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

Origenes, I am saying, absent a necessary being reality root there would be just utter non being, no worlds of any sort at all, where world here enfolds a whole universe that might be or is, from a list of possible propositions to a computer simulation to a mathematical domain to our world 90 bn ly across or more. Utter non being has no causal powers and were such the case, that would always and only be the case, there would be no reality whatsoever, no time, no entities, no propositions, no minds, no matter, no spaces of any dimension, no locations, utter non being. As a world is, something always was of adequate causal capacity for our world to be and us in it. Responsible, rational, significantly free creatures. So, the issue is, of what character is that reality root, W0 as I tagged it. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

VL, the parallel postulate and the angle sum of a triangle analogue are decisively different. They define flat, ellipsoidal [including spherical] and hyperboloidal spaces. So, this postulate is not consistent for all possible worlds. That marks a clear distinction, KF PS, oh I forgot, the Euclidean abstract logic model geometric world is just as non core as the non Euclidean domains, it too does not always obtain in any possible world.kairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @
... necessary being is an explanation, no world is possible without such.
A simple world (universe) without life and just a few rocks flying around is possible. Are you saying that such a simple world also points to (is not possible without) the ‘necessary being’, who we both understand to be God?Origenes_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Why would non-Euclidean geometry be any less "core" than Euclidean geometry? How could there be a possible world where the mathematical logic of non-Euclidean geometry didn't pertain, and what would that even mean? How could there be a "possible world" where one definition of parallel lines and the resulting geometry existed and the other two didn't? Explain.Viola Lee_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

JVL, such variable cases are often set up as axiomatic systems where on changing certain axioms one gets a different frame that may be equally valid. The classic case in point is Euclidean geometry and its famous fifth postulate where across C19, there emerged various non Euclidean Geometries. I would think that standard and fuzzy sets are another case. The development of various non standard logic systems insofar as they are expressed as special algebras would count. There is also a finitist mathematics system, I believe. For such, one can construct an abstract, logic model world in which there are local results that do not extend to all possible frameworks or possible worlds; that is the border that seems relevant. The relevant general core is not like that, and the frame involving NZQRCR* would be my primary case in point. I think, in part, that is because its root is simple distinct identity thence N via say von Neumann's construction, where onward classes of numbers [where from Z on up we are dealing with vectors] rooted in N, follow by logic and general demonstration, e.g. Z inserts that n' + n = 0, n in N, Q uses p/q, both being in Z, R extends to limits of infinite chains of summed rationals [think, decimal representation and place value], C is two orthogonal real lines with rotations, R* is about infinitesimal and transfinite extensions to R that are now established in non standard analysis. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

I agree with JVL. KF, You didn't answer his question at 61: which part is core, and which is not. Where is the dividing line? Can you give an example of something that is not core, and that could exist in one world but not another: that is not a part of all possible worlds? Can you be more specific?Viola Lee_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

