Why do Some Materialists Insist on Wallowing in Obvious Error?

Why do Some Materialists Insist on Wallowing in Obvious Error? Did we ever get a good answer to this, or figure out why? Mung

RDFish, even though you have comprehension problems and think you're the smartest guy in the world, why don't you leave us ID retards to our delusion? What thrills do you get out of all of this? Do you feel better? Ok, then Vishnu

[continuing now from where I left off @ post 78] Some qualitative properties of prime numbers.

Prime numbers are whole numbers which are not divisible or factorable. The series of prime numbers is infinite, they do not stop. Prime numbers are always whole numbers. Never any fractions or decimal positions. Prime numbers are distributed unevenly, decreasing in quantity while increasing in size (they become fewer as they get larger) and their intervening gaps become larger - i.e. prime numbers are distributed more sparsely as they get larger in size. The prime number theorem says the average size of prime gaps near a prime number of value 'p' is around log p. While the size of prime numbers increases monotonically, their intervening gap sizes are non-monotonic: the gaps get smaller, larger, smaller again, even larger. There is no repeating pattern to prime number value or distribution. Prime gap sizes do repeat.

Some elaboration on those qualitative properties:

Prime numbers are larger than their adjacent gaps. That means for a natural process that produces two consecutive prime numbers, p_(k) and p_(k+1), the gap between them is log p_(k), which is 1 or 2 orders of magnitude smaller. Prime numbers aren't distributed consistently or proportionately. They can bunch closer together or spread further apart, and even while bunching closer together some will be further apart, and even while spreading further apart some will bunch closer together. But generally, on average, they get further and further apart as a log function. Consider the 1st 1000 prime numbers ( http://primes.utm.edu/lists/small/1000.txt ) up to 7,919 and note that generally you have 4-digit prime numbers which are separated by gaps (difference between consecutive primes) of 1-2 digits. Note further at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap the largest gaps of sizes 1-36 correspond to primes between 2 and 9,551. Further, consider the graph of P(g) vs gap g at http://sweet.ua.pt/tos/gaps.html and note that it is a log curve and also note that for the upper right end of the curve, the size of the prime numbers P(g) on the y-axis are of the magnitude 10^18 and the corresponding gaps on the x-axis are of the magnitude 1300-1400, and again compare with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap list, that gap sizes 1224-1442 are for prime numbers having 18 digits. The foregoing simply illustrates, visually, that gaps are orders of magnitude smaller than their adjacent primes, and further that as primes get much larger, the gaps do not grow proportionately. Primes of 18 digits have gaps that are still only 4 digits.

Implications for natural processes:

Natural processes are chaotic, random, and periodic, or a combination thereof. All natural processes are rational in that the measured values of those processes are rational: they are not whole numbers, rather they have fractional or decimal components. Natural processes can't be measured exactly; best case they can only be approximated to the resolution of the Planck scale. Prime numbers, however, are exact whole numbers. Natural processes do not enumerate themselves and they are divisible, down to quantum levels. But the quintessential quality of prime numbers, is that they are specific whole enumerations which are indivisible, a subset of a larger set of all whole numbers. Natural processes are not monotonic. They fluctuate, decreasing or slowing at times and then increasing or speeding up. All natural processes degrade over time. Whatever you measure today, a future measurement will be different due to friction, inefficiency, or entropic decay. Even if some natural process could generate exact prime numbers today, it would not in the future. Natural processes can not generate prime gaps. A "prime gap" is the interval or mathematical difference between two consecutive prime numbers. A prime gap is not a space or null signal. There is no single natural process or combination of natural processes that span the full range of prime number values which extend to infinity. For example, the electromagnetic spectrum spans 10^3 (radio long waves) to 10^18 (gamma radiation) and even within that spectrum, disparate unsynchronized processes control and generate any wavelengths observed, from particle pair production/annihilation and Compton scattering down to molecular electron excitation and plasma oscillation. Further, below 10^3 Hz (radio long waves), a transition to sound waves (say, perhaps from seismic vibrations) would be required, and above the electromagnetic spectrum a transition to some unknown process up to 10^43 Hz (Planck frequency) would be required, beyond which no physical process is observable. And there are already known prime number sequences in the range of 10^10546 (http://primerecords.dk/cpap.htm) which vastly exceed any quantum process at Planck limits of 10^43, and vastly exceed any cosmological limits such as 10^80 atoms in the universe or 10^17 seconds since the Big Bang, and vastly exceed the number of cypher keys possible with 256-bits, 2^256. But 'prime number generating' transitions across physical process regime boundaries is impossible, because physical processes do not communicate their ending 'prime' state to become the beginning 'prime' state of another disparate process (which operates on entirely different physics), and neither do disparate processes have innate physical abilities to "wait" until communication of the previous 'prime state' is received, and then begin its process with the next consecutive prime state. Lastly, the operational ranges of differing physical processes overlap, and there is no predetermined prime-number transition-boundary nor any means to synchronize the transition. For example, in the spectrum range of 10^15 Hz, how would a molecular electron excitation process of extreme ultraviolet light stop at prime number 844,893,392,671,019 and transition (with a prime gap of 860) to a Compton scattering process of soft x-rays to start at prime number 844,893,392,671,879? How would seismic vibrations making sound waves below 1k Hz at prime number 997 trigger ionospheric lightning to begin emitting VLF radio waves at prime number 1009? There are no naturally inherent prime number "boundary transitions" between any combination of disparate physical regimes because physical processes (assuming they were characterized by primes, which they are not) can not communicate an ending 'prime' state and trigger the beginning 'prime' state of another disparate process (which operates on entirely different physics), and neither do disparate processes have innate physical abilities to "wait" until communication of the previous 'prime state' is received, and then begin its process with the next consecutive prime state. Even assuming some infinite natural process that generates all whole numbers, the only way prime numbers could manifest (via a kind of interference pattern) is if some other natural process could generate prime gaps and then superimpose the two. But determining prime gaps is as complex, if not more so, as determining prime numbers. There is no basis in nature for prime numbers. Prime numbers are not natural, they are abstract.

Prime numbers are an abstractly reasoned concept:

A prime number is essentially a whole number that is not divisible or factorable. We generally qualify this definition by saying except by 1 or itself, which is another way of saying a prime number can't be divided or factored by any other number. Prime number distribution does not exhibit any pattern, nor is it chaotic, random, or periodic. Prime numbers are neither chaotic nor random; we are developing formulas which predict their specific whole values out to increasing limits, whereas chaotic and random processes can only be averaged and specific instances not predicted. As prime numbers do not repeat, they are not "periodic". Of the kinds of combinations that could be considered, multiplication (or division) can be ruled out by definition because a prime number can not be a multiple or quotient of some other number. As for addition (or subtraction) when a chaotic, random, or periodic process is added to or subtracted from (by superposition) another chaotic, random, or periodic process, the result is a more complex chaotic, random or periodic process. Because prime numbers have no physical manifestation, no basis in nature, their existence is purely abstract, a mathematical concept, and while physical nature is limited by physical constraints, the abstract concept, the series of prime numbers is unlimited. Euclid (c. 300 B.C.) first proved that prime numbers are infinite (an abstract concept), and Eratosthenes (c. 200 B.C.) devised his "sieve" for calculating primes (an abstract concept). Neither Euclid nor Eratosthenes were studying the (non-existent) occurrence of prime numbers in nature. They were both mathematicians, both engaged in abstract reasoning about prime numbers (among other things), and prime numbers have only resulted from abstract reasoning. Any entity capable of recognizing or generating a non-repeating series of prime numbers, is not mimicking a natural process (as none exists nor could exist), but rather is engaged in abstract reasoning because prime numbers are abstract (not natural) and their generation or verification requires reasoning (i.e. computation), computation which can not be performed by or inferred from any natural process.

A definition of "intelligence" is irrelevant to the context of prime numbers:

Prime numbers are abstract, they are not "human-like" - any non-human entity can use them, provided they have sufficient intelligence. The mathematical operations used to calculate prime numbers (algebra, calculus, etc.) are not "human-like" - any non-human entity can perform the same operations (though they might choose a base other than 10), provided they have sufficient intelligence. There is nothing "human-only" or "human-like" about prime numbers. Prime numbers are abstract, and as such, accessible to any abstract intellect of sufficient ability. Monkeys and crows, for example, are said to have rudimentary intelligence, and if either could understand prime numbers we still wouldn't say primes were "monkey-like" or "crow-like". The generic term "abstract" is all-encompassing where mathematics, especially advanced mathematics, is concerned. If some intelligence generates or detects a pattern of prime numbers, it is implicit they have whatever ability is required to count, to calculate, to recognize the irreproducibility of prime numbers in nature. We (or "it" or "they") might need to convert base number systems in how prime numbers are represented, but base conversion is not the same as questioning the meaning or adequacy of "intelligence". Being carbon-based and having 10 fingers versus being silicon-based and having 16 tentacles, are not determinative of "intelligence". If 16-tentacled crows could generate prime numbers, they would be "intelligent" for the purposes of characterizing the source of a non-repeatable series of prime numbers. If 16-tentacled crows (or Decepticons, or Goa'uld) generated more prime numbers than we previously knew, they would arguably have "super-human" intelligence, which again, regardless of qualifiers, is "intelligent". However, the minimum inference to draw from a non-repeatable series of prime numbers is "intelligence", not 16-tentacles, or human-like, or super-human. In abstract mathematics (irreproducible and nonexistent in nature), there is no "context" in which different qualifiers on intelligence (e.g. "human-like") alter in any way the definition, pattern, or meaning inherent in a prime number series. Using a prime number series to annunciate defines the "intelligence" of the source relative to the receiver. It is, quite literally, an intergalactic trans-species "public encryption/decryption key" which identifies the source as intelligent and, if recognized, identifies the receiver as comparably intelligent, and that both are able to reason abstractly about prime numbers.

A "context" is not required to announce. When a phone rings the context is "someone who has a phone and can dial is calling". When a computer chirps "you've got mail" the context is "someone who has a computer or smartphone and can send email or text is emailing". When a non-repeatable series of prime numbers is observed, the context is "an intelligence capable of abstract reasoning exists". Charles

RDFish to Charles:

You’ve been wrong about each and every point you’ve made, actually.

RDFish to Upright BiPed:

Every single statement you make here is wrong – including this one

Mung

Charles is off going through hair replacement treatments. Mung

correction "...why a random series" => "...why a prime series" RDFish

Hi Charles, You spent a lot of time on your thought experiment intended to show why a random series would be indicative of a human-like intelligence. I showed why, on the contrary, your thought experiment showed that it was no less likely that something which only produced PNs was responsible. You attempted to counter my argument, and in @91 I refuted each of your claims. Did you just give up? Good form would dictate that you concede the point, don't you think? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Querius @65 I love the reference to the dead parrot skit. Every time RDFish tries to argue, he reminds me of the pet shop owner as he pushes the cage and says "There he moved." His argument is indeed a dead parrot, he knows it is but persists in arguing it isn't. I'm waiting for him to go on to sing the lumberjack song. bb

So I've been developing my origin of pyramides theory recently. But the funding is insufficient, and while I'm waiting for another research grant so that I could produce more (*crossed out* funny just-so storytelling *crossed out*) high-quality scientific research, I decided to work as a lawyer. I think I'll be successful, since my line of defence will always be grounded in the latest scientific reasearch and achievements in the spheres of logic, rhetoric and philosophy. For instance, my defence of a hacker who infected bank computers with his virus and then used stolen credit cards to get the money will be as follows. First of all, what can we say about the virus? It certainly exists, but what created this virus? The only thing we can infer about the source of this software is that this source was capable of generating this software, that's all. Even though the virus was traced back to my client's computer, this is not the proof that my client created it, that conclusion would be totally unwarranted. Instead, it could somehow be generated due to fluctuations of the surrounding electromagnetic field. We don't know yet how this feat was achieved by the electromagnetic field, but future scientific research will undoubtedly shed some light on this problem. As for the videotape which shows my client withdrawing money from ATM, as well as for his fingerprints found there, my suggestion is that this videotape together with the record it contains and my client's fingerprints simply created themselves out of nothing, since there is such law as gravity. I hope that the judge will make a fair decision. Lesia

RDFish:

If we agree that humans are intelligent, we are not making some conclusion about human beings

Wallow much RDFish? If we agree that electrons are subatomic particles with a negative elementary electric charge, we are not making some conclusion about electrons. Oh no. We are simply making some agreement about what we mean by the words “negative” and "charge". Mung

Hi drc466,

The PNSG is NOT the source of the series of primes.

Of course it is. See my previous response to Charles.

My point was not whether there is universal agreement about intelligence, it is whether there is universal agreement that humans are intelligent.

Huh? You offered this "universal agreement" as a definition of intelligence, no? Anyway, what are you talking about? If we agree that humans are intelligent, we are not making some conclusion about human beings - we are simply making some agreement about what we mean by the word "intelligent". Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Charles,

RDFish @ 66: Now, in the case of human beings, their ability to generate primes qualifies them as being intelligent in their own right. … But when a PNSG does it, you credit the intelligence to AIGuy rather to the PNSG itself. Why? Charles @ 73: Because the human’s ability to generate primes has been transferred to the PNSG, and the PNSG is only doing what the human intelligence designed it to do. If a PNSG initially had no ability to generate primes but then innately developed that ability without any external input, then the PNSG would be credited with the intelligence.

First, humans do not do anything without any external input, either from the world or from other humans. Second, humans are born with innate mathematical abilities, just like PSNGs are. Third, rather than a PNSG, substitute an automatic theorem prover that devises novel proofs of mathematical conjectures - proofs not programmed or anticipated by the programmer. The computer's intelligence is perfectly analogous to the human's.

Because humans learned to detect and generate prime numbers on their own.

Really? Did you learn to detect prime numbers on your own? I truly doubt it - I think you were programmed to do so by someone else. Does this mean that when you generate prime numbers, you are not doing something intelligent?

No “Intelligent Designer” gave us formulae or taught us a course in PNG 101a.

Really? Again, if you personally did not figure out the concept of prime numbers, then when you generate primes, are you just an unintelligent PNSG? You're making this up as you go along, and you really haven't thought it out well at all.

Unless you will now argue there is a God in Heaven who does inspire and equip His creation?

Really? Are you arguing that this is not the case? That human beings are not designed, and that our innate abilities in language, mathematics, and all of our other inborn faculties are not the result of some Inteligent Designer? I'm afraid you lose both ways: Either you deny that humans are designed, or you agree that when PNSGs produce prime number series, they are as intelligent as when you do the same thing.

So the point remains PNSG’s are not intelligent but their developers are intelligent. PNSGs are an example of intelligent agency.

I think you meant to say that PNSGs are NOT examples of intelligent agency, but rather that PNSGs are the product of intelligent agency, but are not intelligent agents themselves. Your wrong in any case: You've failed to explain why you consider yourself to be acting intelligently when you compute primes, but why a PNSG is not acting intelligently when it does the same thing.

Because as per your own words in post 66, an intelligence, like AIGuy, can choose to not generate primes. The 3rd source initially was not generating primes and then later it was. This behavior of not generating and then generating primes, by your own acknowledgement, is indistinguishable from intelligent behavior. The 3rd source seems to be exhibiting selective behavior intelligence comparable to AIGuy’s.

This still makes no sense at all. Computers can start and stop their activities based on innate tendencies, on interaction with their environment, or for reasons that are completely indecipherable. Just like people.

You said human-like intelligence can’t be inferred – you ruled out human-like intelligence

You are missing the distinction. On one hand I say that there is no evidential warrant for the inference to human-like intelligence. On the other hand, that doesn't mean it is impossible for human-like intelligence to be involved. Can't you understand this? These inferences are based on evidence, and there is no evidence available to convince us that the PNs come from something with a conscious, human-like mind. So we do not make that conclusion, even though it could be that the evidence simply isn't available to us but exists all the same.

RDF: The question is, if we observe a PN series from an unknown source, can we infer a human-like intelligence? As I’ve argued from the start, the answer is no – and your thought experiment adds nothing to the argument. CHARLES: So you have now retracted what you’ve argued from the start, you now rhetorically imply that intelligence can’t be ruled out.

That's complete nonsense. I haven't changed my position one iota of course. If we lack the evidence we don't make the inference, but that doesn't mean we can rule it out. If someone is murdered and we have no reason to think that Jack Smith was the murderer, we do not make that inference and arrest him. That doesn't mean we can rule it out - it just means we have no reason to think he did it.

But again, you contradict yourself. You admitted earlier in your very same post: the extra-terrestrial PN source we’ve been discussing from the outset. It would be indistinguishable from the other two, just as you say RDF: I certainly never said it was certain that human-like intelligence was not involved!

And once again, you're just wrong: We don't rule out the possibility, but neither do we make the inference without evidence. Jack Smith isn't considered guilty without any evidence, but that doesn't mean we have some principled reason to rule out the possibility.

QED

You've been wrong about each and every point you've made, actually. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Why do Some Materialists Insist on Wallowing in Obvious Error? It's better than wallowing in pig s**t. Mung

I hear you KF. 1But if Coyne himself couldn't stop Dembski from speaking in his own back yard at UC, even after lighting his hair on fire, maybe, just maybe, there's cracks beginning to appear in the wall of prejudice. jstanley01

Reciprocating Bill@83 wrote

A similar spoof could be concocted about Macho Picchu.

Or New York City. See Querius@77. :-) -Q Querius

JS: least regrets on being in error is a consideration, but I suggest factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power -- elegantly simple but not simplistic -- lend considerable credibility to an argument on a relevant body of evidence. For instance we did not observe the past of origins, so must interpret its traces. A key principle is vera causa, that we should explain by causes that per observation are adequate to create an effect. FSCO/I is routinely created by design and needle in haystack analysis makes blind chance and necessity maximally implausible. But, the rhetorical retort is usually along the lines of "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," those issuing smears like that taking it for granted that Creationists are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Years of exchanges in and around UD show this as a routine pattern. The contrast between the two discussions speaks for itself. KF kairosfocus

BA in OP:

Why then? Why does an obviously intelligent and articulate person insist on spewing such blithering idiocy? It is a mystery to me. Can someone explain it to me?

Methinks the problem lies with the wiggle room provided by the word "best" in "inference to the best explanation." What makes a particular explanation "best" on a subjective level? Given what I know of human nature, I'd say that a major factor would be the consequences of being wrong. If there are no consequences to being wrong, then there's no hindrance to -- for instance -- petulance just for the sake of petulance. Arguing just for the sake of arguing, after all, can be entertaining. Put a gun to someone's head and say, "So which is it, Pilgrim? An intelligent agent or something else? If you're wrong, I'm pullin' the trigger." And I venture to say the answer would be marvelously well thought-out, logical, and straightforward. jstanley01

Lesia- A similar spoof is being concocted about living organisms... Joe

RDFish @74,

You make this bald claim that a PNSG is not an intelligent thing, yet you cite as evidence of intelligence the very thing that a PNSG can do… and yet you don’t see your inconsistency.

Because it is not inconsistent. The PNSG is NOT the source of the series of primes. It is simply a medium. Like a book is a medium. Or a TV signal. Or soundwaves. Or a computer screen. Given that we, as humans cannot psionically communicate directly mind to mind, we have to use mediums to transmit information. You can invent as many fantastically elaborate mediums (aka Rube Goldbergs) as you want to (all of which are unintelligent), but none of these change the fact you can not supply a reasonable context in which a series of primes doesn't start with an intelligent agent.

Doesn’t it occur to you that there is no universal agreement regarding intelligence?

You misstate me. My point was not whether there is universal agreement about intelligence, it is whether there is universal agreement that humans are intelligent. If you find someone who denies that humans are intelligent (and, so far, the only undisputed intelligence), you've found someone who is either a)insane or b) using a different definition of intelligence than Webster's dictionary. As for all those other examples of disputed intelligence, I will gladly defer to you as to whether they are intelligent. If you want to call computers "intelligent", works for me - you still end up having to agree that only intelligent agents can create a series of primes - your pool of "intelligent agents" is actually larger than mine!

You still don’t get it! You can’t prove intelligence until you provide some particular criteria by which to establish its existence! And around and around you go, just digging deeper and deeper into your confusion.

If you can find a significant number of people who will agree with you that a) humans aren't intelligent and/or b) a book is, I will admit to being confused. If you can describe a scenario in which it is reasonable to conclude that a series of primes does not have a human source, I will admit to being confused. Otherwise I will simply conclude that, as Barry states in the title of this post, you are being deliberately obtuse. drc466

A similar spoof could be concocted about Macho Picchu. Reciprocating Bill

Lesia @80, that was a fun read. StephenB

RDFish:

The only thing I’ve ever argued here (about PNSGs or ID in general) is that there is no empirical warrant to conclude such a thing, as a scientific result must be.

