The watch analogy

[Willamena]

I want your views on the analogy of the watch and the universe. That a watch is intricate and must have a creator and the universe is more intricate and unique therefore it must have a creator and the creator must be God. I need your views soon. Thnx for reading. Please reply.:shout:help:

Angelous pretty much said it. The analogy relies on the idea that we can distinguish a watch from the world for its complexity of pattern, and imagine its watchmaker. It's like hearing a tree fall in the forest and speculating on the meaning of whether we can hear a tree fall in the forest, rather than realizing that ... we're hearing a tree fall in the forest.

 

[Copernicus]

The watch analogy is one of the most thoughtless arguments for God. Essentially it calls us to look around and without reflection marvel at the beauty of nature.

The thing is we know that there is a watch and we know that there are watchmakers.

Conversely, we know that there is a watch that we found, but we don't know that there's a God, only that there is a watchmaker.

I do not think that the watchmaker argument is all that bad. We really should give a plug here to Richard Dawkins' classic work The Blind Watchmaker, which is probably the best thing that has been written on the metaphor. Before Darwin, the idea of common descent was popular. People could see the obvious relationship between humans and other primates, but they could not explain how it was that this common design came about. Because people design and build orderly complex things, it was very natural to think of everything in nature that appeared orderly and complex as designed by a similar process. The problem with the argument for a watchmaker is that it doesn't solve the problem of where the watchmaker came from. You end up with a "turtles all the way down" explanation. Ultimately, you just have to accept the existence of all that ordered complexity sui generis.

What Dawkins did such a good job of explaining was how design by natural selection could be shown to explain complex ordered designs without then need for a watchmaker. There are ways for "watches" to emerge as natural phenomena, given enough time and chaotic deterministic replication processes. That is why so many people of faith shun evolution theory. It undermines a very powerful argument for the existence of an intelligent creator.

 

[Surya Deva]

There is a similar argument in Hinduism put forward by ancient Hindu logicians in India. It is a more sophisticated version of the watch argument. The argument put forward is that any act of creation requires three things: a material cause, an instrumental cause and finally an efficient cause. In the case of a pot the material cause is the clay, the instrumental cause is the potters wheel and finally the efficient cause is the potter itself.

Similarly, the universe is made out of a stuff. But this stuff cannot just fashion itself into various forms. it requires an efficient cause to guide the stuff into forming those forms. In addition it requires actual laws of nature via which the efficient cause fashions it into various forms.

Now this argument was challenged by non-creationaists in ancient India. They argued that matter has a potency within itself via which it can start to form itself through random aggregation and selection. The refutation of this argument is brilliant. First of all to posit that matter has a potency within itself that can form itself is in need of proof itself. Nobody has ever seen clay form itself into a pot, so such a potency has no evidence to back it up. All visible matter is at rest until movement is provided, it does not move itself and start building itself into things.
Secondly, even if we were to grant such a potency existed, then matter should either aggregate indefinitely and form a chaotic mess or aggregatea and disaggregate or not aggregate at all. The fact that this does not happen and matter actually aggregates in order to form complex systems like bodies and brains etc clearly suggests matter is guided by an intelligence.

Another argument similar to the above argument is that all atoms in the universe are joined together in a perfect order to ensure stability, if even a single atom at the subatomic level was out of kelter, nothing would exist. Such a perfect order cannot be the result of chance aggregation, for then a single error at any point along the way would mean the universe would collapse. It can only be the result of a pure intelligence that maintains the universe from the microcosm to the macrocosm.

It would be interesting to see how those who disagree with these arguments respond to them

 

[truseeker]

sorry, but I don't think a watch will ever make itself in nature. Even if you have a whole room full of watch parts they will never come together in just the right way to make a watch. it requires a watchmaker

 

[Morse]

sorry, but I don't think a watch will ever make itself in nature. Even if you have a whole room full of watch parts they will never come together in just the right way to make a watch. it requires a watchmaker

Have you no eyes?

 

[LuisDantas]

sorry, but I don't think a watch will ever make itself in nature. Even if you have a whole room full of watch parts they will never come together in just the right way to make a watch. it requires a watchmaker

True. If it is watches that we are talking about.

The parallel with the development of living beings is way too inexact to hold its own, however. Watches are way too different from organic beings.

 

[painted wolf]

Watch parts also are not ruled by chemistry and it's resultant chemical reactions.

wa:do

 

[LuisDantas]

Nor do they have the ability of reproducing by their own means. Quite significantly, neither do they create spontaneous variation and imperfect reproduction while at it.

Chemical reactions are, generally speaking, quite biased towards building more stable configurations out of existing, less stable ones.

The idea that they eventually created some form of proto-cell is certainly impressive, but having a whole planet as a potential laboratory, I personally don't find it too surprising that at some point during countless millenia they came to be spontaneously. And of course, once you have some cell-like molecule that has the capability to make crude copies of itself, the hard part is already done with. After that, the copies will keep occurring and variety will increase due to the imperfection of the copying mechanisms. Natural Selection occurs then, weeding out the more resilient patterns and letting go of the more deficient ones.

Nothing too difficult to understand or too unlikely to happen, really.

 

[Surya Deva]

The distinction between a watch and living matter is again arbitrary. The watch is made out of matter and so is so-called living matter. First the parts of the watch must come into being and this happens through atomic reactions. In order of aggregation the first atoms that form are hydrogen atoms, then helium atoms and so on and so forth until the elements needed to form the watch are formed.

If we look at this even more closely. First those atoms must come together to form living matter, then they must come together to human bodies. Then those human bodies put together watches out of living matter. However, the watch is operating with the same precision that the human body is operating with, everything is working together in tandem, just as the parts in the watch are working in tandem. The very fact that it is impossible for the parts of a watch to ever come together and form a watch without an intelligence guiding it, shows that in nature matter does not just come together to form complex units where everything works in tandem unless there is an intelligence guiding it.

The problem with the argument of natural selection is that if an error is made it means the end of that aggregate. For example species of bumble bees that fart our tiny explosions cannot evolve by natural selection, because any accident would lead to the bumble bee exploding. The process requires a fine-tuning of chemicals so that survival is ensured. Similarly, the human being which has a stomach containing highly acidic HCL requires a stomach lining that is strong enough to withstand the reaction in the stomach, or else it would burn a hole through the stomach. Again this could not have evolved by natural selection, but through fine-tuning of chemicals so that survival is ensured.

We can take this right down to the level of the microcosm at the level of quarks and spin ratios. If the spin ration is off by a miniscule amount, matter could not be stable. Then one has to consider the combinations of atoms all over the world and how they interact with one another, if even one part is not working, the entire system collapses. It is known today in physics that everything in the universe is interconnected(inseparable) that whatever exists only exists as a mutually dependent relationship, but not as separate object. Therefore everything exists as a very complex relationship in relation to everything else, and to maintain this order requires something that can process infinite variables at once. This is only possible if we accept the existence of a cosmic intelligence which keeps everything in ratio.

 

[LuisDantas]

The distinction between a watch and living matter is again arbitrary.

Not nearly as much so as you paint it, sorry.

The watch is made out of matter and so is so-called living matter. First the parts of the watch must come into being and this happens through atomic reactions. In order of aggregation the first atoms that form are hydrogen atoms, then helium atoms and so on and so forth until the elements needed to form the watch are formed.

That is true in a sense, but of course you realize that by the time the continents were formed matter was very much a concrete reality and already settled in the chemical elements and even complex molecules.

If we look at this even more closely. First those atoms must come together to form living matter, then they must come together to human bodies. Then those human bodies put together watches out of living matter. However, the watch is operating with the same precision that the human body is operating with, everything is working together in tandem, just as the parts in the watch are working in tandem.

Again, I find the comparison between human bodies and watches way too simplistic to be useful. Those are two very different categories of beings.

The very fact that it is impossible for the parts of a watch to ever come together and form a watch without an intelligence guiding it, shows that in nature matter does not just come together to form complex units where everything works in tandem unless there is an intelligence guiding it.

No, it doesn't. It serves as an illustration of the statement that you offer, but it certainly doesn't prove or even much evidences that it is actually true. You are implying a parallel that just doesn't apply.

Or in other words, you can't use a specific statement (watches don't build themselves) to prove a far more general statement (nothing builds itself or reproduces by itself).

 

[LuisDantas]

The problem with the argument of natural selection is that if an error is made it means the end of that aggregate. For example species of bumble bees that fart our tiny explosions cannot evolve by natural selection, because any accident would lead to the bumble bee exploding. The process requires a fine-tuning of chemicals so that survival is ensured.

In reality, most "errors" (actually variations - there is after all no pre-established desired result) are far less dramatic, and that is in fact how and why natural selection does exist and work.

Similarly, the human being which has a stomach containing highly acidic HCL requires a stomach lining that is strong enough to withstand the reaction in the stomach, or else it would burn a hole through the stomach. Again this could not have evolved by natural selection, but through fine-tuning of chemicals so that survival is ensured.

Read some Dawkins sometime. You will see that things are not nearly as exact as you seem to believe them to be. Natural Selections goes way further than you give it credit for.

 

[Surya Deva]

Again, I find the comparison between human bodies and watches way too simplistic to be useful. Those are two very different categories of beings.

And how do you prove that they are different categories of beings. Are these ontological categories or categories created by human language?

 

[LuisDantas]

And how do you prove that they are different categories of beings. Are these ontological categories or categories created by human language?

I'm not sure about the terminology, to be sincere. But it is certainly not language that makes watches entities of a mechanical nature and incapable of even attempting to reproduce themselves, while living beings are of a far more chemical nature and do indeed reproduce themselves.

 

[Copernicus]

There is a similar argument in Hinduism put forward by ancient Hindu logicians in India. It is a more sophisticated version of the watch argument. The argument put forward is that any act of creation requires three things: a material cause, an instrumental cause and finally an efficient cause. In the case of a pot the material cause is the clay, the instrumental cause is the potters wheel and finally the efficient cause is the potter itself.

Thanks for this comment, Surya. I have great respect for ancient Hindu scholars, having studied Sanskrit and Panini's linguistic theories during my college years. I would prefer to call your "efficient cause" the "agent" (Panini's Kartaa). The "instrumental cause" corresponds to his Karana. The "clay" can play an instrumental role in a sentence, as in "The potter (agent) fashioned the pot with clay" as opposed to "The potter made the pot with a potter's wheel". The interesting thing that Panini discovered in such sentences is that "potter's wheel" and "clay" could not be expressed as instrument in the same sentence, so one of the two gets demoted to adhikarana (source), as in "The potter made the pot out of clay with the potter's wheel"--not **"The potter made the pot with clay with the potter's wheel." A very subtle linguistic observation. I actually wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on this subject.

Similarly, the universe is made out of a stuff. But this stuff cannot just fashion itself into various forms. it requires an efficient cause to guide the stuff into forming those forms. In addition it requires actual laws of nature via which the efficient cause fashions it into various forms.

So, right here is the "turtles all the way down" problem. The universe is full of "created" agents (or "efficient causes")--that is, human beings, animals, etc. So we actually have no examples of uncreated agents to work with. The unwarranted leap here is the assumption of a creator that is itself uncreated. The argument does not address this asymmetrical view of agents--that there exists an uncreated one.

Now this argument was challenged by non-creationaists in ancient India. They argued that matter has a potency within itself via which it can start to form itself through random aggregation and selection...

That's very interesting. There were precursors to Darwin's "natural selection" in the Western tradition, as well. So it is not surprising that the Indian tradition would have developed that thread, too. Most European schools of philosophy had parallels in Indian history, although the Hindus had far more advanced linguistic theories than their European contemporaries.

The refutation of this argument is brilliant. First of all to posit that matter has a potency within itself that can form itself is in need of proof itself...

This is where chaos theory comes in. Ordered self-replicating processes seem to emerge naturally out of chaos. An agent (or "efficient cause") would just be a very complex emergent phenomenon that arises through chaotic interactions. As with a theistic explanation, there is something that always existed, it just wasn't God. It was what you have been calling the "material cause". Instrumental and "efficient" causes would always be derivatives of material causes. There are lots of caused things in nature that were not created by any apparent "efficient cause".

Nobody has ever seen clay form itself into a pot, so such a potency has no evidence to back it up. All visible matter is at rest until movement is provided, it does not move itself and start building itself into things.

This is where you are wrong. Clays actually do form self-replicating processes, just not pots. Pots are formed by an interaction between "created" humans and clay. Where did the humans come from? Other material causes. Agentive causes are always derivative of simpler material interactions.

Secondly, even if we were to grant such a potency existed, then matter should either aggregate indefinitely and form a chaotic mess or aggregatea and disaggregate or not aggregate at all. The fact that this does not happen and matter actually aggregates in order to form complex systems like bodies and brains etc clearly suggests matter is guided by an intelligence.

This second point strikes me as pure argument from ignorance. We cannot observe all events in the distant past or the distant future, so how can we make ultimate claims about aggregation and disaggregation? Also, every single "efficient cause" that we observe in nature--bodies and brains included--is a created thing. So why presume that everything had to start with an uncreated "efficient cause"?

Another argument similar to the above argument is that all atoms in the universe are joined together in a perfect order to ensure stability...

How could you possibly know this? And what do you mean by "stability"? Are you saying that there is no stability in emergent phenomena that arise out of chaotic deterministic systems? We can model and observe that stability in chaotic interactions. Are you familiar with the game of life?

...if even a single atom at the subatomic level was out of kelter, nothing would exist. Such a perfect order cannot be the result of chance aggregation, for then a single error at any point along the way would mean the universe would collapse. It can only be the result of a pure intelligence that maintains the universe from the microcosm to the macrocosm.

This argument is an old one, but it does not take into account our more modern understanding of systemic emergence from chaotic conditions.

 

[Surya Deva]

Or in other words, you can't use a specific statement (watches don't build themselves) to prove a far more general statement (nothing builds itself or reproduces by itself).

In which case give me an example of anything which builds by itself. Does a computer build itself? Does a human being build itself? Does a building build itself? As far as my observation is showing me something does not come out of nothing. Everything that exists gradually evolves into being through aggregation which obey very specific laws of nature. Nothing happens randomly, everything has a cause.

In reality, most "errors" (actually variations - there is after all no pre-established desired result) are far less dramatic, and that is in fact how and why natural selection does exist and work.

This is a circular argument. You have not proven that the mechanism of natural selection is how things evolve, but merely suggested the idea that this is how it happens. To say something IS the case is a positivist statement which is open to falsification. As evolution is an invisible process at best we can only offer suggestions as to how it takes place, but we cannot say categorically that our suggestion "IS" how it is.

My suggestion is that evolution is guided by an intelligence. That is because nothing actually really evolves in isolation, because there is no such thing as separability as has been discovered in physics. All things exist as a mutual set of relationships in relation to each other(This in Buddhism is known as the theory of dependent arising by the way, I pointed this out because you say your religion is Buddhist) In order to coordinate so many things at once requires something to maintain the ratio and this suggests that there is a teleaology in nature which is predisposed to evolving towards complexity and developing living-matter. It is no coincidence that organisms that evolve in their environments evolve exactly those organs that are required to survive in that environment. If they evolve in dark environments, as there is no need for eyes, they do not evolve eyes, but instead evolve other features that compensate for a lack of eyes. Such as blind people begin to develop highly sensitive hearing.

The preponderence of evidence does not support the theory of natural selection, but suggests that nature is purpose-driven towards evolving living matter and ultimately human organisms and that features evolve as per the needs of organisms and not by random chance convergences. There is nothing that is random in nature, it is all coordinated by laws of nature. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

 

[LuisDantas]

You have not proven that the mechanism of natural selection is how things evolve, but merely suggested the idea that this is how it happens.

Indeed, I did not. But Darwin did, way back in the 19th century.

As evolution is an invisible process at best we can only offer suggestions as to how it takes place, but we cannot say categorically that our suggestion "IS" how it is.

Evolution is by no means invisible. It is relatively difficult to witness, mostly because it takes time to occur. But still, it may be and has routinely been watched occurring in lifeforms that have very short lifespans.

All things exist as a mutual set of relationships in relation to each other(This in Buddhism is known as the theory of dependent arising by the way, I pointed this out because you say your religion is Buddhist) In order to coordinate so many things at once requires something to maintain the ratio and this suggests that there is a teleaology in nature which is predisposed to evolving towards complexity and developing living-matter

Not really. Chaos, so to speak, "coordinates" itself by way of failing to support less stable patterns. Interdependent origination, btw, does not imply a creator either. It is only a statement of observable fact. That fact does not include any significant evidence of predisposition towards complexity (on the contrary, even: complexity begets fragility, as expressed in the Tao Te Ching among other places). Nor is there any evidence of a predisposition towards living matter either. Living matter is quite simply the kind of matter that tends to maintain itself by virtue of reproducing, feeding and attempting to heal itself. It does exist. That in and of itself is certainly no evidence that it was "meant to be", only that its existence was not an absolute impossibility.

 

[Surya Deva]

I'm not sure about the terminology, to be sincere. But it is certainly not language that makes watches entities of a mechanical nature and incapable of even attempting to reproduce themselves, while living beings are of a far more chemical nature and do indeed reproduce themselves.

An ontological category is an actual real category that exists in nature(highly debatable as to whether nature really has categories) A category of human language does not really exist, but it is created by the human for practical purposes. There is no such thing as a wooden chair or a wooden table in nature for example, they are just forms of wood. Thus wood is the actual substance. Likewise, there is no such thing as wood and metal, these are just forms of the same substance of atoms consisting of protons, electrons and neutrons. Similarly, the distinction between living matter and non-living matter is not real, living matter like human bodies and non living matter is the same substance of atoms, consisting of protons electrons and neutrons.

If we reduce further all that exists is just a superposition or a wavefunction in the quantum field. Nothing really exists separately. What we believe to be separate objects, are in fact just sets of relationships. It is only when this superposition state collapses(which in various QM experiments has been shown to be due to consciousness that itself is outside of matter) that we see an objective existence. In Vedanta philosophy this error is only perceptual, and not real. The way our mind and senses organize the sense impressions they receive gives the illusion of a solid and objective reality, when in fact it is not solid and nor is it objective.

Indeed, I did not. But Darwin did, way back in the 19th century.

Darwin did not prove natural selection. Natural selection was his theory. We have moved on in our understanding about evolution since Darwin. What Darwin did was make observations between species of how different features appear to have evolved over time and he noted the physiological similarity between humans and apes, thus declaring that the empirical evidence shows that humans have evolved from apes. However, he could not observe the mechanism by which this evolution took place, so he gave his theory of natural selection. His theory is not proven. The fact of evolution is proven.

There are many competing theories for how evolution happens. Darwin's theory of natural selection is just one of them. The same is true in every field of science. There are no absolute truths in science, just competing theories of empirical facts. To give you another example there is Newton's theory of gravity and then the fact of gravity. Nobody can see gravity because it is invisible, so we have no idea what it really is. However, we have theories of what it is. Newton's theory was it was a force. This theory was disproven by Einstein who said it was a distortion in space-time(gravity wells) This theory is now challenged by string theory which talks of quantum gravity and how gravity is actually an effect coming from another dimension of reality where it is stronger.

Evolution is by no means invisible. It is relatively difficult to witness, mostly because it takes time to occur. But still, it may be and has routinely been watched occurring in lifeforms that have very short lifespans.

Evolution is definitely a fact. What is not a fact is the mechanism by which it takes place. Darwin's theory is one theory of how it takes place and is one theory amongst many. I personally subscribe to the Hindu theories of evolution as given in Samkhya philosophy which is that evolution is guided by an intelligence and is dependent on the interaction between the organism and the environment. I think the preponderance of evidence very clearly supports this theory and contradicts Darwin's theory.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, but to attempt to counter Neodarwinism (the fact-based current version of Evolution, which does indeed correct various mistakes on Darwin's original Theory) with a highly speculative use of Samkhya is simply not going to work.

 

[Surya Deva]

You have to be very careful when you talk about theories as facts. In modern philosophy of science(my specialism) this is not taken to be valid. This is because theories are always getting disproven. We no longer believe in the same scientific theories that were given during the times of Newton and Darwin. And nor do we accept our current theories as facts either. This is known as falsificationism in science. All scientific theories must meet the standards that they must be open to falsification. No scientific theory is ever proven by any number of succesfull trials, but rather all those trials show is that the scientific theory has not yet been falsified.

So as far as theories goes as to what is the real cause behind evolution is an open game. Science does not have anymore special knowledge on this matter than religion. In fact Hindus believe in evolution because our religion teaches evolution, but the mechanism by which it happens is completely different. I am a staunch rationalist and for me the Hindu theory of evolution has more explanatory power than Darwin's theory. Darwin theory fails to explain many facts about evolution. How does a catapillar become a butterfly(instant species change) How does a seed germinate into a tree. Why do organisms develop features that are exactly what they need to survive in an environment? How does random chance convergence explain irreducibly complex systems? How does matter begin in the first place? Samkhya theory explains each and everyone of these facts and hence why it has more explanatory power.

 

[Surya Deva]

I would prefer to call your "efficient cause" the "agent" (Panini's Kartaa). The "instrumental cause" corresponds to his Karana. The "clay" can play an instrumental role in a sentence, as in "The potter (agent) fashioned the pot with clay" as opposed to "The potter made the pot with a potter's wheel". The interesting thing that Panini discovered in such sentences is that "potter's wheel" and "clay" could not be expressed as instrument in the same sentence, so one of the two gets demoted to adhikarana (source), as in "The potter made the pot out of clay with the potter's wheel"--not **"The potter made the pot with clay with the potter's wheel." A very subtle linguistic observation. I actually wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on this subject.

Fantastic. I also have great respect for Panini and his Sanskrit grammar. His work is truly superlative, but as I am not a linguist, I cannot really appreciate the depth of it. Yes, the Nyaya argument that three entities are required for creation: material cause(source), efficient cause(creator/agent) and instrumental cause is inspired by Panini's grammar.

So, right here is the "turtles all the way down" problem. The universe is full of "created" agents (or "efficient causes")--that is, human beings, animals, etc. So we actually have no examples of uncreated agents to work with. The unwarranted leap here is the assumption of a creator that is itself uncreated. The argument does not address this asymmetrical view of agents--that there exists an uncreated one.

There is a very brilliant refutation of this argument in Samkhya philosophy and that is that there is no created agent. If we observe the created world carefully we will find that the things that are existent are all of a material nature. They have a distinct property of arising and falling. The seasons in nature, trees, plants, animals and human are all matter that comes into being, exists for a while, and then decomposes back to matter. This also includes mental things like the arising and falling of thoughts, emotions, perceptions. However, there is one thing that does not rise and fall and that is the observer itself. The observer remains constant between all events. I am the common witness that observes the changing seasons, the changing events in society, my body changing, my personality changing, mental states changing. Thus the observer itself is not reducible to matter. It does not have the property of change. Rather, it is has the property of substance, continuity.

If we reduce matter to its ultimate state then matter is completely potential and in a superpositioned state. There is no cause within matter to collapse that potential state because that cause itself would be superpositioned. This uniform and unmanifest state that demands an initial movement to collapse it, and this can only be provided by an efficient cause which itself is outside of matter.

That's very interesting. There were precursors to Darwin's "natural selection" in the Western tradition, as well. So it is not surprising that the Indian tradition would have developed that thread, too. Most European schools of philosophy had parallels in Indian history, although the Hindus had far more advanced linguistic theories than their European contemporaries.

Yes, Hindu had advanced theories in all areas of sciences. Please check out my post in the thread in the Hinduism forum, "Does Hinduism have scientific proof" where I discuss some of those theories in a wide field of sciences(grammar, psychology, medicine, physics, metaphysics)

This is where chaos theory comes in. Ordered self-replicating processes seem to emerge naturally out of chaos. An agent (or "efficient cause") would just be a very complex emergent phenomenon that arises through chaotic interactions. As with a theistic explanation, there is something that always existed, it just wasn't God. It was what you have been calling the "material cause". Instrumental and "efficient" causes would always be derivatives of material causes. There are lots of caused things in nature that were not created by any apparent "efficient cause".

Chaos theory is very problematic, especially to Hindus. In Hinduism the notion that anything could arise/emerge from nothing is the most illogical and absurd thing imaginable. One of the doctrine of Hinduism is the law of karma, cause and effect. If there is an effect, there is absolutely a cause. This is to be observed clearly in nature that nothing issues randomly from anything. Everything has a cause. The arrow does not lead the bow without the bowman providing the momentum energy. The barren woman does not conceive.

But still it appears that new properties are emerging in nature all the time. This is the position that Nyaya-Vaiseshika(realists) took. That the effect is different from the cause. If two particles interact the compound that forms has different properties to the parent particles. However, is that really true, or only appears to be true? In actuality what appear to be different properties are just the same atoms consisting of different permutations of protons, electrons and neutrons. All of matter is just these really. Now Samkhya takes this reduction even further and shows that everything really is vibrations of the gunas within quantum matter. It is observed that if you take the chain of cause and effect in the world of all produced things you eventually come to an ultimate cause. This ultimate cause is purely potential and not yet manifest.

The tree comes out of the seed. The seed does not contain a tree, but the tree is potential within the seed. Then when the tree begins to manifest it starts out as in a very subtle form(to the observer the tree is invisible) and then it starts to sprout getting even more massive. Note the sequence of manifestation: potential, subtle then massive. Similarly, all matter begins as potential, then it is subtle, and then it is massive. Matter never begins as massive.

Always it is the case that the potential state where all potential things are superpositioned requires an external efficient cause to collapse it. The seed will not grow until it is watered and it has suitable soil and climate. These are external efficient causes. The seed cannot just start growing by itself. Similarly, matter cannot just begin evolving by itself. It requires an efficient cause to start the process.

This is where you are wrong. Clays actually do form self-replicating processes, just not pots. Pots are formed by an interaction between "created" humans and clay. Where did the humans come from? Other material causes. Agentive causes are always derivative of simpler material interactions.

Imagine I put a lump of clay in front of you. See if it does anything. Day 1. Day 2. Day 3. Day 4...... Day 1000. Did it aggregate into anything? No the lump of clay remained put and nothing happen. It is only when you apply an external cause that something happens to the clay.

Let us try another thought experiment. There is a mountain. This mountain experiences over a course of 1000 years erosion, bombardment which changes its shape and form. Will that shape and form ever become a fully shaped Buddha sculpture? No, the moutain shape and form will change, but it will require an efficient cause to shape it into an intelligent design.

You are right the clay will experience some changes to its form(natural erosion over time and natural accidents) but never ever will it turn into a pot unless there is a potter with a potters wheel.

Similarly matter can never form any kind of intelligent design without there being an intelligence. It will form only chaos and nothing else.

Another example given often by chaos theory proponents is 1 million monkeys typing away at their typewriter for billions of years eventually one of those moneys will produce the complete works of Shakespeare by chance. This is absolutely unfounded. I once tried this experiment myself I sat before my keyboard on my computer and started randomy typing like a monkey would for a long time, I got nothing but chaos. I have no reason to believe the result would be any different if I did this over 1 billion years. I would never end up with the complete works Shakespeare because it is an intelligent design.

Random aggregation will never produce an intelligent design, because it will aggregate, then disaggregate and cancel itself out. Designing a system requires awareness, organization, planning and this is only possible by a self-aware intelligent being.

How could you possibly know this? And what do you mean by "stability"? Are you saying that there is no stability in emergent phenomena that arise out of chaotic deterministic systems? We can model and observe that stability in chaotic interactions. Are you familiar with the game of life?

Matter is not stable anyway. We know that at the quantum level it is just a complete chaos of vibrations. It is constant activity. There is no substance. Therefore, what is it that intuits substance on matter? The answer is in Hinduism - the observer. The notion of substance exists only in the observer. It an a priori that gets imposed on the world of flux to give it shape and form. Otherwise, it is well known today that matter is not solid.