re 63, to KF For illustrative purposes, i’ll respond to KF, although we have waded in this river many times (but it’s always a slightly different river.) KF: “You imply, that I have made errors of reasoning and accuracy to reality, with the further implication of failure of duty.” Yes, although my point is that your reasoning is mostly assertions without a logical chain of reasoning behind them, and I believe you are inaccurate about some key aspects of reality. So, guilty as charged. As to failure of duty, I don’t subscribe to your “duty theory”, so I can’y imply that you’ve failed at it. 2. KF: “There is but one level of reality where the is-ought gap can be comprehensively bridged, root of reality. Otherwise, there will be ungrounded ought.” This is just one particular form of the point that a going concern causal-temporal world requires ultimate and adequate causal grounding. Such are not non sequiturs. There is no bridge across the is-ought gap. “Is” is about reality. “Ought” is about judgments people make about how to behave. There is always a gap that is filled in by individual choice. 3: KF: “I am not the one arguing or implying or inviting that moral government and objective moral claims fail at grounding. Provine is, others of similar persuasion are, cultural relativism is widespread, subjectivism and emotivism are significantly present. The invitation to nihilism is real.” Yes, there are such philosophers. But it also belief that they are correct, and you lean on them to support your own views. I think Provine et al are wrong, and I believe you are wrong. 4 is just quoting such people. There are lots of ways to think they are wrong and that you are wrong. 5 and 6. Is just going into your political views, focussing on the nihilism that drives your fears. 7: KF “Ethical theism simply notes that there are longstanding traditions of thought and a broader philosophy that ground reality in God as a necessary, maximally great and thoroughly good being. The traditions are phenomena, the philosophical concept and view is generic and logically antecedent to such.” Yes, you present a particular philosophical tradition. Tradition is not a logical argument. Many people (other than the nihilists that are the foundation of your dissent) have offered criticisms of that tradition, and alternative viewpoints that that offer a positive, realistic view of the nature of reality, human and otherwise, 8: KF “The ethical is there as a descriptive emphasis, theism across the history of our civilisation would not recognise a morally indifferent or evil entity as God. Which until five seconds ago has been commonplace, readily acknowledged understanding.” I have no idea what happened five seconds ago, but, again, there are solid perspectives (not nihilistic) that don’t include an entity that takes notice of human affairs. I know you totally reject such perspectives, which you have the right to do, and you have the right to make clear assertions about what you believe. But your assertions about the “ethical” part of “ethical theism”, which is the point Ford brought up in the first place, are faith-based assertions, fueled by your monolithic contrast with no perspective other than nihilisms. Your assertions about a necessary bridge of a gap between is and ought and the root of reality are not supported by any argument other than without such as bridge, nihilism follows: argumentum ad consequentiam, That’s it for me, unless you have anything new to say.Viola Lee_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: yes, there is a lot of Math that sets up a special, arbitrary logic model world that has properties specific to that world or domain, and one could set up a similar domain another way. The core we address is present in any possible world. I just don't think that is true. So I'd like to to come up with some examples . . . some math we know and use on Earth which might not apply/be the same elsewhere.JVL_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

VL, 58: 1: You imply, that I have made errors of reasoning and accuracy to reality, with the further implication of failure of duty. That is already a case of sitting on the branch of first duties of reason. 2: That ethical grounding goes back to roots of reality is an allusion to Hume's guillotine. There is but one level of reality where the is-ought gap can be comprehensively bridged, root of reality. Otherwise, there will be ungrounded ought. This is just one particular form of the point that a going concern causal-temporal world requires ultimate and adequate causal grounding. Such are not non sequiturs. 3: I am not the one arguing or implying or inviting that moral government and objective moral claims fail at grounding. Provine is, others of similar persuasion are, cultural relativism is widespread, subjectivism and emotivism are significantly present. The invitation to nihilism is real. And 4: given that our sense of conscience is that we are duty-bound, worldviews that imply, invite or assert that such are ill founded impulses or psychosocial conditioning or operant conditioning or class conditioning directly lead to the import that our moral sense is delusional, is founded in myths, is psychologically explained [away] etc. Delusion may be a hard word but it is a plain one. Do you want me to quote Marx in extenso on the point, to add to, say, Crick, provine having already been highlighted? As in, say:
>. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
5: As, the first duties of reason are also first law, grounds for onward law, such nihilism etc do invite lawless ruthless factions that seize power. 100 million ghosts from C20 nod in agreement. 6: Just day before yesterday, I slipped on a mossy stairway, luckily, I caught myself. There are real slippery slopes and once started they tend to accelerate the process. This then becomes an apt, instructive metaphor for circumstances where a slip easily becomes a slide and typically ends in disaster. I put it to you, for cause, that the widespread dismissal of objective moral knowledge, rise of relativism, subjectivism, agit prop in support of ever more bizarre practices, rise of legal positivism as dominant philosophy of law and more point to lawlessness, nihilism and consequences. Do I need to remind of Machiavelli's point on hectic fever and political disasters? 7: Ethical theism simply notes that there are longstanding traditions of thought and a broader philosophy that ground reality in God as a necessary, maximally great and thoroughly good being. The traditions are phenomena, the philosophical concept and view is generic and logically antecedent to such. 8: The ethical is there as a descriptive emphasis, theism across the history of our civilisation would not recognise a morally indifferent or evil entity as God. Which until five seconds ago has been commonplace, readily acknowledged understanding. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

VL, NZQRCR* etc are always present, once you have a distinct world, that includes in a fuzzy domain. Notice, a, i.e. one is already present as a specific quantity. And more. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

JVL, yes, there is a lot of Math that sets up a special, arbitrary logic model world that has properties specific to that world or domain, and one could set up a similar domain another way. The core we address is present in any possible world. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Origenes, necessary being is an explanation, no world is possible without such. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

VL/41 & 44 Nice, concise comments…chuckdarwin_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

KF writes at 45,
“It is possible to think of God — or more broadly, the root of reality — without reference to the ethical, but once one recognises that the is-ought gap points to the source of this and other possible worlds, and that our own reality requires adequate grounding of our own moral government, the ethical ground is part of the problem of ultimate origins. In short, there is a coherence challenge, one further constrained by the implications of implying that moral government is delusional, ungrounded, merely emotive or cultural or otherwise a trivial matter: undermining and/or self defeatingly discrediting our rational responsible freedom; not to mention opening the door to nihilism and raw will to power.”
Notice that KF asserts that “that our own reality requires adequate grounding of our own moral government” and that “ethical ground is part of the problem of ultimate origins.” These are the leaps-of-faith to which I refer, and for which there is not a analogous argument to that made for logic and math. Notice, rather, that argument is from consequences: KF’s own apocalyptic, slippery-slope worldview leads him to believe that not “recognising” what he thinks we should recognize “opens the door to nihilism and raw will to power.” So the “ethics” part of his ethical theism is driven by his personal faith, and by his beliefs about human nature, and that to believe that if there is no ethical framework to the root of reality, the only alternative is moral nihilism. Hope this helps explain KF to you.Viola Lee_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: not all of mathematics, just the core. Huh? You think you can separate mathematics into parts, some of which are not core? Just out of curiosity . . . what parts of mathematics would you consider 'core'?JVL_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

at 50, PM writes, "Just a small note: mathematics need not hold in every possible world. Imagine a world that was a sheer homogeneous plenum. In such a world it would be impossible to identify any objects, hence no identity conditions. It would be a world without structure, without quantity." I've read this point from other philosophers (can't remember what famous one), and have mentioned it here in the past. The core laws of logic require distinct entities, but even in our world such sometimes do not exist. Therefore we creat abstract distinctions that are more certain that the fuzzy boundaries in the world. This can lead us to thinking we know things more certainly that we do because we confuse the abstract things we have created with the real world.Viola Lee_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

KF @ The existence of the being that creates any possible world is unexplained.Origenes_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Origenes, the only assumption or rather observation is that we exist in a going concern world. That requires explanation, a world root. But this world is contingent, others are possible, that requires a reality root. Where, were there utter non being such would forever obtain, what utterly is not, non-being cannot cause what is. A world implies that something always was, the debate is of what nature. A quasi physical causal temporal system cannot be that root, too, as it would have to span infinitely many years an infeasible supertask, another problem for Q-foams. If a going concern world is, something always was that is beyond the quasi physical order. That is a necessary being causally adequate to cause worlds with creatures like us, responsibly rational and significantly free, so morally governed. If we are not these, we cannot reason credibly. And necessary being is ontologically primary, it is not derivative, it is part of the fabric for any world to be. What is derivative is our use of reason to recognise and warrant -- come to know -- that such a root of reality is. And, to further realise that such is causally adequate to explain us. That adequacy is a tall order indeed. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

PM1, not all of mathematics, just the core. Once there is a distinct possible world W, marked apart from W' a near neighbour, instantly 0,1,2 obtain thence NZQRCR*, etc. This is a general result on an abstract order for any PW descriptive set, it matters not if your world is "a world that was a sheer homogeneous plenum," say P, once that is distinguishable from any neighbour that is not quite the same, there is an attribute in the set for P that is not in P' say P' is just shy of complete homogeneity or something like that, which makes your description mean P is pure homog, an attribute not in P'. The action of distinct identity is on the trans-world barrier, not as such within the world. From P vs P', in P we have an attribute that can be constructed P = {P'|A}, and obviously there are PW's distinct from P. Those that are not are simply alternative descriptions of P. 0--> |, 1 --> A, another 1 --> P', so 0,1,2. BTW, there is simple unity, there is complex unity. Apply the von Neumann construction and extensions and voila, NZQRCR* etc with all of their abstract properties. Core mathematics is part of the fabric of any distinct possible world, giving it universal power. Of course all of this pivots on a going concern reality with something able to ponder such, but our world has that. We still need W0 and have to address us. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

KF @ You convincingly argue that any possible world must necessarily be structured in accord with logic and math, therefore logic and math necessarily exist in any possible world. To be clear, the necessary existence for logic and math is derived from any possible world. Put differently, any possible world brings logic and math into existence. Inversely, if there were no worlds at all, then neither logic nor math would necessarily exist. Here is the problem: unlike logic and math, the ‘necessary’ being that explains any possible world, cannot derive necessary existence from what it explains. A being that explains a possible world is itself outside of a possible world. A being that explains any possible world, does not require a world to be in. It is in itself and that must suffice because not everything can be in a world. If any possible world itself requires a world to be in, then we have an infinite regress of worlds. A being that explains a possible world, cannot derive necessary existence from what it explains. This means that the existence of such a being is in need of an explanation other than “it is a necessary being”Origenes_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

VL, the problem is causal sufficiency. To illustrate, the underlying appeals in arguments in this thread turn on first duties [which includes first principles] of reason. That is because of their branch on which we all sit character, which is why they are self evident: responsible reason is morally governed. Where, we cannot have such delusional or a mere convention or personal feeling, such moves are self defeating and reduce us to grand delusion. We need an adequate causal root for not only our world but for us in it, thus the root of reality -- the only effective level to bridge is and ought on pain of ungrounded ought [including oughts of reason] -- faces a bill of requisites to be adequate grounds for moral government. That is unpalatable in an age that has a quiet love affair with that most dangerous one, nihilism, but it is clearly there. Worse, on worldviews level best explanation, requiring comparative difficulties (no, it's not just put up how you wish things were) there is just one serious candidate: the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, one worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. (BTW, this summarises God as envisioned on ethical theism.) Which of course is open to proposed alternatives, but they have to be coherent, adequate causally and more: ________ predictably, harder to fill in than imagined. For example, Q-foam multiverses do not account for mind or moral government of reason and are self referentially self defeating on credibility of reason. Pantheism or panentheism collapses ought into is in the end, it cannot ground a distinction, just vs unjust, hence the issue of karma or the like. Of course, there is a world of difference between worldview inadequacies and moral awareness, this is about adequacy of roots. While there is a literal infinity of necessary entities, from NZQRCR* etc for starters, none of these are causally adequate. Picking and choosing preferred NB attributes buffet style does not work with comparative difficulties, nor does putting the philosophical telescope to the blind eye. And so forth. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

@47
logic of structure and quantity, logic of being, distinct identity [notice, close connexion to being] and its close corollaries are fabric to any possible world
Just a small note: mathematics need not hold in every possible world. Imagine a world that was a sheer homogeneous plenum. In such a world it would be impossible to identify any objects, hence no identity conditions. It would be a world without structure, without quantity. The axioms of geometry and of arithmetic could not be used. Yet such a world is perfectly conceivable without contradiction. This suggests that the set of all mathematically possible worlds is smaller than the set of all logically possible worlds but larger than the set of all physically possible worlds.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

VL The demarkation line between science and metaphysics does exist though. By the nature of this blog, we are really discussing questions in the area around the demarkation from both sides. Somebody mentioned miracles, so I see nothing surprising in this. Especially, given that this very word was used more than once by some prominent physicists.EugeneS_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

F/N: Notice, that a Euclidean plane square circle or the like would be impossible of being. In no possible world are these feasible. Of what is possible we have the contingent and necessary. Contingent beings such as a fire, need not be in every possible world, they are causally dependent. A necessary being by contrast is part of the fabric that makes any world possible. We live in a going concern world, so there are necessary entities. Such include core mathematics and that is the secret of its power. The quincunx illustrates a case of that. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT}