There is no scientific reason to believe that RDFish is intelligent. You're preaching to the choir sister! Mung

I have a theory (or hypothesis, whatever) of the pyramides formation. The theory suggests that they were not built by any intelligent agents, instead, the pyramides were created solely by unguided natural forces (erosion, mineralization, action of tornadoes, tsunamies, sand storms etc.) Inconsistencies with the historical records which describe ancient pharaohs as the ones responsible for the buildings can be easily explained if we recall the natural tendency of human consciousness to attribute everything unknown and unexplored yet to intentional activities of some intelligent beings (for instance, creation of life is often attributed to God, but now we now that it evolved solely by unguided natural processes (this is as certain as color blue)). The exact mechanism of the formation of pyramides remains unknown, yet the theory can clearly be regarded as scientific since it doesn't involve explanations in terms of some superfluous entities (humans etc.) and seeks to understand how the pyramides were formed under the influence of purely natural (no intelligence required) causes. I suggest to call it abuildergenesis. The OOP (origin of the pyramides, not to confuse with object oriented programming) problem is very serious and requires further investigations. Please give me a government grant. ;) Lesia

RDFish:

What I do object to is ID’s attempt to co-opt scientific credibility for its conclusions.

You can use science to argue against ID but not to argue for ID. Understood. Mung

RDFish @ 75

RDFish @ 66: Now, in the case of human beings, their ability to generate primes qualifies them as being intelligent in their own right. ... But when a PNSG does it, you credit the intelligence to AIGuy rather to the PNSG itself. Why?

Charles @ 73: Because the human’s ability to generate primes has been transferred to the PNSG, and the PNSG is only doing what the human intelligence designed it to do. If a PNSG initially had no ability to generate primes but then innately developed that ability without any external input, then the PNSG would be credited with the intelligence.

RDFish @ 75: Why doesn’t this same thing apply to a human being? Isn’t a human being only able to do what the Intelligent Designer designed them to do?

Because humans learned to detect and generate prime numbers on their own. No "Intelligent Designer" gave us formulae or taught us a course in PNG 101a. Unless you will now argue there is a God in Heaven who does inspire and equip His creation? So the point remains PNSG's are not intelligent but their developers are intelligent. PNSGs are an example of intelligent agency.

RDFish @ 66: Nor can it [a PNSG] choose not to generate primes, or explain why it does it in the first place. AIGuy can do all of these things.

Charles @ 73: But the 3rd prime number series was not stated as sourced from a PNSG.

RDFish @ 75: I understand that - but so what?

Because as per your own words in post 66, an intelligence, like AIGuy, can choose to not generate primes. The 3rd source initially was not generating primes and then later it was. This behavior of not generating and then generating primes, by your own acknowledgement, is indistinguishable from intelligent behavior. The 3rd source seems to be exhibiting selective behavior intelligence comparable to AIGuy's.

Charles @ 73: And if it may be intelligent, then intelligence can’t be ruled out.

Who ever said that intelligent "can’t be ruled out?" That isn’t the issue.

You did. You said human-like intelligence can't be inferred - you ruled out human-like intelligence - and you did so earlier in the very same post in which you now claim intelligence can't be ruled out:

The question is, if we observe a PN series from an unknown source, can we infer a human-like intelligence? As I’ve argued from the start, the answer is no - and your thought experiment adds nothing to the argument.

So you have now retracted what you've argued from the start, you now rhetorically imply that intelligence can't be ruled out. You further elaborate that the issue was only whether the intelligence is human-like:

Who ever said that intelligent "can’t be ruled out?" That isn’t the issue. Rather, the issue is whether we have sufficient warrant to conclude that (human-like) intelligence was responsible. The answer is no.

But again, you contradict yourself. You admitted earlier in your very same post:

the extra-terrestrial PN source we’ve been discussing from the outset. It would be indistinguishable from the other two, just as you say I certainly never said it was certain that human-like intelligence was not involved!

The 3rd source, for which you admit intelligence can't be ruled out, and admit that human-like intelligence could be involved, a source whose behavior includes selecting to transmit or not transmit as could AIGuy, a source which is indistinguishable from the other two which you acknowledge were made by an intelligence, you admit that 3rd source could be intelligent agency. QED I will later (probably next day or so) post an explanation of why qualifiers such as "human-like" intelligence and defining "intelligence" are irrelevant to the context of a non-repeating prime number series. Charles

The powerful telescopes of the aliens focused on a small blue planet to see whether there was evidence of life on it. After seeing the New York City skyline, a minority of the alien scientists thought this was evidence of intelligent life on the planet, but this geolith was easily explained by differential erosion. Glints of glass were thought to be macrophyllosilicate intrusions such as sheet mica. The heat signature indicated the tail end of a long cooling process, and the electromagnetic signature of the geolith was explained by natural inductive resonances due to complex internal metallic lattices. At first, the geolith was thought to be uniform, but substructures were subsequently identified. A minority of dissenting scientists to the Theory of Erosion began to grow, which was met by resistance and hostility. The debates between Erosionists and Intelligent Dissidents became more strident. The dissidents were accused of being closet theists who wanted to credit God with creating these naturally formed geoliths. Then, metallic bodies were detected that traveled along heretofore undiscovered pathways within the geolith. They were named Random Motile Autonomes, and were first assumed to be junk, but later classified either as messenger, transfer, or regulatory RMA, depending on their interactions with each other and with the geolith. Other metallic bodies with linear paths above the geolith were called Directed Motile Autonomes, or DMA. The consensus among the Erosionists was that these controlled the interactions of the RMA since selected RMA often coincided perfectly with the DMA (the other RMA was called non-controlled RMA or nRMA). The Intelligent Dissidents argued that the sheer complexity of the geolith indicated an intelligent design, but the Erosionists demanded precise definitions for intelligence, God, God's presumed intelligence, alien intelligence, design, God's design, alien design, the appearance of design, and the transcendent meaning of the number 42. Since the Intelligent Dissidents could not produce definitions for each of these that the Erosions would agree on, the Erosionists declared victory, and that concluded that the geoliths obviously were generated through simple, natural natural erosion over billions of years. So this is an allegory of the argument regarding the origin and development of what started out simply as the “cell” (named by Robert Hooke after the cellula in a monastery) that was filled with protoplasm, the "tough, slimy, granular, semi-fluid" that was the basis for all life. Except that the cell, compared to New York City, turned out to be a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion or more times as complex. But this was no problem because after a lot of time, anything can happen, and since the geolith was there, it obviously musta happened. Then, many years later, the alien scientists received a signal from the geolith. It was a series of prime numbers . . . ;-) -Q Querius

Charles, important typo correction: Moreover, I said that I wouldn’t challenge people who wanted to believe that it was involved – it is like I think it would stupid or wrong to think that! => Moreover, I said that I wouldn’t challenge people who wanted to believe that it was involved – it is NOT like I think it would stupid or wrong to think that! RDFish

Hi Charles,

Because the human’s ability to generate primes has been transferred to the PNSG, and the PNSG is only doing what the human intelligence designed it to do. If a PNSG initially had no ability to generate primes but then innately developed that ability without any external input, then the PNSG would be credited with the intelligence.

Why doesn't this same thing apply to a human being? Isn't a human being only able to do what the Intelligent Designer designed them to do? How do you know that humans have "innate self-originated abilities to generate primes", rather than having these innate abilities because they were given them by their Designer?

But the 3rd prime number series was not stated as sourced from a PNSG.

I understand that - but so what? This 3rd PNSG would be unknown - exactly analogous to the extra-terrestrial PN source we've been discussing from the outset. It would be indistinguishable from the other two, just as you say. Why do you think this adds something to the discussion? We already know that (1) humans can generate PN series, and (2) humans can program machines to generate PN series. The question is, if we observe a PN series from an unknown source, can we infer a human-like intelligence? As I've argued from the start, the answer is no - and your thought experiment adds nothing to the argument.

But the 3rd source was initially silent and only began transmitting later.

And why is this important? I really don't see it.

And if it may be intelligent, then intelligence can’t be ruled out.

Who ever said that intelligent "can't be ruled out?" That isn't the issue. Rather, the issue is whether we have sufficient warrant to conclude that (human-like) intelligence was responsible. The answer is no.

If AIguy transmits only prime numbers and no music, jokes or puzzles, does that mean he isn’t intelligent? If not, then you must admit that generating prime numbers is not evidence of inability do anything else. Absence of evidence is not evidence of other inability.

Well, after all, is this our disagreement? I certainly never said it was certain that human-like intelligence was not involved! Moreover, I said that I wouldn't challenge people who wanted to believe that it was involved - it is like I think it would stupid or wrong to think that! The only thing I've ever argued here (about PNSGs or ID in general) is that there is no empirical warrant to conclude such a thing, as a scientific result must be. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi drc466,

If you’re not a materialist, you’re doing a great impression of one.

Not at all. It is simply a shallow understanding of these issues (and social polarization) that leads you and others here to categorize me in ways that don't begin to apply.

Again, misdirection.

Hahaha! Misdirection! you cry, as you dodge the simple question yet again. On and on it goes, with every excuse, dodge, insult, and hypocritical accusation imaginable. You make this bald claim that a PNSG is not an intelligent thing, yet you cite as evidence of intelligence the very thing that a PNSG can do... and yet you don't see your inconsistency.

However, in the interest of advancing dialog, let me use the following definition of “intelligent”: universal agreement of intelligence.

Really? Doesn't it occur to you that there is no universal agreement regarding intelligence? My opinion is that computers are in and of themselves intelligent in the very same critical sense of the word that you can apply to a human being (essentially that they can learn and solve novel problems). And of course I am far from alone in that opinion. Yet I'm quite sure you disagree with that, and consider that a computer "can only do what it has been programmed to do by a human being" - as though humans have some secret sauce (res cogitans? a soul? elan vital?) that qualitatively distinguishes them. So where is this "universal agreement?" Even among ID proponents there is no universal agreement! I have debated ID proponents here who hold that conscious awareness is requisite to be considered "intelligent", and those who disagree. Some think libertarian free will is essential, others deny it. And so on and so on. Can you imagine some other "scientific theory" that defines its sole explanatory concept as something that "we know when we see it, but really can't put our finger on what it is?" It's laughable.

Anything not universally agreed to be intelligent (e.g. a PNSG) should require extraordinary evidence to prove intelligence, and would clearly not qualify as most logical inference.

You still don't get it! You can't prove intelligence until you provide some particular criteria by which to establish its existence! And around and around you go, just digging deeper and deeper into your confusion.

If you read words in a book, do you claim that the book is not an intelligent agent, therefore inferring that the words don’t have an intelligent source is valid? Do I need to explain why a (designed) book is considered not intelligent, and a (designed) human is?

In my view, a book can not learn and solve novel problems, and that is why I would not consider it to be intelligent. What is your reason for denying that a book is intelligent? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish @ 66

Now, in the case of human beings, their ability to generate primes qualifies them as being intelligent in their own right. ... But when a PNSG does it, you credit the intelligence to AIGuy rather to the PNSG itself. Why?

Because the human's ability to generate primes has been transferred to the PNSG, and the PNSG is only doing what the human intelligence designed it to do. If a PNSG initially had no ability to generate primes but then innately developed that ability without any external input, then the PNSG would be credited with the intelligence. But in the thought experiment, PNSG 1 & 2 had no innate self-originated ability to generate primes; AIGuy made them both. However, the 3rd source of prime numbers was not specified and you evaded answering. As you did not answer the questions posed as-is in the thought experiment, I'll not be answering your questions in 56, unless you specifically answer the following.

The PNSG can’t do anything except generate prime numbers. It can’t learn to generate anything else. It can’t read a book, play piano, tell a joke, solve a crossword puzzle, or do anything at all that we might call "intelligent".

But the 3rd prime number series was not stated as sourced from a PNSG. We don't know what the 3rd source actually is. The 3rd output is merely identical to that of PNSG 1 and 2. The source of the 3rd series may well be capable of additional activities that we might call "intelligent". AIGuy could even have stowed away along with PNSG 2 and began his own transmission back to earth on the return trip, but hasn't yet transmitted any jokes, concertos, or puzzle solutions. The 3rd source is simply transmitting a prime number series, identical to what AIGuy could transmit.

Nor can it [a PNSG] choose not to generate primes, or explain why it does it in the first place. AIGuy can do all of these things.

But the 3rd source was initially silent and only began transmitting later.

So, the reason I insist that a series of primes does not necessarily indicate that a human-like intelligence is responsible is thus illustrated by your thought experiment. Whatever is sending the primes may be like a human being, but it may also be like a PNSG.

If the 3rd source may be like a human, whose intelligence you've admitted, then the 3rd source may be intelligent. But the thought experiment never postulated a human-like intelligence for the 3rd source. It might be alien intelligence. It might be AIGuy who stowed away on the mission. Or it might be that Decepticons reverse-engineered PNSG 2 and cloned PNSG 3. All we know is the 3rd prime number series is identical to the 2nd and 1st and to what AIGuy could produce himself. And if it may be intelligent, then intelligence can't be ruled out. If AIguy transmits only prime numbers and no music, jokes or puzzles, does that mean he isn't intelligent? If not, then you must admit that generating prime numbers is not evidence of inability do anything else. Absence of evidence is not evidence of other inability. If generating prime numbers is not evidence of other inability, and the 3rd source transmits only prime numbers but no music, jokes or puzzles, does that mean the 3rd source isn't intelligent? So, given the only information we have is identical series of prime numbers, what can be inferred about the 3rd source and AIGuy? Are they both intelligent or both unable to do other things? Charles

RDFish, If you're not a materialist, you're doing a great impression of one.

You need to explain why you don’t consider the (designed) PNSG to be an intelligent agent, but you do consider the (designed) human being to be one.

Again, misdirection. Now you want to argue the definition of "intelligent". You're getting closer to the "is a dead dog really dead" argument. Whether I can clearly define unambiguously to your satisfaction the term "intelligent" doesn't change the fact that the PNSG is not, and the human is - any more than whether I can unambiguously define "dead" changes the fact that a live dog is alive, and a dead dog is dead. However, in the interest of advancing dialog, let me use the following definition of "intelligent": universal agreement of intelligence. A human being capable of creating a PNSG is universally agreed to be intelligent. Anything not universally agreed to be intelligent (e.g. a PNSG) should require extraordinary evidence to prove intelligence, and would clearly not qualify as most logical inference. If you read words in a book, do you claim that the book is not an intelligent agent, therefore inferring that the words don't have an intelligent source is valid? Do I need to explain why a (designed) book is considered not intelligent, and a (designed) human is? drc466

Hi drc466, First, I'm not a materialist. Second, you missed the point: You need to explain why you don't consider the (designed) PNSG to be an intelligent agent, but you do consider the (designed) human being to be one. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish @66, Nice try at misdirection, RDFish, but no dice. The point is that, even if the immediate cause of a series of primes is unintelligent (PNSG), the initial cause (the human designer) is. Once you hit the level where an intelligent source initiated the design, there is no need to go to "who designed the designer", because the ID premise has been satisfied - the inference to an intelligent agent is True. What you, and materialists like you, are arguing is that the inference of an intelligent initiator is unwarranted - in other words, that the inference of no intelligence at any point is a valid one. This is plainly ridiculous.

If you insist that nothing can design prime numbers without itself being designed by something else, you must agree that human beings can’t design things like PNSGs without having been designed by something else.

YES! Exactly! Now you're getting it. This is a perfectly valid exercise of ID. In logical form: 1) Design is a sign of the act of an intelligent agent 2) Intelligence is, itself, evidence of design 3) Therefore, God. I'm sure ba77 could provide a link to somewhere that this is presented in a more formalized argument, but I couldn't agree with you more on this point (I am, after all, YEC). However, this is a separate argument from whether design indicates intelligence. You would like to state that, since infinite recursion on design = intelligence leads to a non-materialistic conclusion, that design = intelligence must be wrong. This assumes materialism, which is an ideological stance, not a scientific one. Additionally, I believe you were arguing against there even being a most logical inference, not an absolute one - the above argument requires an absolute (intelligence always indicates design, which always indicates intelligence). drc466

Charles: " If you found amino acids arranged in prime numbers would think “evolution” or “intelligence”?" First, you would have to demonstrate to me how you could unambiguously translate the 20 amino acids into a numerical system. Until you could do this, your question is pointless. However, if you reworded it to say something like, if we found that the number of amino acids in all proteins was a prime number, we might have something to debate here. But even under this unlikely scenario, I wouldn't conclude that an intelligence was involved. I would also want to examine if there are any biochemical limitations that might necessitate protein lengths that were prime numbers. Acartia_bogart

reason and logic is rooted in Christianity But ID isn't religious. No no no. Graham2

Hi Upright Biped,

The physical capacity to transcribe and translate a number is the same as that for a natural langauge.

The physical capacity??? I thought we were talking about mental abilities. In any event, the mental ability to do math is utterly distinct from the ability to understand natural language. If you doubt this, remember that it was easy to produce a computer that can do the former, and yet there is still not a glimmer of understanding at how we might produce a computer that can do the latter (science fiction movies and Siri notwithstanding). Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Hi Charles,

See my thought experiment in post 16 on this thread...

Plainly, the prime number series being received from the 2nd PNSG has an intelligent source as it was made by AIGuy, regardless of how far from home it may be....

While the PNSG was designed by AIGuy, it is generating prime numbers all by itself. Similary, according your own beliefs (I am assuming this), human beings can generate prime number by themselves, even though they were in turn designed by some other Intelligent Designer. Now, in the case of human beings, their ability to generate primes qualifies them as being intelligent in their own right. Why, then, do you not consider PNSGs to be intelligent in their own right? Again: You believe that it requires intelligence in order to generate primes. When a human being does it, you credit the intelligence to the human being, and not to the human being's designer. But when a PNSG does it, you credit the intelligence to AIGuy rather to the PNSG itself. Why? It's clear why you (and most people here) think that way: The PNSG can't do anything except generate prime numbers. It can't learn to generate anything else. It can't read a book, play piano, tell a joke, solve a crossword puzzle, or do anything at all that we might call "intelligent". Nor can it choose not to generate primes, or explain why it does it in the first place. AIGuy can do all of these things. So, the reason I insist that a series of primes does not necessarily indicate that a human-like intelligence is responsible is thus illustrated by your thought experiment. Whatever is sending the primes may be like a human being, but it may also be like a PNSG. And here, you object: Aha! Even if it is like a PNSG, we have seen that it took a human-like intelligence to produce it in the first place! So it is still the tell-tale sign of a human-like intelligence when we detect a series of primes! The answer to your objection lies in the question I just asked you: Do you not consider human beings to be intelligent in their own right, even though you believe they are themselves designed? Of course you do: You need not consider the origin of a human being in order to determine whether or not they are intelligent. That is like asking "Who designed the designer?", one of ID's least favorite quesitons. If you insist that nothing can design prime numbers without itself being designed by something else, you must agree that human beings can't design things like PNSGs without having been designed by something else. And of course nothing can design things like human beings without being designed by something else. And so on... into the infinte regress that ID rejects as a defeater of ID. (Presumably deflected with ancient theological arguments that we have all heard). In the end, your argument is one huge illustration of how to beg the question. If you simply assume that anything that can generate prime numbers must have been designed by something else with (at least) human-like intelligence, then you have assumed your conclusion - begged the question. If you do not, then you must admit that something may well exist that can generate prime numbers, but not do anything else, and without proving the existence of yet some other human-like intelligence. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

StephenB@27 wrote:

If a man does not conform his behavior to an objective moral code, he will soon find a subjective moral code that conforms to his behavior. It’s always about self-justification .

Exactly! That's why after being repeatedly refuted in previous postings, Acartia simply moves to the next one, starting from scratch as though nothing happened. For example, after attacking Michael Behe's math as "Behe’s voodoo magic pseudostatistics," A-B was unable to explain where Behe's probability calculations were wrong, instead insisting that simultaneous probabilities are somehow different than sequential ones inspite of being directed to the binomial theorem. And now, it turns out that Behe's 10^20 calculated estimate for the double or triple mutation required for CQR in malaria was about right after all! http://www.malariajournal.com/content/9/1/217 As I said before, the threadbare rationalizations are so transparent, they are reminiscient of Monty Python's dead parrot skit (excerpted):

Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call! (Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.) Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead parrot. Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned! Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!? Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major. Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk. Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords. Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home? Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

-Q Querius

Acartia_bogart @ 57

Evolution, certainly. If the sequence was caused by an intelligent, or non-intelligent life form, it probably evolved by some mechanism.

Prime numbers caused by an intelligent alien life form that had "evolved" from some inanimate origin, treats evolution as indirectly responsible. I was asking (and didn't think to prequalify my question) about a series of prime numbers evolving directly from inanimate matter, similar to how DNA/RNA in a virus (which some would argue is inanimate) evolved. The "information" encoded in DNA/RNA is believed by materialists to have evolved. Would you consider evolution capable of evolving directly instead of the information in a DNA sequence rather a prime number sequence? If you found amino acids arranged in prime numbers would think "evolution" or "intelligence"? Charles

If you (Charles or any other ID proponent here) says that a series of primes warrants the inference to some entity with “intelligence equal to or greater than humans”, does that mean you would infer that whatever generated these primes could read and write in a natural languge? If so, why?

The physical capacity to transcribe and translate a number is the same as that for a natural langauge. There are two distinct categories of semiotic systems. One category uses physical representations that are reducible to their material make-up; the other uses physical representations that have a dimensional orientation and are not reducible to their material make-up. The first type is found throughout the living kingdom. The second type is found nowhere else but in the translation of language and mathematics. Upright BiPed

Mark Frank: The point is that a process with this logic is conceivable.

And fairies could be responsible for moving the earth around the sun. That's "conceivable" too. You miss the point. ID, and science in general, is not about what is "conceivable." It is about inferences to the best explanation given what we know about reality. Your hypothetical scenario may be possible but it's not the inference to the best explanation. We already have a much better candidate for a generator capable of generating huge numbers of sequential primes. Vishnu

Mark Frank @ 59

The point is that a process with this logic is conceivable.

Actually, it isn't. The problem with that logic is that it is relying on a superposition of regular patterns, even ignoring the kinds of physical process that generate them - they are regardless regular: they have "frequency", "harmonics", periodicity, they superimpose with resonance (however complicated). They are also characterized by rational numeric values. Prime numbers are not. Prime numbers are only whole numbers. They have gaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap between them. Any natural process or superposition of processes will have to inherently have interruptions or gaps which are as complex if not more so than the prime numbers. This is a case where regularity and continuous (as opposed to whole numbers) values are not your friends. Charles

RDFish @ 56 See my thought experiment in post 16 on this thread If you give it a serious, informative answer I will respond in kind to your questions in post 56. If, OTOH, you deflect with semantics or reasons as to why you can't or won't answer the questions as-is, then neither will I answer your questions. Charles

#55 Charles

But to produce the first 100 million prime numbers? For all the bluster I read when someone rejects “intelligence” as the source for a series consisting of the first 100 million prime numbers, I don’t believe for one second they actually comprehend the abstract reasoning and computational ability required to do that, correctly without error.

I cannot conceive of any mechanism capable of even writing the first 100 million prime numbers – much less working out what they are.  The later ones in the series would have considerably more than 100 million digits! But as I said above, there are well documented cases of idiot savant who are capable of recognising whether a very large number is a prime but are barely capable of basic arithmetic. So I don’t think it necessarily involves much abstract reasoning and computational ability. Let me suggest the outlines of a relatively simple natural process that might do the job – of course the process doesn’t exist and is absolute rubbish physics - but it shows how a natural process with similar logic might work. Imagine a process deep within a star that emits emf bursts of regularly increasing frequency – maybe an increase of 1 Hertz per second until it gets to a 1000 and then starts again.  Whenever a burst is emitted it meets a layer of some kind of plasma that surrounds the star that has two relevant properties. 1) When an emf radiation burst hits it it starts a series of harmonics so that instantly all the whole multiples of the frequency of the burst (up to a number well over a 1000) are resonating in the layer. 2) If the frequency of the burst is already resonating in the plasma then it totally absorbs the burst but if not, it will emit some of the burst of radiation to observers outside the star. The result would be that any observer outside the star observes a series of bursts of radiation where the frequency is the series of prime numbers up to 1000. Of course 1000 is an arbitrary choice. The example could be adapted for any limit. Please don’t waste time criticising the physics of this. The point is that a process with this logic is conceivable. It is a lot less mysterious than much of quantum mechanics. Mark Frank

Hi Barry Arrington,

In the combox to the do we need context post a materialist who goes by RDFish

You may add to your long list of silly and egregious mistakes this telling error. I am not a materialist. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Charles: "For the record, sincerely, would you also seriously consider chance and evolution as worth researching as causes of a series of prime numbers?" If by chance you mean the result of natural physical events such as pulsars, novae, black holes, etc. I wouldn't rule them out completely, but I also wouldn't put too many resources into it unless the results were favourable. Evolution, certainly. If the sequence was caused by an intelligent, or non-intelligent life form, it probably evolved by some mechanism. But, again, it all comes back to how we define intelligence. Does it have to be self aware? Why? Does it have to understand the mathematical concepts that we use to define prime numbers? Why? Don't get me wrong. If we received a long stream of prime numbers, I would think the likely culprit is an extraterrestrial intelligence. But it is a big difference between an opinion and a conclusion (or strong inference). Maybe an analogy would help in understanding my reasoning. Earth is the only planet that we know of with an oxygen atmosphere. And we know that photosynthesis by life forms is required to maintain the oxygen levels in our atmosphere. Based on these observations can we conclude or infer that all planets in the galaxy with an oxygen atmosphere must contain life? Of course not. And for the same reason that we can't conclude that a series of prime numbers is the result of an intelligence. The sample size is too small. Acartia_bogart

Speaking only for myself, and regarding a non-trivial series of prime numbers, I would presume intelligence equal to or greater than human...

First, note that I am not arguing about "speaking for oneself" about anything - I would never challenge anyone's personal, private opinion about gods, ghosts, aliens, angels, or bigfoot - especially if they held those beliefs dearly for personal reasons. What I do object to is ID's attempt to co-opt scientific credibility for its conclusions. Second, let me ask this: If you (Charles or any other ID proponent here) says that a series of primes warrants the inference to some entity with "intelligence equal to or greater than humans", does that mean you would infer that whatever generated these primes could read and write in a natural languge? If so, why? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Acartia_bogart @ 52

At the same time, we would look at evidence for other natural causes [for the prime numbers]. Isn’t that what an IDist would do? Or would they simply conclude an intelligent source from the prime numbers alone?

Speaking only for myself, and regarding a non-trivial series of prime numbers, I would presume intelligence equal to or greater than human, and discard that presumption if I encountered additional evidence that the prime series was deficient in some way. e.g., 1, 2, 3, 5 I would reject out of hand as "intelligent" because it could easily be the natural sequence 1-5 with "4" omitted somehow. But to produce the first 100 million prime numbers? For all the bluster I read when someone rejects "intelligence" as the source for a series consisting of the first 100 million prime numbers, I don't believe for one second they actually comprehend the abstract reasoning and computational ability required to do that, correctly without error. For the record, sincerely, would you also seriously consider chance and evolution as worth researching as causes of a series of prime numbers? Charles

AB: Isn’t that what an IDist would do? Or would they simply conclude an intelligent source from the prime numbers alone?

You mistake "inference to the best explanation" for "conclude" as if someone has settled the issue for all time and space. That's not how science works. And nobody is asserting it. More muddled thinking from you. Vishnu

Vishnu: I just think you guys are jackasses who like to argue and stir the pot in ID blogs” AB: Barry, I think that this confirms my earlier comment.

There, there. Barry asked for an explanation, and I express my opinion. I don't think there's any mystery whatsoever. Quite frankly, I think it's an inference to the best explanation! :D My apologies if you are not an actual jackass. Vishnu

Charles, materialists like myself would not rile out intelligence as a cause for the prime numbers because we do not see intelligence on other planets as impossible. In fact, we don't even view it as highly improbable. So, of course, we would examine other lines of evidence to confirm that another intelligent life form was responsible. At the same time, we would look at evidence for other natural causes. Isn't that what an IDist would do? Or would they simply conclude an intelligent source from the prime numbers alone? Humans would not have advanced very far with that approach. Acartia_bogart

AB: In the sixties astronomers observed a signal that recurred every 1.3 seconds. It would have been easy to infer extraterrestrials,

But it would have been unwarranted.

... but they were better scientists than that. They later confirmed the existence of pulsars.

We go from the 100 first primes, to OOL (with some oblique reference to "magic"), then to this. The bankruptcy of your thought processes on the subject is in full view. Laying aside OOL, can you see the difference why an inference to intelligence as the best explanation that we have for the source of a transmission containing the first 100 primes might be a wee different than inferring an intelligent source from a 1.3 per second cosmic pulse? I'll give you a hint: one is highly specified and one is not. Ooops! I didn't just give you a hint, and actually told you what the difference is. What we know about the natural world tells us that all kinds of non-intelligent things are capable generating low CSI. The first 100 primes is not low CSI. It is high CSI. And there's only one known source of it. Keep kicking those thorns. Vishnu

Acartia_bogart @ 49

You are not very good at sarcasm.

You haven't seen me be sarcastic yet. That was a sincere question. You opened a door, I walked thru. You want your positions treated with respect, I asked a respectful question. What are your reasons to include "intelligence" among the lines of your research for the cause of a series of prime numbers? Would you also include chance and evolution (considering the power that materialists attribute to them)? Charles

Charles: "Why research along intelligence lines about a series of prime numbers? If you had to expend your limited, personal resources on the avenue of research most likely to identify the cause of a series of prime numbers, why would you inlcude “intelligence” among your lines of research?" You are not very good at sarcasm. Acartia_bogart

Acartia_bogart @ 47

Jumping to the “intelligence” conclusion from a series of prime numbers, with no additional context and information simply isn’t sufficient. Is it sufficient to warrant more research along the intelligence lines? Absolutely.

Why research along intelligence lines about a series of prime numbers? If you had to expend your limited, personal resources on the avenue of research most likely to identify the cause of a series of prime numbers, why would you inlcude "intelligence" among your lines of research? Charles

Vishnu: "Why don’t you stick to a specific, say, like what animal (other than humans) can generate the first 100 prime numbers? Or further, what animal (other than human) can build a machine and transmit those numbers out into space?" I have no idea. But I also have no idea how life originated but I am not willing to throw up my arms and say that it must be magic. For decades everyone with a TV observed electromagnetic signals from outside the solar system (we called it snow) and attributed it to everything except what it was. This is because we made inferences with very thistle information. We now know that it is CBR. In the sixties astronomers observed a signal that recurred every 1.3 seconds. It would have been easy to infer extraterrestrials, but they were better scientists than that. They later confirmed the existence of pulsars. Jumping to the "intelligence" conclusion from a series of prime numbers, with no additional context and information simply isn't sufficient. Is it sufficient to warrant more research along the intelligence lines? Absolutely. Is it sufficient to conclude the presence of intelligence? Absolutely not. " I just think you guys are jackasses who like to argue and stir the pot in ID blogs" Barry, I think that this confirms my earlier comment. Acartia_bogart

AB: Unless I have missed something (which is quite possible in such a long string of comments) I don’t think that RDFish has provided his “personal” opinion on whether the source of such a signal is likely to be the result of an intelligence (either directly or indirectly). And I know that I haven’t either. And, just for the record, my personal opinion is that an intelligence would likely be responsible.

No, what are you doing is denying that ID is the best inference for something like 100 primes transmitted from space. I.e, you're denying the obvious. For some strange (and somewhat humorous reason) you guys just can't get past it. All the while living your daily lives using the very same principle you deny. In short, it boils down to a philosophical issue. There are those of us that think abductive reasoning is valid with regards to some things like 100 primes from space and biological life, such as DNA/ribosomeic replicators, and those who don't. Those of us who accept it do it (I suspect) for the same reasons they do it in their daily lives. It's necessary. It is required of entities like us who are not omniscience. In short, it is the best bet. You and RDFish know this, yet you keep kicking the thorns. I disagree with Barry. I don't think it's a mystery. I just think you guys are jackasses who like to argue and stir the pot in ID blogs. Maybe you like to see how many words you can generate in replies. But I'm sure you are fine fellows in general. Vishnu

In the recent past, a similar discussion took place about fully functioning battleships, discovered at an unknown planet. Also then, according to materialists, intelligent design was not even an option as best explanation for these battleships. It makes one wonder what is going on in those thick skulls, indeed. Box

AB: You are equating the presence of complex mathematical capability with a high level of intelligence. But RDFish has already pointed out, quite correctly, that most animals on earth are quite capable of this, even though we would never say that they understand these mathematical concepts at a conscious level.

Why don't you stick to a specific, say, like what animal (other than humans) can generate the first 100 prime numbers? Or further, what animal (other than human) can build a machine and transmit those numbers out into space? Deny deny deny the obvious. Youse guyses are just silly. Vishnu

AB: "Perhaps so AB. But that is not the subject of this post. Indeed, the subject of this post is just the opposite of reason and logic – why do you and RDFish seem willing (nay, eager) to wallow around in obviously absurd error? Can you address that for me?". Two commenters (UB and Andre) go completely off topic and you say nothing. I comment on their ridiculous claims and I get chastised? That speaks volumes. Regardless, RDFish's argument can be boiled down to two points: 1) the logic you used to try to refute him was flawed, which it was; and 2) it is dangerous to draw overarching conclusions from little evidence. I don't think that any would argue this second point, but history is rife with examples of this happening. You, and others, are claiming that the ability to string a series of prime numbers (or random numbers, or whatever) is proof of intelligence. But all that we can really conclude is that humans are the only entities that we know of that can do this, and humans are intelligent. But humans are the only entities that we know of that routinely commit mass murder against our own kind (war). Is that also an indication of intelligence? I certainly hope not. You are equating the presence of complex mathematical capability with a high level of intelligence. But RDFish has already pointed out, quite correctly, that most animals on earth are quite capable of this, even though we would never say that they understand these mathematical concepts at a conscious level. Unless I have missed something (which is quite possible in such a long string of comments) I don't think that RDFish has provided his "personal" opinion on whether the source of such a signal is likely to be the result of an intelligence (either directly or indirectly). And I know that I haven't either. And, just for the record, my personal opinion is that an intelligence would likely be responsible. But I am not willing to let my personal belief bias any inference or conclusion I would derive from such an observation. Such a signal would be the start point of concluding if an intelligence was responsible, not the end point. Acartia_bogart

Hi Barry Arrington, I failed to notice that rather than respond to my arguments on the original thread, you decided to appeal to your echo chamber for support here. I made a number of arguments that you failed to respond to, including the reductio examples that illustrated that just because a human being might use conscious reasoning to produce some phenomenon, that doesn't mean that the same phenomenon will necessarily be the result of conscious reasoning when caused by something other than human action. When I have time I'll peruse the rest of your (and others') comments here in this thread and explain why you're mistaken. In the meanwhile, the last fallacy you committed in the previous thread was argumentum ad populum, a tactic typically employed by people who are losing an argument. It of course makes no difference what other people agree or don't agree with my arguments. What matters is that you cannot respond with valid counter-arguments. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

Mark Frank @ 37

It is easy to create a machine that produces a string of prime numbers. Of course you can say that intelligence is required to design the machine but that is a different skill. I can write a programme to generate prime numbers without having the ability to generate them myself.

True. The prime numbers could be generated by a non-intelligent machine. But we see CSI in that string of numbers and the CSI is reducible to a programmatic function. That programmming is evidence of intelligence. So, the prime numbers are a step removed from intelligence in that case. But it remains true that the only known source of those numbers is intelligence -- that's what we recognize immediately.

The really big one is that intelligence is a whole bunch of different abilities. This is clear from examples of people who have some of those abilities but not others. For example there are several attested examples of idiot savant who can reproduce prime numbers but are unable to do simple arithmetic (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8040161). So which parts of intelligence allow us to generate a string of prime numbers? </blockquote. It's certainly possible to have intelligence that cannot create prime numbers. Animals have that kind of intelligence.

You need to define it and prove it is necessary. Otherwise you are just left with “that part of intelligence that allows us to generate a string of prime numbers” – which doesn’t help at all.

Again, intelligence is an immaterial quality. We can't assess the physical differences between the intelligence of a bumble-bee and the intelligence of a human being. We don't know the spacial dimensions, weight, color, physical movements or physical-dependencies or intelligence. With that, talking about "which part" of intelligence is very difficult. We don't know if intelligence has any parts or if it is one thing. We don't know if animals have a different thing called "intelligence" or if they have the same thing as humans in a different variety with different features. In fact, we can't directly observe any features of intelligence. To suddenly expect ID to give physical descriptions of a non-observable entity that science itself cannot define is a bit unfair, I'd say. We infer that there is a thing called "intelligence" from the effects we see in various things. As RDFish suggested (and I agree somewhat), how do we know that rivers are not intelligent? We really don't know. Those of the animist faith would say that they are. Scientific materialism cannot say that rivers are not intelligent because there is no direct physical evidence that a thing called intelligence exists anywhere. No one has seen what this thing is -- we only see certain effects.

Silver Asiatic

William J Murray- They are drawing lines when they should be focusing on testing the claims of their respective anti-ID positions. Lizzie insists on models yet she refuses to tell us how to model unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution/ evolution via differing accumulations of genetic accidents. At the University of Chicago Dembski asked how to model it and no one could answer him. They love to say that it isn't a search but that doesn't help them at all. Joe

Mark Frank:

It is easy to create a machine that produces a string of prime numbers. Of course you can say that intelligence is required to design the machine but that is a different skill.

Yes the prime numbers will be traced back to the humans who designed and built the machine. Meyer and others have been over this ad nauseum.

You need to define it and prove it is necessary.

Already have. And guess what? It is part of the standard and accepted definitions of "intelligence". Strange that you don't have the intelligence to determine which definitions are covered by ID. Joe

Bogart at 34 That is an interesting take on my comment. I suggest that Christianity often has itself to blame for engendering what is (very often) a hostile disregard for the design inference, and you call that arrogant. Upright BiPed

SA #30

The only known capability that can generate strings of prime numbers is intelligence. We know that intelligence is found in several varieties (and may actually be entirely different intelligences) and is not directly observable.

That is not strictly true. It is easy to create a machine that produces a string of prime numbers.  Of course you can say that intelligence is required to design the machine but that is a different skill. I can write a programme to generate prime numbers without having the ability to generate them myself. However, that is not the big point.  The really big one is that intelligence is a whole bunch of different abilities. This is clear from examples of people who have some of those abilities but not others. For example there are several attested examples of idiot savant who can reproduce prime numbers but are unable to do simple arithmetic (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8040161). So which parts of intelligence allow us to generate a string of prime numbers?  You need to define it and prove it is necessary. Otherwise you are just left with “that part of intelligence that allows us to generate a string of prime numbers” – which doesn’t help at all. Mark Frank

BA #25

Do you also disagree with Carl Sagan and Elizabeth Liddle that the inference to best explanation of the data is “act of an intelligent agent”?

I suppose I do - in the sense that I think that this a tricky subject and I am not sure what the correct inference is. After all it is an experience quite unlike anything we have ever had to deal with. Mark Frank

AB @ 34:

Andre: ” reason and logic is rooted in Christianity” That is as arrogant as UB’s comment. The Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and Chinese might disagree with you.

Perhaps so AB. But that is not the subject of this post. Indeed, the subject of this post is just the opposite of reason and logic – why do you and RDFish seem willing (nay, eager) to wallow around in obviously absurd error? Can you address that for me? Barry Arrington

Andre: " reason and logic is rooted in Christianity" That is as arrogant as UB's comment. The Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and Chinese might disagree with you. Acartia_bogart

Why then? Why does an obviously intelligent and articulate person insist on spewing such blithering idiocy? It is a mystery to me. Can someone explain it to me?

Good questions. If ID cannot draw inferences about intelligence, then science itself cannot draw inferences about gravity and electricity - both of which are immaterial qualities where we only see effects not the thing itself. We infer that the speed of light is the same throughout the universe, and that it has been the same since the beginning of time. To his credit, RDFish rejects Darwinism. He also draws reasonable inferences in many cases, but inconsistently. He also seems more interested in the ID project than most opponents are. Some of his challenges are good - like trying to define intelligence and by pushing ID for more precision. He's definitely the most unusual opponent I've ever encountered. He follows the ID arguments quite a long way down the logical path but then abruptly stops short after the most reasonable conclusion is one step away. It seems like he's concealing something ... why the opposition to the ID inference? It's not that difficult to accept. Even atheists see it. I'll just agree with the OP - it's a mystery. Silver Asiatic

Where EL and RDFish and others are all the same is that when it comes to ID, somewhere along the line of reasoning they draw the line and say "here, and no further". Some won't even admit that ID is a meaningful commodity in the first place. Others will admit that, but then claim there is now way to scientifically quantify it. Some will admit that there is an appearance of design in nature then deny it is design, all the while insisting there is no means by which to determine if it is design or not. Some will draw the line before we even employ the rules of right reason. Others will draw the line on the motivations of those that advocate ID. They all draw the line somewhere and no amount of evidence or reasoning will force them to cross it, because they know where it leads. William J Murray

Barry: Why then? Why does an obviously intelligent and articulate person insist on spewing such blithering idiocy? It is a mystery to me. Can someone explain it to me?

There is theory and there is practice, and the fact is, RDFish uses "inference to the best explanation", i.e, abductive reasoning, every day in his life. Why? Because living would be impossible without doing so. In short, it's the "best bet" when one lacks omniscience. It is patently obvious to any reasonable person that if 100 primes were received by us from deep space, that the best inference would be that it came from an intelligent source, that is, a source with human-like (or better) mental capabilities of foresight, knowledge, and intent, etc. Carl Sagan believed it. Elizabeth Liddle believes it. And it's why SETI is looking for such artifacts of intelligence. RDFish believes it too, I suspect. But to answer your question: Why won't he admit it? I suspect it's because he gets some sort of enjoyment by being a difficult jackass on pro-ID blogs. Why do some kids like to pull the wings off of butterflies? Same reason, I suppose. Vishnu

Mark Frank @ #10

3. Because Z is the only known cause of Y, the inference to the best explanation is that this particular instance of Y was also caused by Z. Is not as obvious as it first appears. It rather depends on how you define Z.

The definition of Z should seek to get to the source and not be a general definition.

Options include: 1 Human being with the education and desire to produce strings of prime numbers

Yes, but we can't really measure "desire" since it is an immaterial quality and is linked with intelligence and will. So, we could say that Z emanates from an immaterial source. Since not all human beings can generate prime numbers, something additional is required to define Z.

2 Human being

As above, this is not specific enough. If we have more specificity, then we should use it. You could have written a list of 1000 things (and this is what RDFish would prefer): 1. A thing that exists. 2. A material thing 3. A mammal 4. A mammal with fingernails 5. A being 6. A being that drives Fords 7. A being that drives BMWs 8. A mammal that shops at Wallmart ... to 1000 or more. But we avoid all of that nonsense by refining our search to the most specific source we can determine.

3 Living organism that thinks, feels and acts like a human being

Again, if we consider the source of the prime numbers to be intelligence, and we also agree that intelligence is immaterial and not directly observable the effect of which are evident in many different forms (mammals, birds, fish, insects), then it's reasonable to conclude that it is not necessarily an "organism" that produces the prime numbers. "A living thing" would be better. But I think another syllogism is required to prove what I just said (following below).

4 Living organism that is capable of generating strings of prime numbers

Again, "living thing" (you didn't specify "living" with "human" but it was understood). Like intelligence, we do not directly observe what "life" is. We infer that it exists. It is an immaterial, invisible quality - like gravity or electricity. We only see its effects. As RDFish suggested, "is a river a living thing"? or a thundercloud? We really don't know with empirical evidence. We classify some things as living and others as inanimate. So we're talking about an immaterial quality. 1. Immaterial qualities are non-material and cannot be observed empirically 2. There is no direct evidence that immaterial qualities are dependent upon or necessarily reside in, material bodies (organisms) 3. Intelligence is an immaterial quality. 4. Life is an immaterial quality 5. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the existence and work of intelligence and life do not require material bodies (organisms)

5 Thing that is capable of generating strings of prime numbers

The only known capability that can generate strings of prime numbers is intelligence. We know that intelligence is found in several varieties (and may actually be entirely different intelligences) and is not directly observable. Silver Asiatic

Acartia_bogart @ 5 But I am surprised that nobody countered with the fact that the signal was “transmitted”, somehow, and therefore adds considerable additional context and information.

AB, you are quibbling. If us humans received the primes, that the primes would be "transmitted" is rather implied, don't you think? At any rate, Joe explicitly mentioned it @56:

Seriously who would produce a transmitter, figure out the primes and transmit them unintentionally?

Vishnu

A_B said @ #5 "He simply said that you could infer almost nothing about a series of prime number without additional context." What RDFish actually said was: "There may be something other than human beings in the universe capable of producing a series of primes, but if there is, we know absolutely nothing about it." See the difference? A small point but it reveals something. When your opponent is not willing to admit that he's wrong (and RDFish did not admit it) on a small point, we can have some idea about how he will treat other matters.

A_B: But rather than honestly debate, the ID crowd resorted to ...

I'm not sure why you misquoted the point above (to your own advantage), but we all can do that at times. It's not necessarily a sign of dishonesty - I hope. Silver Asiatic

Why do some materialists insist on wallowing in obvious error?

If a man does not conform his behavior to an objective moral code, he will soon find a subjective moral code that conforms to his behavior. It's always about self-justification . StephenB

Axel: "No. God is not an organism, but is simple (spirit). You people speak as if an alternative to a divine Creator were a plausible possibility." Their arguments and supposed intellectual reasonings are hilarious if not also grossly hypocritical. For example, while they insist there is no Creator in the Biblical sense, they have no problem believing that microbes hitchhiked on the backs of meteor rocks or comet ice crystals. So an extraterrestrial source is acceptable for them after all. But the question still begs, if evolutionists are willing to speculate the possibility that life came from an extraterrestrial source, then what basis is there for excluding & ruling out God as that source ? They'll answer there is no prove of a being whose sole make up is of pure energy of Spirit. Yet, these are the very people whose religious speculations inspire Hollywood to invent Sci-Fi flicks where nonphysical beings or entities live out somewhere in the Universe. Axel: "ID, I realise, does not expressly rely on a religious inference, but as you all well know and raise Cain about, in effect, the inference of a divine Creator is unavoidable." This is why they are constantly burden shifting whenever anyone questions some grand illusionary story in any science journal which omits any proof other than faith affirmations. They fully understand the dangers inherent in allowing only for a design inference, therefore the biblical God must be brought in and the burden of proof shifted for how you know God did it. Never mind that no proof is ever offered in most scientific research papers specifically proving an unguided blind evolutionary process. The one's inserting God into ID is their side, not necessarily ID. But that's irrelevant. God must be invoked, even if it's their doing. DavidD

Mark Frank @ 10. Your comment is not clear to me. Do you also disagree with Carl Sagan and Elizabeth Liddle that the inference to best explanation of the data is "act of an intelligent agent"? Barry Arrington

'It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.' KF, how on earth would Lewontin or any other materialist 'fundie' be able to fit non-locality or any of the mysteries of quantum mechanics into their materialist paradigm? Axel

MF #10: '3a Living organism that is capable of abstract reasoning.' No. God is not an organism, but is simple (spirit). You people speak as if an alternative to a divine Creator were a plausible possibility. Well, it may be theoretically possible, but would be operationally impossible to the mind of any rational person. ID, I realise, does not expressly rely on a religious inference, but as you all well know and raise Cain about, in effect, the inference of a divine Creator is unavoidable. Axel

BA: My first concern, is that we see deep-rooted polarisation. That is not good. Second, I note there are two roots of "difficult" resistance to what is otherwise reasonable and clear enough. There may be primary ignorance and the foundation to understand may not be there. Especially, if there is a pons asinorum such as that notorious mid-point theorem in Geometry; or, a few. (As in, e.g., how do you PROVE that the line between midpoints of two sides of a triangle is 1/2 the length of the third side and parallel to it? Or before that, that the angles that the equal length sides of an isosceles triangle produce with the base are equal?) I doubt this is acting here, we are dealing with people with Graduate education, not third formers trembling before notorious theorems! The other source, is secondary, due to interference from a commitment to a contrary ideology. In extreme cases we see patently inconsistent selective hyperskepticism, clinging to patent absurdity, question-begging a priori worldview impositions and a subtext of contempt. As in, only the ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked could dare beg to differ. In the main case, the obvious point, long since pointed out but willfully ignored, is that we have absolutely no good reason to conclude that only humans can exhibit the cluster of behaviours that point to intelligence. Beavers show limited intelligence, for instance. Likewise, if our worldview or a priori injections tracing to it force us to lock out the possibility of correcting observations, it means we are in a closed-minded, question-begging ideological circle. The notion that as we directly see phenomena characteristic of intelligence ONLY with humans, is a patent case. Beavers beg to differ, just by building dams adapted to specific stream conditions -- a considerable civil engineering feat. Next, FSCO/I is known to come from intelligence and on needle in haystack analysis will only credibly come from intelligence. So, per the vera causa principle and inductive inference to best explanation through empirically reliable sign we can reasonably conclude on inductive logic that its cause is intelligent. This applies tot he FSCO/I in say the genome and that in say the fu=ine tuned functional organisation of the observed cosmos as Nobel Equivalent Prize holder Sir Fred Hoyle pointed out. However this is not the only case on teh table, we see so called methodological naturalism rearing its question-begging ideologically loaded head yet again. Accordingly, let me clip a statement in 2000 by the board of the US National Science Teachers Association, which inadvertently lets the cat out of the bag:

The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . . science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> note loaded language] methods, explanations, generalizations [--> note subtle attempt to seize inductive logic and subject it to a prioris] and products . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. [--> question-begging insertion of evolutionary materialism] Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism [--> this, as opposed to thinking in light of evidence, logic and common sense, is not an intellectual virtue], peer review and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations [--> Worldview agenda inserted] and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> This is a loaded strawman caricature of design theory, the primary target of this statement, based on the slander sponsored by NCSE, "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo" . . . and it also demands to control what inductive logic on scientific evidence may be allowed to conclude] in the production of scientific knowledge.

No wonder we see Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin notoriously stating in his 1997 NYRB review of Sagan's last book:

. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

In short, this is not just a theoretical issue, it has enormous implications for education being turned into materialist indoctrination, for the twisting of media into a propaganda arm for the church of Darwin, for the rise of materialist bigotry based policy and more. The time has come to face facts. KF kairosfocus

A few quotes/notes on mathematics itself: As stated previously in post 2, Galileo stated:

Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the Universe. – Galileo

Kepler stated:

“Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.” – Johannes Kepler

Einstein uttered the M word in regards to the applicability of mathematics,,,

“You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.” Albert Einstein - Letters to Solovine New York, Philosophical Library, 1987

Wigner also uttered the M word,,,

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

The co discoverer of Natural Selection himself, Alfred Russel Wallace, said that man’s ability to understand mathematics was proof that man has a soul:

New Thoughts on Evolution (1910) Views of Professor Alfred Russel Wallace, O.M., F.R.S. “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russel Wallace – An interview by Harold Begbie printed on page four of The Daily Chronicle (London) issues of 3 November and 4 November 1910.

As did Gödel, who proved that mathematics was ‘incomplete’, hold that mathematics was proof that man had a ‘divine spark’, i.e. a mind/soul, within himself:

“Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine” - Kurt Godel Alan Turing and Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video https://vimeo.com/92387854

Dr. Craig uses the applicability of mathematics as a philosophical proof for God:

Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/9826382 1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists.

Dr. Bradley comments here,,

The Underlying Mathematical Foundation Of The Universe - Walter Bradley - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491491 How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe - Dr. Walter L. Bradley - paper Excerpt: Only in the 20th century have we come to fully understand that the incredibly diverse phenomena that we observe in nature are the outworking of a very small number of physical laws, each of which may be described by a simple mathematical relationship. Indeed, so simple in mathematical form and small in number are these physical laws that they can all be written on one side of one sheet of paper, as seen in Table 1. http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

And as would be expected if, as Galileo held, 'Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the Universe' we find that ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate General Relativity, or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;

The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss and Riemann – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/ Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Carl Sagan – video Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity. - per youtube The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, per dartmouth Dr. Quantum in Flatland – 3D in a 2D world – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

Verses and Music:

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. 2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. 1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. The Power of God – music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLPYRhOQcC

bornagain77

UB: "Graham, do you want me to hold your hand word by word? Barry had asked why otherwise intelligent people, generally in the western world, go to the extent of taking inane positions in order to deny design in nature. I offered my very limited opinion in return." I believe the number one debating tactic they often favor over others is simply playing innocent and playing dumb. Having accomplished that in their own minds, they take the position you are playing word & definition shell games. DavidD

Graham, do you want me to hold your hand word by word? Barry had asked why otherwise intelligent people, generally in the western world, go to the extent of taking inane positions in order to deny design in nature. I offered my very limited opinion in return. Upright BiPed

Graham2 I'll gladly help, reason and logic is rooted in Christianity and when you use it to make inferences you're actually borrowing it from ...... Andre

UBP: First let us agree that this is an attack on Christian tradition ... what on earth are you raving about ? Graham2

Here's a thought experiment for RDFish and anyone else. AI (Artifical Intelligence) Guy has in his office "an entity" which generates prime numbers. We'll call it a PNSG (Prime Number Series Generator). As RDFish has amply argued, humans are the only known intelligence capable of generating prime numbers and the PNSG entity (being of human origin) plainly has an intelligent source (we'll credit AIGuy as the developer of the PNSG). We further assume the PNSG has the additional feature of being able to transmit its output and AIGuy has a receiver in his office capable of detecting PNSG transmissions. AIGuy makes a second PNSG identical to the first. Their output transmissions are identical, as expected, given they are identical "entities". Charles sneaks into AIGuy's office and steals the 2nd PNSG (ok, my bad), and places it on the next outbound space launch, and soon the 2nd PNSG is travelling towards Alpha Centauri transmitting home to AIGuy's office its prime number series, still identical to the 1st (original), except it is red shifted as it is accelerating further away. Plainly, the prime number series being received from the 2nd PNSG has an intelligent source as it was made by AIGuy, regardless of how far from home it may be. However, all of a sudden the receiver in AIGuy's office picks up two prime number series from deep space. They are identical except that they are from different directions, sufficiently far apart that each series must have its own source and is not an echo or duplicate, and both transmissions are blue shifted - their sources are accelerating closer towards earth and AIGuy's office. The 2nd PNSG has reversed and is now travelling towards earth, but is accompanied on a different and converging trajectory by a 3rd prime number series source!!! Given that both the 2nd and 3rd prime number series are being transmitted from deep space to AIGuy's office, and both series are identical to each other and to the 1st (original), while we know for a certainty that one of the deep space prime number series has an intelligent source (because we know AIGuy made its generator), what can we infer about the source of the 3rd deep space prime number series, and how can we tell the respective sources apart? AIGuy's office --- PNSG 1, intelligent source Deep space ----- PNSG 2, intelligent source but which signal? Deep space ----- pnsg 3, ??? source, but which signal? Charles

Mark Frank @ 14 Just to be clear, RDFish has steadfastly maintained that intelligence or abstract reasoning, other than a presumption of human, can *not* be inferred as the source of a series of prime numbers. His argument seems to be that if a series of primes were discovered somewhere (say rocks arranged on Ganymede), he would infer a human intelligence or nothing at all. Charles

#12 Charles Presumably you meant to write:

But unlike you, RDFish has yet to admit that however small the capability to create strings of prime numbers may be, abstract reasoning can be inferred from it

If that is what you meant then I think (and I suspect RDFish would agree) that the ability to produce a string of prime numbers from a non-human source only allows you to infer that part of abstract reasoning which is ... the ability to produce a string of prime numbers. Mark Frank

Again, can someone explain this to me?

I can offer my uselessly limited opinion. First let us agree that this is an attack on Christian tradition. For two thousand years the part of the voice that seeks judgement and control has often outweighed the part that leads by example with love. Self-indulgent vulgarity towards reason is now on the porch. How else to explain a person's rejection of universal observation, if not by emotion? Upright BiPed

Mark Frank @ 10

But abstract reasoning is a whole bunch of capabilities of which creating strings of prime numbers is one very small part.

At least you recognize that creating strings of prime numbers is, in fact, a capability of abstract reasoning. But unlike you, RDFish has yet to admit that however small the capability to create strings of prime numbers may be, abstract reasoning can't be inferred from it. Charles

Acartia_bogart @ 5

But I am surprised that nobody countered with the fact that the signal was “transmitted”, somehow, and therefore adds considerable additional context and information.

It was my post 41 with which RDFish first disagreed, in which I stated "Given the phrase “a non-repeating series of prime numbers” in the context of conscious living beings observing that phrase encoded in radiation wavelengths impinging on all telescopes simultaneously around the globe, the source of this “noumena” is:"

He simply said that you could infer almost nothing about a series of prime number without additional context.

No, not "almost nothing", rather he argued not even just intelligence could be inferred. No one argued that "beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions. These assumptions are completely unwarranted" - that was RDFish's opening strawman.

RDFish even opened the door for others, but they never grasped it.

He kept trying to change the subject from the original post about inferring intelligence from a complex message or series of primes, to his preferred subject of the meaning of intelligence. He slammed the door shut on the original subject and kept trying to pry open his own door for his own personal agenda. Charles

Barry – why do you persist in turning rather interesting debating points into shouting matches?  Presumably not because you are an immaterialist – Gpuccio and VJ Torley would never do that. As RDFish showed with many examples, the argument of the form: 1. The only known cause of Y is Z.2. We observe a particular instance of Y.3. Because Z is the only known cause of Y, the inference to the best explanation is that this particular instance of Y was also caused by Z. Is not as obvious as it first appears.  It rather depends on how you define Z. Options include: 1 Human being with the education and desire to produce strings of prime numbers 2 Human being 3 Living organism that thinks, feels and acts like a human being 4 Living organism that is capable of generating strings of prime numbers 5 Thing that is capable of generating strings of prime numbers These are all true descriptions of the only currently known cause of generating strings of prime numbers. As I understand it, RDFish’s point is that given that we know it is not a human being then can we infer anything about Z except the last? Can we conclude the source feels and acts like a human being? Can we conclude it is a living organism?  Looking at the comments I believe you argue  that we create prime numbers through “abstract reasoning” and therefore the best explanation is that the source is capable of abstract reasoning. I could insert that in the sequence above as 3a Living organism that is capable of abstract reasoning. You treat intelligence/abstract reasoning as though it were a single indivisible attribute. But it isn’t.  But abstract reasoning is a whole bunch of capabilities of which creating strings of prime numbers is one very small part.  So can we infer that other attributes associated with abstract reasoning are also present in the source? And if so which other attributes? I am not sure of the answer. But it certainly seems like an interesting point and not wallowing in obvious error. Mark Frank

AB

I’m sorry BA, but RDFish was absolutely correct about the flawed logic that you used.

Really AB? You're going to jump in with both feet and wallow around with him? Astounding. Again, can someone explain this to me? Barry Arrington

Bogart,

But I am surprised that nobody countered with the fact that the signal was “transmitted”, somehow, and therefore adds considerable additional context and information. RDFish even opened the door for others, but they never grasped it.

So much for the search for truth, right? This is an exercise to dodge and conceal. - - - - - - - - - - In any case, signal transmission was brought up in the conversation several times. Like all other points of evidence, it doesn't matter. As it turns out, it would only matter if the transmission came from a temperate earth-like planet with a big Eat at Joe's sign on it. You see, in the anti-intellectual pursuit to deny ID we are not allowed to use the knowledge we have to discover the things we don't know. And words like "intelligence" can only be used to denigrate ID, but not to support it. Upright BiPed

This question (title of this post) has been answered before on this site - it's because evolutionists will on principle never concede a point. When you can justify arguing whether a dead dog is really dead, or ever comes back to life; or whether you can infer anything when presented with 500 coins all faced heads up; it's not about being reasonable - it's about denying an inch to those ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane "Creationists". drc466

So, A_B - if it's all a matter of context: can you provide a context where a series of prime numbers justifies not inferring the act of an intelligent agent? drc466

I'm sorry BA, but RDFish was absolutely correct about the flawed logic that you used. Keeping in mind the title of the original OP. He simply said that you could infer almost nothing about a series of prime number without additional context. But rather than honestly debate, the ID crowd resorted to name calling and their ultimate weapon; calling his argument a strawman. But I am surprised that nobody countered with the fact that the signal was "transmitted", somehow, and therefore adds considerable additional context and information. RDFish even opened the door for others, but they never grasped it. Acartia_bogart

"Even uber-materialist Elizabeth Liddle" Well she's a committed "methodological naturalist": EL - "Yes, rejection of “MN” is religious, for a very simple reason. It is not possible to investigate a non-material cause. With “methodological naturalism” we keep on investigating. With “methodological non-naturalism” you may reach a place you have to stop, because you’ve met the “non-material” part. That stoppage is the religious rejection of “MN”. I’ll repeat what I just posted elsewhere: “MN” is not a limitation on science. It is quite the opposite. It’s what leads us to keep searching. Rejecting “MN” is what poses limitations on investigation, not the acceptance of MN." Philosophically she strikes me a Deist but that for her to clarify. rich

Of related interest: Nature by Numbers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkGeOWYOFoA Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the Universe. – Galileo bornagain77

There's obviously an essential tool missing from the "genetic toolkit" of the malaria parasite! How do we [ID'ists] determine whether this is a design feature or a design flaw? Mung

Materialists wallow in obvious error because it is their lot in life and they do not accept they have the free will to change. ;) Joe