, that sounds reasonable," (note, that's clearly not an air-tight proof, it's just pretty reasonable). However, it's moved away from even doing that. Now it's just words and ideas being thrown in out of nowhere.
  4. Jul 10, 2004 #3
    My apologies for adjusting the initial post, I submitted my topic expecting I would have the time to edit it before a response.

    Whereas experience is limited to the senses, which is basically ourselves, reason is not. Of course reason is based on observation and we may say that in some ways, experience is the foundation of reason, but reason is ultimately a thing existing beyond all things and all definition.

    I wanted to introduce "logic" (which is better referred to as reason here) in such a way so to show it as being evolutionary and having an evolutionary beginning. Meaning this to represent any one cause preceeding any one effect and in so doing, forming the basis for logic as existing apart from being merely a system of thought used in discipline. In the way of Chris Langan's CTMU, such would mean reason is an existence capable of evolving on its own.

    Yes, logic has the importance of saying what follows from what. To many it is only a contextual difference away from reason, and although, in some contexts, inductive reasoning can be called logic, there is, or may be, a fundamental way to tell them apart.

    We have a diametrically opposing stance, that of the concept of something and of nothing. So we have the concept of something passing into identity equally as much as the concept of nothing, and that identity passing into difference. To exist means "TO BE" is a first principle of no definition, it is not something, but rather the entity that of nothing, it is pure immediacy, which is indeed something that is the very foundation of everything, that of which existence is yet immediacy itself. A self-resolving paradox. That nothing is indeed something is infinitly in diametric opposition and yet for the sake of existence, not. The question becomes: Why?

    Nicholas I. Hosein
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2004
  5. Jul 15, 2004 #4
    I don't mean to sound insincere, but this "proof" seems to be a string of words that might have meaning only to those who stretch to find meaning. while an interesting read, I don't understand for what purpose it might have been written.

    It is not at all clear, and it does not make much sense to me.

    Also, I can't find the part where he demonstrates how this argues for the existence of god.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2004
  6. Jul 16, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Nicholas I. Hosein

    After reading the edited version, I agree with Prometheus:

    ...this "proof" seems to be a string of words that might have meaning only to those who stretch to find meaning. while an interesting read, I don't understand for what purpose it might have been written.... It is not at all clear, and it does not make much sense to me.
    Since it all seems to be a string of words with little meaning, although I can see your conclusion that, "the universe is a mind," I see that as a meaningless, unsupported statement. Prometheus, I'm not sure if he meant to prove the existence of God or some general Intelligent Designer (God has other properties), perhaps Nicholas can clarify that, but I believe that was the conclusion that you missed, that "the universe is a mind."
  7. Jul 16, 2004 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Prometheus , I must say that I have been agreeing with all of your posts recently that I've read (but not responded to).

    I am not into philosophy, I am a very black & white, cut through the nonsense and look at the facts presented type of person.

    Nicholas I. Hosein starts this thread as "Logical Proof of Intelligent Design", yet I see no proof, logical or illogical of anything.

    So far, I don't see where he is even starting to lead to a proof of anything.

    I see flawed leaps to conclusions which have no basis.

    Nicholas, are you holding back on something that makes sense? Now would be a good time to share.
  8. Jul 17, 2004 #7
    "Since reason is a process, and all processes are cause and effect, existence is reason."

    since a duck can swim, and mother can swim, mother is a duck...
    gotta love that "reasoning"... i could very easily prove that both reason and god, is a duck, using the same "logic"...
  9. Jul 17, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What is philosophy then? A big part of philosophy is to cut through the nonsense and look at the "facts". The thing is, what most people take for granted, upon some scrutiny sometimes seems to be no more than nonsense.
  10. Jul 18, 2004 #9
    Apart from the increasing evidence suggesting that the universe is infinite, to pronounce the concept of omnipotence by definition it is necessary that we demonstrate that the universe be infinite. There is no direct way of percieving this and so if it were, we will never know. However, with a little earnest thought, if we were to question what a hypothetical boundary were to consist of, we would find that percieving the appearance of a boundary is less logically absurd than that of an actual boundary.

    There are countless galaxies. These galaxies are suspect of lending credence to the comfort zone of human egocentricity. Mounting evidence is showing that the universe is very much empty much like a vacuum.

    So if the universe is indeed infinite, from where did the laws of physics and the necessary prerequisite conditions for life emerge?

    In an infinite universe, randomness occurs as does order. But that is not to say that anything can happen. For instance, can there exist a planet of unicorns in which one can disobey the laws of physics? No. However, where the laws of physics obey the laws of geometry, the laws of other mathematics have an opportunity to rule over physics in an infinite universe.

    The universal constants are precisely balanced such that the laws of physics remain consistent throughout the universe. But, if it is possible for the universal constants to vary even by a billionth of a decimal place, it inevitably does and the variation gives rise to a new universe of physical laws. This would mean that the infinite universe is actually a multi-verse of constants. If so, then it is possible for unicorns to exist. It would also be possible for an omnipotence to exist. If an omnipotence can exist in one logically possible universe, it exists in every logically possible universe.

    I posit that the big bang was merely an initiation of the galaxies, not the universe. It has been said that during the big bang, the universal constants varied. Hence, we have an argument for omnipotence.

    1. We know that randomness is logically absurd.

    2. If physical laws gave the appearance of consistency or time-dependency, they would still be consistent independently of time.

    3. If this is true, then randomness or "change" takes place "defining time".

    4. Since randomness defines time, and the physical laws are time-independent, then where did they come from?

    5. The laws of physics are a set of organizing principles.

    6. The only example of an organizing principle we have is that of a "MIND".

    7. The universe is of MIND.

    Nicholas I. Hosein
  11. Jul 18, 2004 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, that is what it should be, but it's not what usually happens in online forums, IMHO. Of course that is due, in part, to the myriad personalities contributing to a discussion, often making it next to impossible to keep the discussion focused. Obviously, I cannot possibly read all online threads, but what I have been exposed to has left me with a poor opinion.

    Many people enjoy spending hours going round and round in these discussions, and that's great. I am not one of them.

    I admit that I do not have the patience or proclivity to engage in the types of philosophical discussions I run into online. I prefer clear, concise objectives and factual analysis when approaching a problem, which would concur with this definition of philosophy - philosophy is the scientific knowledge of all things gained through consideration by the natural light of reason, of their fundamental reasons and causes. Where are the people that follow this?

    I find that many answers that could have been splendidly presented in a few words become unnecessarily long, drawn out orations. I've never seen such pontification.

    Some people mistake being verbose with being clever.

    Don't misunderstand, I think very highly of many that post in this forum, I do not have their patience however. :smile:

    Quite true. I am not familiar with your postings AKG, perhaps I will check them out. I try not to enter into the philosophy forum too often as I have a tendency to speak my mind when I think something is sheer nonsense. Who am I to ruin the fun the others are having with their discussion?

    We're getting off topic here though. The topic of this thread was one that piqued my interest enough to read. I did not see the proof that was promised. :wink:

    Perhaps a thread discussing what philosophy is would be interesting?
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2004
  12. Jul 18, 2004 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    And by this logic, unicorns also exist in every logically possible universe. I see.

    Well, you weren't doing too bad until this point. Everything after this point... :bugeye:
  13. Jul 18, 2004 #12

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ordinarily, I wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole, but logic is one of my favorite subjects, and I see it being absolutely tortured in in this thread.

    Then your definition of reason has nothing to do with the definition of reason that anyone else uses. Reason is a faculty possessed by sentient creatures that enables them to make inferences from given facts. To define reason as the process of cause and effect is to give it a definition that is not related to any of the standard ones, which hinders rather than facilitates communication. Besides, the process of cause and effect already has a term. It's called "causality".

    “Whenever I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
    --Humpty Dumpty

    Is that your motto, too?

    You forgot to prove this part. Specifically, you forgot to prove that existence is not simply an eternal state of affairs that is necessarily caused by something.

    No, by definition cause is that which causes effect. That's why it's called a "cause". The simple happenstance of event A occuring prior to event B does not imply that A causes B. That is such a well-known logical fallacy that it has been given a name: post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). It is not valid.

    Only by virtue of the qualifier "can be", this statement is the first validly derived one I have seen yet. Mind you, that doesn't make it true.

    Huh? This is a four-point syllogism. You can use this argument schema to "prove" anything you want, even contradictory statements. This, too, is invalid reasoning.

    Is this another axiom of your theory, or do you intend to prove it?

    Earlier you defined reason as the process of cause and effect. Now it's just a word?

    This is an empty tautology.

    Is this another axiom of the theory, or do you intend to prove it? And may I ask: structure of what, precisely?

    Again, only according to your definition of reason, and taking for granted the premise, "cause and effect define structure".

    I'm going to skip over the next few paragraphs as it is only more of the same. Let's get a little closer to the punchline.

    I will agree that structure and order are defined by reason, if you mean that order and structure are the regularities we abstract from our observations of the universe and eventually distill into the mathematical statements we call "physical laws". I agree because a mind is required to identify those regularities and to make the abstraction. Furthermore, a mind is required to impute meaning to those things.

    But when you make the following leap:

    you completely abandon logic. The fact that we have minds, and that our minds are required to reason and to find patterns in the observable universe, does not in any way imply that the universe is a mind. Furthermore, you have not offered any deductively valid argument in support of that position.

    Well, you have inspired me to do one thing. It is definitely time for me to revive my thread on logic.
  14. Jul 18, 2004 #13

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I am, and I would like to say clearly that the nonsense in this thread does not even remotely qualify. The author does not understand the first thing about logic, which is supposed to be the backbone of philosophy.

    That's what philosophy is. Valid philosophical reasoning is every bit as razor sharp as mathematical reasoning.

    It all starts with one of my favorite subjects: Logic.

    My logic thread has been idle for the better part of a year, but I am definitely going to get it going again soon (especially now that Mentat is back around).

    For anyone who's interested, here is the thread:


    And here are my notes:

    Logic Notes
  15. Jul 18, 2004 #14


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Tom, this is wonderful. Hope you don't mind if I take a peak. One of my not so endearing nicknames is "black and white woman".
  16. Jul 18, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I like these forums because I enjoy the mathematical and scientific problems people pose, and I know this will be a great resource when the school year starts. I don't like the philosophical content on this forum, and it's kind of "crowded" to see just about everything discussed on one site. PhilosophyForums.com is a great site for philosophical discussions. Philosophy and a bunch of people on this forum discussing vegetarianism or other stuff like that are not exactly the same.

    I don't enter the philosophy forums here either, it would be too time consuming to post on everything on one website. There's nothing wrong with speaking your mind when something seems like sheer nonsense. A lot of people who talk philosophy do just that. A lot of the time, people are either trying to suggest ideas or "theories" of how they might explain something, the nature of time or thought, the validity of the scientific approach, etc, and a lot of the time people spend it pointing out that other people's ideas are nonsense, although you'd attempt to be rational in doing so, showing actual flaws and fallacies in the reasoning.

    You say that you like to just get to the facts. Now some people just like to be handed the facts so they can work with them. "Philosophizing," you might question what we can really accept as fact. You'll get everything from those with a very pragmatic epistemological view, that if it's useful, it's a fact, to some people with seemingly absurd skeptical views that say that nothing can be known as fact. The object is to come up with a consistent, reasonable explanation to determine what we can know and how we can know it. That's one of the things people interested in philosophy like to try to do.
  17. Jul 18, 2004 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I admit my distaste for "philosophy" has come from online discussions. It seems to have become a dumping ground for idiocy.

    I don't usually accept the answers of others. I have an uncanny knack for finding the correct answers. It upsets as many people as it pleases. That's all I'm going to say. :approve:
  18. Jul 19, 2004 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think you just proved through logic that Evo is, in fact, "into philosophy." :biggrin:
    Awesome. I'm using that.
  19. Jul 19, 2004 #18
    rigth on! some people tend to both overanalyze to ridiculous extents and use clever language to explain something, that really isn't that clever... i guess maybe it's a matter of compensation?
    (see... this could have filled the large part of a few pages :biggrin: )
    let's see a philosofical thread questioning the process of philosophy itself... now that would be interessting, and some people would probably end up crying... :tongue2:
  20. Jul 31, 2004 #19
    Why is it that we have a whole slew of mathematical calculations to define the Universe down to the single last detail? Is this not indicative to its inherent structure? If so, then consciousness is the ultimate outcropping of a stuctured Universe. In which case there's nothing random about consciousness or, the fact that we're here. It's all part of the design.
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2004
  21. Aug 4, 2004 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Religious topic are not permitted at PF.

    - Warren
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook