Is the Galton Board evidence for intelligent design of the universe?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 16, 2023

Intelligent Design, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Ken Francis writes: “Proof that God placed order out of chaos in the universe. Each ball has a 50-50 chance of bouncing right or left off of each peg as it traverses the board, but every time the result is a bell curve. More proof of Intelligent Design.”

The comments are interesting.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Comments

to Ford. Here is what I understand of KF's ethical theism (ET)philosophy. By a chain of philosophical reasoning, including the self-evident nature of the three main laws of logic, ET concludes that there most be a necessary being, and being necessary it must be omni-everything: present, potent, and knowing. Furthermore, ET concludes that this necessary being must be all-good, and therefore the source of ethics also, which includes some self-evident moral beliefs analogous to the self-evident beliefs of logic and math. That's my brief summary.Viola Lee_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

I agree with Vivid, and as I wrote in 33, I think KF would agree: the necessary being could not override the laws of logic or math as they are necessary also. I think within the system of thought we are discussing, this is clear.Viola Lee_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Since this set of comments has morphed into miracles, here is a piece about that subject: https://thopid.blogspot.com/2018/12/some-models-of-miracles.htmlFasteddious_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

“But your question is, I think, is whether the laws of logic can be overridden, which is a different question.” Even though I have not been asked I will butt in anyway, currently I am in the no camp. Vivid.vividbleau_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Great question. I'm off for a while, but I'd like to try to describe what I think KF believes, succinctly. Oddly enough, if you google "ethical theism" you won't find much. I think KF's beliefs lie in some tradition in which he was schooled, but I don't know what one.Viola Lee_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

JVL and VL, do you know what KF means by “ethical theism”? Doesn’t every variation of theism claim to be ethical? Or am I missing something?Ford Prefect_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Man, we went from Galton's Board to Jesus Christ. Seems like all roads lead to Rome.Viola Lee_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

JVL The answer is yes, but it is a 'yes' based on the criteria of a genuine historical account of some single extraordinary event in the past rather than the physics of a repeatable pattern. Since such an event transcends the physical, the usual conditions of a physical test may not be met entirely. Our conclusion as to the validity of this event is based on an account of trustworthy sources (witnesses whose testimony is beyond reasonable doubt), and is subject to verification via personal experience. People with similar experience of a geniune meeting with the divine will attest to it. Here there is always an element of doubt or a choice not to accept it for the mind, because God does not want to force us into belief but expects our free decision based on the disposition of our heart, in each such case. 'Son, give me your heart', Proverbs 23:26.EugeneS_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

JVL, I don't think in KF's view the necessity of the laws of logic and math is a limitation on a necessary being, but rather a characteristic of a necessary being. A necessary being can override contingencies such as physical laws but it can't override necessary aspects of necessity such as the laws of logic and math. Just trying to help KF out here by saying what I think he is saying in simpler language. In respect to Galton's Board, for instance: suppose we had a huge board with a million balls and deep enough columns to hold them all. God could make 500,000 go down each of the far columns by overriding physical laws, but he could make the mathematical expected value for the center columns anything other than 22.5%. He can't make 2 + 2 not equal 4, or e^(i•pi) not equal -1. Those are necessary parts of his own being that he can't override. That's what I think KF would say.Viola Lee_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

VL, kindly observe, JVL:
A being that can violate the laws that point to its existence? Why create a logical system of existence and then just break that system on a whim?
Notice, too, what JVL objected to, in context:
[KF:] Folks, the Quincunx shows by striking demonstration the depth to which logic of structure and quantity pervades our world and points onward to the utter, eerie universality of core mathematics in any possible world as a necessary being structure
There is a distinction made between our world and the core of math etc that is necessary. Physical laws established on observed patterns do not have necessary being character. Their basis is even unable to establish them as utterly uniform in our world. And obviously from the outset above I spoke to core logic of being including structure and quantity as of necessary character framework to any possible world. Such laws do not forbid miracles and miracles are non arbitrary, they are not whims or the like. Miracles are not magic. KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee: I think KF would say that the laws of logic and math are necessary in all possible worlds, and thus can’t be overridden. I don’t why he didn’t say that in response to your question. Because then his necessary being is limited. And constrained. And then people like you and me would start picking at the limits . . . what are they? How far do they extend? Easier to just try and push the narrative that they don't exist.JVL_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

JVL [attn VL], for record, the primary laws of logic are framework for any distinct possible world. Just to have such a world W distinct from W' a near neighbour, distinct identity is present with its corollaries. These are entirely compatible with there being miracles, which definitely seems to be a problem. Meanwhile the analysis I outlined is hardly a personal idiosyncrasy, we start with the point that no empirical investigation can of its epistemic strength determine that physical laws are universal, necessary and thus final and complete. Were such physicality the limit of reality, that would rule out the responsible rational freedom to think, warrant and so know. GIGO limited computationalism is sub rational and untrustworthy if claimed as an ultimate. That is before even the well founded rule that no complex program of significance is wholly bug free, I have even seen it argued that that starts with hello world. KF PS, what do you imagine I meant by contrasting physical laws and necessary conditions? You have been present over the span of years when I pointed out and published on universality of core logic and related matters such as NZQRCR* and tied relationships. So, sorry, I don't buy the claims you are now making.kairosfocus_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

I think KF would say that the laws of logic and math are necessary in all possible worlds, and thus can't be overridden. I don't why he didn't say that in response to your question.Viola Lee_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

EugeneS: Divine miracles are not magic and they have a moral meaning. They happen provided someone may benefit from them spiritually. So, can they be evaluated from a consistent, logical, set of laws and precepts? Can they be 'tested' for validity?JVL_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee: But your question is, I think, is whether the laws of logic can be overridden, which is a different question. And, I think he's avoiding that question. What do you think?JVL_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: you were already given enough above. It's really cute when you stomp your feet and pout. The understanding of empirically defined laws of nature is unable to warrant more than the usual course of the physical world, it is simply unable to bar that there may be higher laws or agencies at work Higher laws implies things that are universally true. True for who? To infer such a bar is to impose an unwarranted philosophical imposition, one that starts to run into trouble with having enough freedom to be freely rational, which is already self defeating. So . . . there is no bar . . . so there is some higher order of laws and principles or . . . not? Next, ethical theism with room for extraordinary signs and wonders requires that there be a generally predictable mundane order. Right, a set of laws and rules that the creator can break/violate/ignore/bypass to prove their divinity. Got that. Then, as in such theism the ordinary way is as much sustained by the divine will as what would be a sign or wonder, there is no breach of something that somehow forces a mundane order to be utterly necessary. What? What does that mean? A sign of wonder? Are you saying that no matter what level or realm or dimension the divine must always be able to break those rules/laws/precepts? How could such a being be part of a logical, scientific outlook? Similarly, that signs are provided for good reason removes arbitrariness and whimsy. Not if they go against basic laws of logic and physics. Finally, we must learn the lesson of Flatland about the gap between our expectations and what may be reality beyond our understanding. AGAIN, in Flatland, no laws or rules or precepts were broken. There were no miracles. So . . .JVL_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

JVL I think your view is long-outdated. Post-Hume, there are no laws, rather regularities with the very important proviso that certain things will happen in the usual (predicted) way as long as the circumstances are not changed drastically. Besides, no scientific model is capable of taking into account all factors in all possible cases. So a scientific model is just a model, more or less adequate. Whatever the model, a cognitive bias is inescapable. It is just the nature of scientific inquiry necessarily having to deal with the epistemic cut of the observed vs the observer. Divine miracles are not magic and they have a moral meaning. They happen provided someone may benefit from them spiritually.EugeneS_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

to JVL: I think KF answered a different question than you asked. Yes, I think he says, the physical laws of nature can be overridden by some higher laws or agencies. Miracles can happen. But your question is, I think, is whether the laws of logic can be overridden, which is a different question.Viola Lee_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

JVL, you were already given enough above. The understanding of empirically defined laws of nature is unable to warrant more than the usual course of the physical world, it is simply unable to bar that there may be higher laws or agencies at work. To infer such a bar is to impose an unwarranted philosophical imposition, one that starts to run into trouble with having enough freedom to be freely rational, which is already self defeating. Next, ethical theism with room for extraordinary signs and wonders requires that there be a generally predictable mundane order. Then, as in such theism the ordinary way is as much sustained by the divine will as what would be a sign or wonder, there is no breach of something that somehow forces a mundane order to be utterly necessary. Similarly, that signs are provided for good reason removes arbitrariness and whimsy. Finally, we must learn the lesson of Flatland about the gap between our expectations and what may be reality beyond our understanding. KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: pretzel version of what I said and in this context violated is inappropriate phrasing. Well, clear up what you said. Here's a start: can your necessary being violate/break/ignore/sidestep/bypass laws of logic?JVL_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

JVL, pretzel version of what I said and in this context violated is inappropriate phrasing, you are also projecting arbitrariness when there is a longstanding understanding that is not arbitrary. KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: the point is that physical laws, unlike core logic of being, are not necessary constraints on being. Look, you speculated that a system of predictable laws were necessary for a being who can violated those laws to show off their abilities. Which is just huh? Then you drew an analogy with Flatland and, maybe, miracles being like a 3D being or phenomena interacting with a 2D 'universe' which has no 'physical' explanation for what they are seeing. BUT we know that 3D world also obeys set rules and principles which means that what the 2D being observes are NOT miracles, no rules are being broken. Following that analogy it sounds like you're suggesting that some of the 'miracles' we observe are simply misunderstood phenomena from higher dimensions so . . . no rule breaking involved. And then you just, sort of, backed down from all that speculation and supposition and just offered a milquetoast statement implying that physical laws are not as important as human derived, human developed logic. Is that right? So, can your necessary being violate laws of logic? Why or why not?JVL_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

JVL, again, the point is that physical laws, unlike core logic of being, are not necessary constraints on being. KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee: And how did this conversation come to be about miracles? God works in wondrous and mysterious ways.JVL_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

And how did this conversation come to be about miracles?Viola Lee_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

So, Origenes, are you satisfied that 462 is the number of pathways to each of the middle columns? Was that ever in question in your mind, or were you just uncertain what numbers I was talked about? I know they are not easy to see.. And to KF: I at least didn't say that the Galton Board and the mathematics behind were trivial or dismissable, and both FastE and I pointed out that it is common for probabilistic events to create a pattern when there are enough instances. No one is denying, or trivializing, the fact that math is full of neat and not obvious things, or that the physical world can instantiate that math in physical ways. We don't all come to the same philosophical conclusions that you, or Ken Francis, reach, but that involves some leaps of faith. That shouldn't stop people from being able to discuss the math. It is inaccurate for you to claim I'm calling the situation trivial: possible even a strawman. :-)Viola Lee_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: JVL, I take it you are trying to object to miracles, on the outdated view that they are more or less arbitrary — “whim” — violations of universal, somehow necessary (so, exceptionless) laws of the physical world. Your hypothesised necessary being can violate the laws of science (which, it is claimed, point to that being's existence) whenever that being wants to. That being may not find the moments arbitrary but they can make the choice whereas we cannot. That fails, starting with, empirical investigation may show the usual pattern, but that such is claimed no-exception-universal is a philosophical assertion not an empirical inference. In short, Hume begged a few questions. Do I take it that you don't agree that the laws of the universe are not universal for non-necessary beings in that universe? If you mean something different then perhaps you could spend some time writing in a less flowery manner. The physicalist reductionism isn’t even capable of establishing a context for responsible rational freedom to think beyond GIGO limited computation, so such reasoning is automatically self discrediting. Umm . . . hold on . . . because you think we are not limited to purely physical processes then we are also not limited to the physical laws of the universe? Again, you really need to work on your prose. And once one sees the validity of rational agent freedom to be a first cause, then that shifts our thought drastically. I don't see you violating the laws of physics. Next, the actual theistic view is that in Him we live, move and have our being, where He upholds all things by his word of power. So, as the moulded clay pot answering back to the potter, why should we find fault with a physical world open to first cause mind, whether ourselves typing up arguments and objections, or the ultimate first cause? So . . . we shouldn't question the point of our existence and the purpose of the creator 'cause we're lesser beings even though we've been given free will and the ability to reason? Is that it? If some daft woman had resisted eating from the tree of knowledge we'd be better off being naked, dumb and happy? But . . . didn't someone later say that all our sins were forgiven? I'm confused. Then, observe what a miracle is, an extraordinary act and sign that points beyond the mundane order, so miracles REQUIRE that there be a highly predictable mundane order, BTW, as does morally responsible rationality Are you saying that miracles can be predicted if you could understand some theoretical higher . . . no, you are saying that miracles can only be miracles if they have a predictable, law abiding order to push back against. But . . . wait . . . the creator came up with laws of the universe and created us as beings subject to those laws so . . . that we would recognise miracles when they occurred? Is that it? This creator being wants us to be in awe when they break the physical laws of the universe? In a general chaos, nothing would be outstanding or a sign for anything happens any way without rhyme or reason. So, finding such a general order akin to mind is itself a sign of Reason Himself at work, and that for good reason He should draw our attention to a higher order with the higher ordered workings we call miracles, signs and wonders is in fact a reasonable view. That sounds like a circular argument to me: we need laws so that when they are broken we know someone can break them. AND the whole bit of reasoning falls apart if there are no miracles. Doesn't it? One thing is for sure, miracles are not whimsical, chaotic magic. Think of the astonishment of a flatlander on experiencing a higher order 3 d object passing through his mundane planar world. A third dimension, impossible nonsense, everything is in our plane and nothing beyond! A bad analogy. 3D space follows predictable laws and rules even if a 2D being is unaware of them. In other words, in that analogy, there are no miracles. So, what if what you see as miracles are bleed-throughs from some higher dimension which we cannot perceive. They aren't actually miracles but are following rules and laws we are unaware of because of our limited perspective. Then there is no need for a higher being that is breaking our rules, it's just a being or object in a 4D or 5D space interacting with ours. I can live with that. No miracles just higher dimensions.JVL_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

JVL, I take it you are trying to object to miracles, on the outdated view that they are more or less arbitrary -- "whim" -- violations of universal, somehow necessary (so, exceptionless) laws of the physical world. That fails, starting with, empirical investigation may show the usual pattern, but that such is claimed no-exception-universal is a philosophical assertion not an empirical inference. In short, Hume begged a few questions. The physicalist reductionism isn't even capable of establishing a context for responsible rational freedom to think beyond GIGO limited computation, so such reasoning is automatically self discrediting. And once one sees the validity of rational agent freedom to be a first cause, then that shifts our thought drastically. Next, the actual theistic view is that in Him we live, move and have our being, where He upholds all things by his word of power. So, as the moulded clay pot answering back to the potter, why should we find fault with a physical world open to first cause mind, whether ourselves typing up arguments and objections, or the ultimate first cause? Then, observe what a miracle is, an extraordinary act and sign that points beyond the mundane order, so miracles REQUIRE that there be a highly predictable mundane order, BTW, as does morally responsible rationality. In a general chaos, nothing would be outstanding or a sign for anything happens any way without rhyme or reason. So, finding such a general order akin to mind is itself a sign of Reason Himself at work, and that for good reason He should draw our attention to a higher order with the higher ordered workings we call miracles, signs and wonders is in fact a reasonable view. One thing is for sure, miracles are not whimsical, chaotic magic. Think of the astonishment of a flatlander on experiencing a higher order 3 d object passing through his mundane planar world. A third dimension, impossible nonsense, everything is in our plane and nothing beyond! KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

VL@
If you look closely at the video, the expected numbers are printed under each peg, and the last row is the 11th.
We must be looking at different videos then. I see 13 rows (the top of the 28 columns included of course) and I see no printed numbers. - - - - edit: I was mistaken about the printed numbers. Now I see them.Origenes_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Folks, the Quincunx shows by striking demonstration the depth to which logic of structure and quantity pervades our world and points onward to the utter, eerie universality of core mathematics in any possible world as a necessary being structure; A being that can violate the laws that point to its existence? Why create a logical system of existence and then just break that system on a whim?JVL_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply