How do you detect "design"?

[shunyadragon]

I am not sure if I understand your questionbut I ll try to answer...


The data for the QR would be analogous to the FT values of the universe.

We know that the data QR is SC and therefore design because

1 it has an independent pattern (it can open a website)

2 it is complex, (it has many codes and many possible combinatios)

3 only a very small percentage of the possible combinations would give such pattern

4 the laws of nature (or the laws in the softwhere in this case) do not favor that specific combination

As for the universe

1 we have an independent pattern (the values are life permitting)

2 there are many possible combinations

3 only a small number of combinations would produce that pattern

4 there is nothing in the laws of nature that favors that combination

All of the above is either misleading assumptions based on ID, based on older physics like the Copenhagen agreement (not accepted as factual) or downright wrong.

The bottom line is we do not know that the data QR is SC and therefore design because . . .

For one your stretching an old concept to mean more than it is capable. It is not known what the possible range of constants in other possible would be. The variations may be small, and of course the "Dice may be loaded."

The Copenhagen Interpretation and Why It Is Wrong

Why Current Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are Deficient​

• Tammaro, Elliott

Abstract​

Quantum mechanics under the Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most experimentally well verified formalisms. However, it is known that the interpretation makes explicit reference to external observation or "measurement." One says that the Copenhagen interpretation suffers from the measurement problem. This deficiency of the interpretation excludes it as a viable fundamental formalism and prevents the use of standard quantum mechanics in discussions of quantum cosmology. Numerous alternative interpretations have been developed with the goals of reproducing its predictive success while obviating the measurement problem. While several interpretations make distinct, falsifiable, predictions, many claim to precisely reproduce the results of standard quantum mechanics. The sheer number of interpretations raises several issues. If the experimental predictions are identical, how are they to be assessed? On what grounds can an interpretation be said to trump another? Without recourse to experimental findings, one may continue to assess an interpretation on its logical structure, self-consistency, and simplicity (number and plausibility of its assumptions). We argue, and where possible, demonstrate, that all common interpretations have unresolved deficiencies. Among these deficiencies are failures to resolve the measurement problem, fine-tuning problems, logical/mathematical inconsistencies, disagreement with experiment, and others. Shortcomings as severe as these call into question the viability of any of the common interpretations. When appropriate, we indicate where future work may resolve some of these issues.

 

[shunyadragon]

Don’t see your point…………..the test is not limited to human design

Don’t see your point…………..the test is not limited to human design

There is no objective evidence for any design beyond human design.

All the present evidence clearly demonstrate our physical existence is the result of Natural Laws and processes..

It is possible our physical existence is Created Naturally by God, and God did not leave fingerprints.

God is a Creator not an engineer who designs things.

 

[Eli G]

"Natural Laws and processes" are a result of a design. That's why information is trasmitted from ancestors to descendants since the beginning.

Who do you think was the first one on having the information that comes from the very beginning?

For example: if you compare a many millions years fly in amber and a modern fly, you'll see the same characteristics. That means modern fly received genetically the same information from its ancestor of millions of years ago.

From where did that antiche fly received this information in the first place? It was created like that: designed, and ready to trasmit the same information for its descendants to receive it and transmit it on their part.

 

[Pogo]

"Natural Laws and processes" are a result of a design. That's why information is trasmitted from ancestors to descendants since the beginning.

Who do you think was the first one on having the information that comes from the very beginning?

For example: if you compare a many millions years fly in amber and a modern fly, you'll see the same characteristics. That means modern fly received genetically the same information from its ancestor of millions of years ago.

From where did that antiche fly received this information in the first place? It was created like that: designed, and ready to trasmit the same information for its descendants to receive it and transmit it on their part.

Evolution which transfers the information from the environment to the organisms design.

This uses the words information and design in just as useless a form as your statement, it does however have the advantage of being demonstrable. Polar bears are white because their environment is white and it works as camouflage. ;(

 

[Valjean]

"Natural Laws and processes" are a result of a design. That's why information is trasmitted from ancestors to descendants since the beginning.

Who do you think was the first one on having the information that comes from the very beginning?

For example: if you compare a many millions years fly in amber and a modern fly, you'll see the same characteristics. That means modern fly received genetically the same information from its ancestor of millions of years ago.

The modern fly inherited its genetics just as you inherited yours. The modern model is little changed because the original was a good "design," and the environment it fits has not significantly changed.

From where did that antiche fly received this information in the first place? It was created like that: designed, and ready to trasmit the same information for its descendants to receive it and transmit it on their part.

It is a product of natural selection. Beneficial changes proliferate in the population. Individuals with non-beneficial traits tend to be out-competed, and their traits gradually eliminated.
This process continues, for millions of years, gradually transforming simple microbes into myriad forms, of varying complexity.

 

[Valjean]

"Natural Laws and processes" are a result of a design. That's why information is trasmitted from ancestors to descendants since the beginning.

Who do you think was the first one on having the information that comes from the very beginning?

For example: if you compare a many millions years fly in amber and a modern fly, you'll see the same characteristics. That means modern fly received genetically the same information from its ancestor of millions of years ago.

The modern fly inherited its genetics just as you inherited yours. The modern model is little changed because the original was a good "design," and the environment it fits has not significantly changed.

From where did that antiche fly received this information in the first place? It was created like that: designed, and ready to trasmit the same information for its descendants to receive it and transmit it on their part.

It is a product of natural selection. Beneficial changes proliferate in the population. Individuals with non-beneficial traits tend to be out-competed, and their traits gradually eliminated.
This process continues, for millions of years, gradually transforming simple microbes into myriad forms, of varying complexity.

 

[Valjean]

"Natural Laws and processes" are a result of a design. That's why information is trasmitted from ancestors to descendants since the beginning.

Who do you think was the first one on having the information that comes from the very beginning?

For example: if you compare a many millions years fly in amber and a modern fly, you'll see the same characteristics. That means modern fly received genetically the same information from its ancestor of millions of years ago.

The modern fly inherited its genetics just as you inherited yours. The modern model is little changed because the original was a good "design," and the environment it fits has not significantly changed.

From where did that antiche fly received this information in the first place? It was created like that: designed, and ready to trasmit the same information for its descendants to receive it and transmit it on their part.

It is a product of natural selection. Beneficial changes proliferate in the population. Individuals with non-beneficial traits tend to be out-competed, and their traits gradually eliminated.
This process continues, for millions of years, gradually transforming simple microbes into myriad forms, of varying complexity.

 

[Valjean]

"Natural Laws and processes" are a result of a design. That's why information is trasmitted from ancestors to descendants since the beginning.

Who do you think was the first one on having the information that comes from the very beginning?

For example: if you compare a many millions years fly in amber and a modern fly, you'll see the same characteristics. That means modern fly received genetically the same information from its ancestor of millions of years ago.

The modern fly inherited its genetics just as you inherited yours. The modern model is little changed because the original was a good "design," and the environment it fits has not significantly changed.

From where did that antiche fly received this information in the first place? It was created like that: designed, and ready to trasmit the same information for its descendants to receive it and transmit it on their part.

It is a product of natural selection. Beneficial changes proliferate in the population. Individuals with non-beneficial traits tend to be out-competed, and their traits gradually eliminated.
This process continues, for millions of years, gradually transforming simple microbes into myriad forms, of varying complexity.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. There is a not so subtle distinction between your use of intelligence, design, and non-telligent design and such things as natural structures.

I reserve design, and the concept of Intelligent Design as reflecting a designer. Human manipulation of nature and intelligently design objects are the classic example of what's design beyond nature

Your use of non-intelligent design reflect an odd oxymoron that is difficult to interpret intent. Things like the bird nest are constructs of nature, and are made by birds. and are not related to the subject to design as addressed in this thread. The question of intelligent manipulation of nature as humans do in creating intelligently designed objects based on Natural Laws like cars, but distinguishable from what are natural structures and things in nature such as bird's nests. Birds make the same nests year after year without change unless environmental pressures cause the birds to change the nests to adapt to a changing environment.

In the nature of humanity the beginning of advance intelligence for manipulation of nature can be found in our ancient past for over 300.000 years with the making of stone, would and animal parts to make tools. Some of our prehuman ancestors also did make primitive tools and manipulated nature for human benefit,

This in part reflects the question of "How do we detect design? "

Also What does "design" refer to?

​

If you think that birds intuitively and instinctively developed unique nests according to type of bird, that's what you believe.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Pogo -- I believe God is greater than anyone else. He does what He wants when He wants. It is obvious that men (including scientists) are ruining the atmosphere and life, including the plastics that we get into our system. Before the earth is entirely ruined the Bible says God will ruin those ruining the earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. There is a not so subtle distinction between your use of intelligence, design, and non-telligent design and such things as natural structures.

I reserve design, and the concept of Intelligent Design as reflecting a designer. Human manipulation of nature and intelligently design objects are the classic example of what's design beyond nature

Your use of non-intelligent design reflect an odd oxymoron that is difficult to interpret intent. Things like the bird nest are constructs of nature, and are made by birds. and are not related to the subject to design as addressed in this thread. The question of intelligent manipulation of nature as humans do in creating intelligently designed objects based on Natural Laws like cars, but distinguishable from what are natural structures and things in nature such as bird's nests. Birds make the same nests year after year without change unless environmental pressures cause the birds to change the nests to adapt to a changing environment.

In the nature of humanity the beginning of advance intelligence for manipulation of nature can be found in our ancient past for over 300.000 years with the making of stone, would and animal parts to make tools. Some of our prehuman ancestors also did make primitive tools and manipulated nature for human benefit,

This in part reflects the question of "How do we detect design? "

Also What does "design" refer to?

​

I am not saying what you seem to say I am saying. Enjoy whatever time is left for "humanity" on this earth, and your thoughts or beliefs about where you might go when you die...have a good evening.

 

[Pogo]

@Pogo -- I believe God is greater than anyone else. He does what He wants when He wants. It is obvious that men (including scientists) are ruining the atmosphere and life, including the plastics that we get into our system. Before the earth is entirely ruined the Bible says God will ruin those ruining the earth.

And my question is, does that mean that your god will ruin you when we all have collectively succeeded in ruining the world? Do you believe that we as humans have anything to say with our actions about our ruining or is it all just sit back and wait for it to happen?

 

[Brian2]

There is evidence that life got to its present state on its own.

If you assume life is chemical based then you might believe that, but when we hear what scientists such as James Tour say, then science is further from a chemical answer than it presumed it was many years ago.

No, that is inaccurate. The claims of IDiots such as Behe should be testable. You are implying something else now. You are implying that gods are very sneaky and try to hide their existence. How much sense does that make?

Do you think that if God/s are there then science should be able to find them and examine them, even if they are not a part of the physical universe?

 

[Brian2]

There is evidence that life got to its present state on its own.

If you assume life is chemical based then you might believe that, but when we hear what scientists such as James Tour say, then science is further from a chemical answer than it presumed it was many years ago.

No, that is inaccurate. The claims of IDiots such as Behe should be testable. You are implying something else now. You are implying that gods are very sneaky and try to hide their existence. How much sense does that make?

Do you think that if God/s are there then science should be able to find them and examine them, even if they are not a part of the physical universe?

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not saying what you seem to say I am saying. Enjoy whatever time is left for "humanity" on this earth, and your thoughts or beliefs about where you might go when you die...have a good evening.

"I am saying: is interesting, but not the topic of the thread.

 

[Pogo]

If you assume life is chemical based then you might believe that, but when we hear what scientists such as James Tour say, then science is further from a chemical answer than it presumed it was many years ago.

And when you talk to any chemists who actually work in the field they tell you that Tour doesn't know what he is talking about

Do you think that if God/s are there then science should be able to find them and examine them, even if they are not a part of the physical universe?

If gods exist and have a measurable effect on the universe then science should be able to determine this, thus far however no measurable effect of any god has been seen so science ignores them as whether they exist or not makes no difference.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you assume life is chemical based then you might believe that, but when we hear what scientists such as James Tour say, then science is further from a chemical answer than it presumed it was many years ago.

One scientist out of thousands does not reflect the view of science,

Do you think that if God/s are there then science should be able to find them and examine them, even if they are not a part of the physical universe?

No, because science cannot falsify hypotheses that do not have physical objective verifiable evidence.

If God exists science can only reveal the nature of God's Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Natural Laws and processes" are a result of a design. That's why information is trasmitted from ancestors to descendants since the beginning.

If you believe this you would have not problem with the obvious objective verifiable science of "Natural Laws and processes" evidence science uses to falsify the sciences of evolution and ll other basic sciences,

Who do you think was the first one on having the information that comes from the very beginning?

No one was alive in the very beginning.

For example: if you compare a many millions years fly in amber and a modern fly, you'll see the same characteristics. That means modern fly received genetically the same information from its ancestor of millions of years ago.

Not the same.

From where did that antiche fly received this information in the first place? It was created like that: designed, and ready to trasmit the same information for its descendants to receive it and transmit it on their part.

Created by "Natural Laws and processes" that are available to science to reveal the history of life, the earth and the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you assume life is chemical based then you might believe that, but when we hear what scientists such as James Tour say, then science is further from a chemical answer than it presumed it was many years ago.

James Tour, LMAO, 'nuff said.

Do you think that if God/s are there then science should be able to find them and examine them, even if they are not a part of the physical universe?

That a rather odd question. But let's try. If that God wants to be found then definitely yes. If it does not want to be found, in other words if it were the mythical Hide and Seek champion of of the universe then maybe not.

 

[Audie]

If you assume life is chemical based then you might believe that, but when we hear what scientists such as James Tour say, then science is further from a chemical answer than it presumed it was many years ago.



Do you think that if God/s are there then science should be able to find them and examine them, even if they are not a part of the physical universe?

I'm curious if you are familiar with the
concepts of intellectualual / scientific
integrity ( honesty) ?

A bit of time with Google for a refresher might
be in order

There is a PhD paleontologist who notable said
"...even if all the universe turns against yec, I will,still
be yec, because that's what the bible seems to indicate"

Do yiu recognize the integrity issue there ?

Suppose ALL the detectives' evidence pointed to the, say, killer of your child but one juror said that none of the facts
matter because what he thinks the bible seems to say
negates all the data.

That's what Dr. K Wise, cited above, is doing.
Because he is a born- again. All the facts in the universe
make no difference.
Same with the hypothetical juror.

This Jsaes Tour is good at nano tech.
He is a born again.

It is impossible to be a born again and accept deep
Time / evolution as real. Impossible to have scientific
integrity. Cannot be done. J Tour has no choice.

So he forces himself into intellectual dishonesty and
worse seeks tospread it.

A good q to ask is why the one guy going off the
reservation to make claims he is not qualified to make
Is the Light, the beacon, the one scientist who is right,
and all the others are wrong.

Is this a reasonable position for you ( or that juror)
to take?