VL, yes, logic of structure and quantity, logic of being, distinct identity [notice, close connexion to being] and its close corollaries are fabric to any possible world, as I worked out here. This involves what we could call world zero, root reality from which this and any other possible world would spring. Where a PW is a sufficient description [cluster of propositions] to describe a way this or any other world is, could be or could become. W0, root of reality is a blank slate for where things come from. Before we explore in detail, it simply points to the causal-temporal thermodynamic order including ourselves and notices an arrow . . . a familiar example of a vector . . . points forward but that means we may look backwards too. So, looking back and bearing in mind causal and logic of being adequacy more generally, what do we find? For one, that there is no distinct possible world that does not involve N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc, core math pervades all possible worlds. Including W0, thus can be seen as part of the baked in characteristics. Is w0 a quasi physical, quantum foam multiverse with sub cosmi bubbling up? A candidate, now that oscillating universes are off the table on thermodynamic grounds. Some sort of past infinite quasi-physical structure otherwise, as with the classic steady state universe? A more generic candidate. And so forth, where God, too is a serious candidate. However, the logical, structural challenge of an actually completed transfinite span of causally successive years [etc] leads to the conclusion this is an infeasible supertask. We need necessary being as were there ever utter non being such would forever obtain. Root of reality must be necessary being. And such must be causally adequate for responsibly rational, significantly free and morally governed creatures, us. More flows from this. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

PS, I refocus, the issue in the OP, and thus the quincunx:
[KF, 11:] 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; the very same issue Eugene Wigner highlighted. The world is so mathematically pervaded, indeed possible being is so mathematically pervaded that it is manifestly akin to mind rather than to utterly non rational chaos; indeed, in many cases, randomness reveals an underlying ordered structure, as this very case demonstrates. Onward, lieth statistical thermodynamics, via the classic case of 500 or 1,000 coins and their distribution, thence the threshold search space challenge at the core of ID, how to get to FSCO/I expressive bit patterns by the blind chance and mechanical necessity the Galton Board illustrates. That context is remarkable, not trivial and readily dismissible.
kairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

FP, descriptive emphasis. It is possible to think of God -- or more broadly, the root of reality -- without reference to the ethical, but once one recognises that the is-ought gap points to the source of this and other possible worlds, and that our own reality requires adequate grounding of our own moral government, the ethical ground is part of the problem of ultimate origins. In short, there is a coherence challenge, one further constrained by the implications of implying that moral government is delusional, ungrounded, merely emotive or cultural or otherwise a trivial matter: undermining and/or self defeatingly discrediting our rational responsible freedom; not to mention opening the door to nihilism and raw will to power. Notice, Provine's nihilistic assertions. Recall, lawless oligarchy is, historically, the natural state of government and to challenge it justice must have adequate roots. Anselm's formulation may be debatable but his instinct was right, matters of the logic of being thus of the root of reality are central to understanding ourselves and our ultimate origin. And, the Hebrew prophets from Moshe on were right to highlight the goodness, lovingkindness, holiness and uprightness of God as pivotal to understanding him and our own moral-rational constitution. KFkairosfocus_{January 18, 2023
January
01
Jan
18
18
2023
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

KF wouldn't think this, but I agree with you, with a disclaimer. I think that one could argue for a "necessary being" that manifested logic, math, and a finely-tuned universe but had no concern with the lives of human beings. Such a necessary being could be called an a-ethical being, not unethical. Such a universe would not be concerned with ethics one way or another. A quote attributed to Einstein is "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.." This would be such a conception. I've discussed this several times with KF. My position is that he makes unjustified, faith-based leaps from the necessities that one might see in math and logic to the conclusion that there are also ethical necessities.Viola Lee_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

VL@41, thanks for the response. But what has me confused is that logic suggests that if there is “ethical theism”, there must also be “unethical theism”. Which, if the necessary being is all good, is contradictory.Ford Prefect_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

JVL “Because then his necessary being is limited. And constrained. And then people like you and me would start picking at the limits By all means please start picking Vividvividbleau_{January 17, 2023
January
01
Jan
17
17
2023
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply