Evolution/creation: the underlying dilemma; explaining order

[guest_of_logic]

Jason,

Perhaps it might be worthwhile to invert the investigation: what, to you, would characterize phenomena that do not imply a creator?

I can put it into words but I can't truly imagine what those words refer to: unstructured, lawless chaos.

A lot of this seems anthropic and tautological to me(not just the above quote.)

Please elaborate.

Again you seem to be very imaginatively and liberally widening the category of phenomena that would imply a creator. It continues to make me question if you're doing this in good faith(pun intended.)

Consider for yourself how difficult it is to arrive at a generalisation that actually reflects reality, without the need for a million and one exceptions: that's elegance, and that's the nature of the fundamental laws of the universe, so far as I hear notable scientists describe them.

Generally I hold, rather tentatively, to the mainstream scientific explanations of these things. Intelligence>from evolution>from the right combination of non-living precursor materials. I'm a little more skeptical of the grandest cosmological theories like the Big Bang, simply because I think that may be straining science's reach at this point in time.

And yet a grand theory like that is what you're going to need to explain the non-living precursor materials; let alone the existence of the "simple" laws of physics and the elementary particles.

[Jason]

Perhaps it might be worthwhile to invert the investigation: what, to you, would characterize phenomena that do not imply a creator?

I can put it into words but I can't truly imagine what those words refer to: unstructured, lawless chaos.

Do you believe an intelligent designer would also be capable of creating such unstructured, lawless chaos? I'm imagining some of the "splatter" abstract paintings...

A lot of this seems anthropic and tautological to me(not just the above quote.)

Please elaborate.

I'm sure you already know of the anthropic principle. I think some of the arguments from that might be extended beyond life to so-called "order" itself.

Again you seem to be very imaginatively and liberally widening the category of phenomena that would imply a creator. It continues to make me question if you're doing this in good faith(pun intended.)

Consider for yourself how difficult it is to arrive at a generalisation that actually reflects reality, without the need for a million and one exceptions: that's elegance, and that's the nature of the fundamental laws of the universe, so far as I hear notable scientists describe them.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly: but if the complexity in the universe we see now is the result of iteration over time of the basic underlying laws, then of course, by default, there would be no need for exceptions.

But wouldn't it theoretically be just as possible for different fundamental laws of nature to exist? What's so special about the existing laws? Why are they any more elegant than other laws that might be formulated? And elegance seems such a subjective quality, I'm sure people disagree on what is elegant and what is not.

Through iteration the current laws led to forms of intelligence(like humans) sure....but what's so special about intelligence exactly? Other laws might lead to other equally interesting outcomes.

Generally I hold, rather tentatively, to the mainstream scientific explanations of these things. Intelligence>from evolution>from the right combination of non-living precursor materials. I'm a little more skeptical of the grandest cosmological theories like the Big Bang, simply because I think that may be straining science's reach at this point in time.

And yet a grand theory like that is what you're going to need to explain the non-living precursor materials; let alone the existence of the "simple" laws of physics and the elementary particles.

I don't in principle have a problem with science developing such theories, I just think that it may be a bit premature to have much faith in the theories that have currently gained acceptance.

One of the basic issues I have with an intelligence designer is that science seems to have done extremely well without recourse to any great creator intelligence. An intelligence designer to me seems like unnecessary Occam's Razor superfluousness combined with hold-over beliefs from primitive man-made religions of an ignorant past.

[guest_of_logic]

Do you believe an intelligent designer would also be capable of creating such unstructured, lawless chaos? I'm imagining some of the "splatter" abstract paintings...

I don't see why not, given sufficient creative powers. No one would be around to ponder the seeming lack of order, though.

I'm sure you already know of the anthropic principle.

Yes, I've come across it before. In its weak sense I find it... well, weak - too tautological to be of very much value, at least in the context of this discussion. Even in its strong sense I don't find it particularly helpful - at best it says something like, "our universe must be capable of supporting observers", but it doesn't explain too well why this "must" be the case. Granted, it advances theories like the multiverse theory, but even then, there has to already be sufficient order so as to support the different multiverses, and this order is left unexplained.

I think some of the arguments from that might be extended beyond life to so-called "order" itself.

As I wrote above with respect to the multiverse theory, I see the necessity of the pre-existence of order even for such theories. In this respect don't really see how to extend it practically, nor how it ultimately sufficiently explains (or even could sufficiently explain) order.

Jason: Again you seem to be very imaginatively and liberally widening the category of phenomena that would imply a creator. It continues to make me question if you're doing this in good faith(pun intended.)

guest_of_logic: Consider for yourself how difficult it is to arrive at a generalisation that actually reflects reality, without the need for a million and one exceptions: that's elegance, and that's the nature of the fundamental laws of the universe, so far as I hear notable scientists describe them.

Jaosn: I'm not sure I understand you correctly: but if the complexity in the universe we see now is the result of iteration over time of the basic underlying laws, then of course, by default, there would be no need for exceptions.

I don't think that you do understand me correctly, and probably that's due to clumsy phrasing on my part. I wasn't referring to iteration. I'll try to rephrase my original statement to better correspond with my meaning:

Consider for yourself how difficult it is to arrive at a generalisation that actually reflects reality, without the need for a million and one exceptions: generalisations with such a low degree of necessity for exception are elegant, and similarly the nature of the fundamental laws of the universe is that they are so elegant as to have an incredibly low degree of necessity for exception (zero in most cases), so far as I hear notable scientists describe them.

But wouldn't it theoretically be just as possible for different fundamental laws of nature to exist? What's so special about the existing laws? Why are they any more elegant than other laws that might be formulated?

What's so special about them, as I tried to emphasise in my OP, is that they support order of the degree that particular entities are present in the universe with the capacity for reflecting on that order, as we are doing now, which seems to me to be pretty remarkable.

And elegance seems such a subjective quality, I'm sure people disagree on what is elegant and what is not.

To some extent, yes: just as people disagree about where the boundary between "noise" and "music" ought to be drawn... and yet, it's not completely arbitrary, is it?

Through iteration the current laws led to forms of intelligence(like humans) sure....but what's so special about intelligence exactly? Other laws might lead to other equally interesting outcomes.

And those "equally interesting outcomes" would equally demand explanation for the order that supports them.

One of the basic issues I have with an intelligence designer is that science seems to have done extremely well without recourse to any great creator intelligence. An intelligence designer to me seems like unnecessary Occam's Razor superfluousness combined with hold-over beliefs from primitive man-made religions of an ignorant past.

That's an anti-"God of the gaps" argument. All I will say in response is that it takes faith to assert that the gaps will eventually be closed, particularly when it comes to the topic of this thread: an ultimate explanation of the degree of order in the universe such that the order is sufficient to support consciously reflective life.

[Robert]

Robert,

Only priests of both religion and science offer complete explanations.

Or at least purport to. I find it odd, though, that on a forum dedicated to ultimate truth, whose aims you seem to generally support, you don't seem to be attracted to the idea of an ultimate (and "complete") explanation of order. As I acknowledged earlier, I might be able to formulate the dilemma better if I were omniscient, but there's definitely something crying out for understanding when it comes to how it is that the universe is so ordered as to produce and/or support self aware life, wouldn't you acknowledge in turn?

Give this short text written by Dan a read, maybe it'll help you clarify what you're asking.
Beyond Empirical Uncertainty

[guest_of_logic]

Robert, I checked out that link. Its subject is empirical models, which aren't really the same things as the focus of inquiry of this thread: this thread isn't concerned with constructing a model of how a particular ordered empirical phenomenon works, but with explaining why order itself exists; why it is possible to construct such models at all and in the first place. The explanation sought is much more abstract than that which can be provided by modelling specific empirical phenomena. Perhaps this is why you and I are not seeing eye to eye on the possibility of a "complete" explanation.

[Robert]

We're "not seeing eye to eye" because you're not defining what you mean by "complete" explanation, just where would you stop and say "I'm satisfied that that's complete enough"? One of the questions in your opening post was "Do you agree that the order of the universe demands an explanation?". My own response was yes it does, but that none is *completely* possible for the reasons highlighted in Dan's article.

If you want to focus on "explaining why order itself exists; why it is possible to construct such models at all and in the first place", fair enough, but at least acknowledge that that's a bit of a sidestep away from your original questions, not just a rephrasing of them.

[guest_of_logic]

We're "not seeing eye to eye" because you're not defining what you mean by "complete" explanation, just where would you stop and say "I'm satisfied that that's complete enough"? One of the questions in your opening post was "Do you agree that the order of the universe demands an explanation?". My own response was yes it does, but that none is *completely* possible for the reasons highlighted in Dan's article.

On reading and contemplating that, I think that the reason for our not seeing eye to eye might be that you're assuming an explanation of the same category as those of empirical phenomena, where one can examine causes back and back and back, and where hence some arbitrary point has to be set for deciding that one has gone back far enough in the causal web so as to have a "complete enough" explanation, whereas I'm open to the possibility of an explanation of a completely new category, somehow beyond the causal model of the empirical world, which somehow forestalls causal regression. Admittedly, I don't know what that explanation would look like, but I intuit that some sort of new category of explanation is necessary, because it has to transcend that causal web given that such causality is merely another form of ordering, which is what we're trying to explain in the first place.

If you want to focus on "explaining why order itself exists; why it is possible to construct such models at all and in the first place", fair enough, but at least acknowledge that that's a bit of a sidestep away from your original questions, not just a rephrasing of them.

Fair enough, I acknowledge that. It's a slightly more difficult and essential question than the ones that I originally raised, even though they are closely related.

[IJesusChrist]

To make it clear, if you are a firm believer that God does not exist, you are ignorant.

I do not believe 'God' exists. And by God I mean that described by any religion on Earth.

[Robert]

To make it clear, if you are a firm believer that God does not exist, you are ignorant.

I do not believe 'God' exists. And by God I mean that described by any religion on Earth.

Care to give your actual definition of God?

[Robert]

Admittedly, I don't know what that explanation would look like, but I intuit that some sort of new category of explanation is necessary, because it has to transcend that causal web given that such causality is merely another form of ordering, which is what we're trying to explain in the first place.

That doesn't make sense to me. You intuit "a new category of explanation" for causal order which excludes causality itself? An explanation is by definition a causal construct designed to describe facts and events, and those facts and events themselves are part and parcel of the causal web.

Exactly how do you imagine such an explanation? You said you don't know what it would look like, but aside from magic and/or just wishing it were true, do you have any possibilites in mind that may help me understand what you think could be a "new category"?

[David Quinn]

He wants to keep dreaming up phantoms in order to remain in the confused state.

Laird has no understanding of causality whatsoever. And yet for some reason this doesn't stop him from trying to go "beyond" it. Too eager to make room for his god and not patient enough to actually understand what is before him.

First understand causality, Laird. Then you can determine what, if anything, lies beyond it. Leave the "intuiting" to women. Develop some balls for a change and strive for genuine understanding and clarity.

-

[Jamesh]

As all things have causes, then all things are so "ordered".

The "path of least resistance" is the "law" that enables order, as this law ensures 100% consistency in causal action. This law is simply, a force cannot go where there is a force that is equal or stronger, but it can where there is not. Over time this leads to instances of limited equalisation, where there is a kind of temporary stasis of change (which may be many billions of years though). This forms the "unitisation" of reality, which we consider as order.

When unitised order of this type is present, then it will have an "outside" that has strong and weak variations of causal power relative to what surrounds it - it will NOT have a uniform exterior. What these variations do is they provide for greater opportunity to equalise with other units that may have different ways in which they have equalised. This in turn allows for particularisation into things of mass, and the resulting complexity as each new layer of equalisation occurs.

Think of everything as being like DNA merges during fertilsiation or how viruses attach to human cells, or how a clock or gearbox works or chemistry or a cock and a cunt. The varied shapes are ultimately caused by differing degrees of forces emanating from different points around the outside of the object - where there is lesser resistence in say the "valleys" between atoms this provides for an extrusion from another thing to enter and be held in place by further lower level equalisations along the curvature of the atoms.

[Jason]

Do you believe an intelligent designer would also be capable of creating such unstructured, lawless chaos? I'm imagining some of the "splatter" abstract paintings...

I don't see why not, given sufficient creative powers. No one would be around to ponder the seeming lack of order, though.

Do you think a universe composed entirely of chaos could also be suggestive of an intelligent designer then too?

I'm sure you already know of the anthropic principle.

Yes, I've come across it before. In its weak sense I find it... well, weak - too tautological to be of very much value, at least in the context of this discussion. Even in its strong sense I don't find it particularly helpful - at best it says something like, "our universe must be capable of supporting observers", but it doesn't explain too well why this "must" be the case. Granted, it advances theories like the multiverse theory, but even then, there has to already be sufficient order so as to support the different multiverses, and this order is left unexplained.

I think the argument is more like: there must be observers in order for there to be observations.

I think some of the arguments from that might be extended beyond life to so-called "order" itself.

As I wrote above with respect to the multiverse theory, I see the necessity of the pre-existence of order even for such theories. In this respect don't really see how to extend it practically, nor how it ultimately sufficiently explains (or even could sufficiently explain) order.

From my recollection of it(and from the sounds of it I may only be familiar with a subset of the arguments), I don't think it explains why there must be order.

Essentially, as I understand it, the anthropic principle argument is that: the universe must have the particular order/laws/characteristics that it has, or else we humans would not exist as we do, and thus we would not be able to ask the question of why the universe has the particular order/laws/characteristics it has in the first place. Amongst other things, it's an argument against assigning inherent specialness/significance to the specific manifestation of the universe(including conscious reflective beings) that exists.

Jason: I'm not sure I understand you correctly: but if the complexity in the universe we see now is the result of iteration over time of the basic underlying laws, then of course, by default, there would be no need for exceptions.

I don't think that you do understand me correctly, and probably that's due to clumsy phrasing on my part. I wasn't referring to iteration. I'll try to rephrase my original statement to better correspond with my meaning:

Consider for yourself how difficult it is to arrive at a generalisation that actually reflects reality, without the need for a million and one exceptions: generalisations with such a low degree of necessity for exception are elegant, and similarly the nature of the fundamental laws of the universe is that they are so elegant as to have an incredibly low degree of necessity for exception (zero in most cases), so far as I hear notable scientists describe them.

Ummmm, they're the fundamental laws of the universe, the universe was built using them, so wouldn't you expect them to have no exceptions, and wouldn't you expect them to perfectly reflect reality? I'm not sure I see your point....

But wouldn't it theoretically be just as possible for different fundamental laws of nature to exist? What's so special about the existing laws? Why are they any more elegant than other laws that might be formulated?

What's so special about them, as I tried to emphasise in my OP, is that they support order of the degree that particular entities are present in the universe with the capacity for reflecting on that order, as we are doing now, which seems to me to be pretty remarkable.

Here I could refer back to the anthropic principle. Is it inherently special when you roll a 6 on a die? From a probabilistic point of view 1,2,3,4 and 5 are just as likely to occur. Just as probabilistically, "an entity capable of reflecting upon the universe" may be just one of a billion possibilities, and only appears special when it occurs because you are such an entity yourself.

And elegance seems such a subjective quality, I'm sure people disagree on what is elegant and what is not.

To some extent, yes: just as people disagree about where the boundary between "noise" and "music" ought to be drawn... and yet, it's not completely arbitrary, is it?

Well, all those judging what is noise/music and elegant/inelegant are likely going to be human with relatively very similar experiences(compared to the silicon beings of Rigel 8.) Perhaps any chance of arbitrariness has already been largely eliminated simply by the non-arbitrary choice/availability of judges.

Through iteration the current laws led to forms of intelligence(like humans) sure....but what's so special about intelligence exactly? Other laws might lead to other equally interesting outcomes.

And those "equally interesting outcomes" would equally demand explanation for the order that supports them.

Maybe you wouldn't perceive those other outcomes as "ordered"(due to your carbon-specific water-centric gravity-well-oriented temporally-limited existence) and so not make your puny "demands" for explanation. :)

One of the basic issues I have with an intelligence designer is that science seems to have done extremely well without recourse to any great creator intelligence. An intelligence designer to me seems like unnecessary Occam's Razor superfluousness combined with hold-over beliefs from primitive man-made religions of an ignorant past.

That's an anti-"God of the gaps" argument. All I will say in response is that it takes faith to assert that the gaps will eventually be closed, particularly when it comes to the topic of this thread: an ultimate explanation of the degree of order in the universe such that the order is sufficient to support consciously reflective life.

Hmmmmm. I didn't say I had faith that the gaps would be closed. My angle is more a lack of faith - I don't think the gaps should be closed using unreasonable means that lack sufficient evidence(which is how I'd characterize an intelligent designer, based on my current knowledge and understanding of cosmology, physics and science in general.)

Do you think an intelligent designer could be successfully incorporated into scientific cosmology?

[guest_of_logic]

Admittedly, I don't know what that explanation would look like, but I intuit that some sort of new category of explanation is necessary, because it has to transcend that causal web given that such causality is merely another form of ordering, which is what we're trying to explain in the first place.

That doesn't make sense to me. You intuit "a new category of explanation" for causal order which excludes causality itself? An explanation is by definition a causal construct designed to describe facts and events, and those facts and events themselves are part and parcel of the causal web.

Exactly how do you imagine such an explanation? You said you don't know what it would look like, but aside from magic and/or just wishing it were true, do you have any possibilites in mind that may help me understand what you think could be a "new category"?

I have only analogy, which I hope suffices.

A fish is asked to describe reality. It describes reality as supporting it uniformly such that it neither sinks nor rises, and such that it lacks for nothing. This is analogous to us providing explanations based on causal constructs. The fish can imagine a reality in which it either sinks or rises, and in which it lacks what it needs, but it has no idea what that reality would consist of. This is analogous to my intuition that there are "explanations" possible which transcend causality, without my being able to describe how such explanations might be possible. In fact, if the fish were shown land and air, it would realise exactly how it is possible that it could sink or rise, and need that which it lacks. This is analogous to you and I being shown the "explanations" that transcend causality. I put "explanations" in quotation marks because I somewhat agree with you that an explanation is based on causality, such that my transcendent explanation entails a different definition, even though it is analogous.

David, Jamesh and Jason: please forgive my further delayed response.

[Robert]

Fishy analogy, Laird.

A fish is asked to describe reality. It describes reality as supporting it uniformly such that it neither sinks nor rises, and such that it lacks for nothing. This is analogous to us providing explanations based on causal constructs.

It only describes that it doesn't move or need anything, and offers this as an explanation of reality. How is this analogous to "providing explanations based on causal constructs"?

The fish can imagine a reality in which it either sinks or rises, and in which it lacks what it needs, but it has no idea what that reality would consist of. This is analogous to my intuition that there are "explanations" possible which transcend causality, without my being able to describe how such explanations might be possible.

I already got this idea of yours 'transcending causality', but this analogy doesn't help us any in offering anything new in terms of possible "new categories" of explanation.

In fact, if the fish were shown land and air, it would realise exactly how it is possible that it could sink or rise, and need that which it lacks. This is analogous to you and I being shown the "explanations" that transcend causality.

And who or what are you suggesting would show us "explanations" that transcend causality? I can imagine a big human hand reaching down and plucking the fish out of the water, and if you follow the analogy, are you implying a similar thing could/can happen to us? The hand of... ?

I put "explanations" in quotation marks because I somewhat agree with you that an explanation is based on causality, such that my transcendent explanation entails a different definition, even though it is analogous.

I honestly fail to see how your hope for a transcendent explanation is anything other than an argument from ignorance. If we weren't ignorant of all causes, if you we're omniscient like you said earlier, then logically all such causes for explaining order would be accounted for, whatever their nature.

Was the choice of a fish entirely innocent?

[IJesusChrist]

Care to give your actual definition of God?

\

Surely, any intelligent, conscious, or otherwise able-to-carry-thought object, being, or thing.

[Robert]

Care to give your actual definition of God?

\

Surely, any intelligent, conscious, or otherwise able-to-carry-thought object, being, or thing.

Prince will be pleased to hear that.

[IJesusChrist]

Hmm, so will a few others.

So, are you ignorant? :)

[guest_of_logic]

Fishy analogy, Laird.

Yeah, it was pretty weak. It was a rush job. In hindsight I wish I'd fished for something better. I'm working on it - watch this space.

[Dan Rowden]

There's no such thing as order/disorder in any objective sense. Such concepts, like morality, and interpretations of phenomena, not statements about the phenomena in any true ontological sense. Things are "ordered" merely because we say so. In the end, there is just causality.

[IJesusChrist]

Order and disorder are both objective and subjective, you can assign a number to disorder. Entropy is an obvious consequence for order's objective existance.

[guest_of_logic]

Robert,

I figured out what I should have used the fish analogy for, rather than what I actually did use it for: I should have used it to convey to Jason how, just like a fish can't imagine reality outside of water, I can't imagine the state of reality that I could only put into words: unstructured, lawless chaos.

Now, to this question of what sort of category an explanation of order would fit into. I don't have a great deal more insight than in my last few posts, but I do have a little perspective that might help somewhat. Basically the perspective is that explanations lie along a scale of abstraction, from "most specific (and most causally bound)" to "most generic and abstract (and least causally bound)", which leads me to suggest that there might exist along that scale a category abstract enough and "unbound" enough from the "causal web" to meet our demands.

One of the most specific categories of explanations is that dealing with simple actions and reactions. "Explain why the cat leapt in fright." "Because the dog barked at it." The explanation provides a sufficient cause that immediately precedes in time that which is to be explained, and which is very localised and thus very specific. Causality is a very obvious requirement for this explanation, and the problem of completeness that you referred to applies here, because we're restricting our answer to that which is immediate - if we really wanted to we could trace back causes to the beginning of the Earth, and beyond. This example, though, qualifies to me as having a sufficient if not a complete answer. Obviously this category doesn't apply to the explanation sought in this thread, because order is neither an action nor a reaction. So let's move on to something more abstract.

A more abstract yet also simple category is explanations of words and concepts - descriptions and definitions. "Explain what a hammer is." "A hammer is a tool for driving in nails." Here, the "causal web" is not so prominent as in the category of explanations of simple actions and reactions. It might not be possible to be perfectly precise with these explanations, but they can be precise enough to again be considered sufficient if not complete. Again, this category doesn't apply to the explanation sought in this thread, but it's more abstract and closer to what we're looking for. Moving on again...

One of the most abstract and also most complex categories is explanations of intangible phenomena - "Explain calculus" or "Explain the theory of relativity". These explanations are quite divorced from causality in the usual sense of the word, although they certainly rely on relationships. This is the closest match that I can find for a category that would fit the explanation of "order". Is there a category "beyond" this one, which is even more abstract and capable of explaining order? I don't know, but let's assume that there isn't one and see what follows.

So, we have this imperative: "Explain not just the extent to which the universe is ordered such that it is capable of supporting reflective consciousness, but also order in and of itself", and we also have our assumption that no category of explanation is capable of fulfilling that imperative. How then might we respond to the imperative? Here are some possibilities that I can see, from most to least satisfactory:

1. It is possible to possess the demanded understanding of order, but it is not possible to translate that understanding into an actual explanation: any understanding remains locked inside the head of the individual who possesses it, forever beyond communication - at least in explanatory words.
2. This order simply cannot be understood by humans: no explanation of it exists, although it is possible for beings with superior cognitive capacities to those of humans to understand it (again, without being able to put that understanding into the form of an explanation though).
3. Neither understanding nor explanation of order are possible, even given unlimited cognitive abilities. The closest we can come to understanding it is through "suchness": it simply is what it is.

This brings me to David,

First understand causality, Laird. Then you can determine what, if anything, lies beyond it.

That was more than I expected of you, David: there was a glimmer of acknowledgement of the possibility of answers to higher questions in your "what, if anything, lies beyond it". Until now I had believed you to be firmly in the camp of response (3), but now I see that you might accept the possibility of (1) or (2), or even - dare I suggest it - the possibility of an explanation in terms understandable to humans.

Jamesh,

As all things have causes, then all things are so "ordered".

I agree that causality entails order - I made that claim to David earlier in this thread.

I won't respond to the rest of your post as it doesn't seem to directly bear on the topic.

Jason,

Do you think a universe composed entirely of chaos could also be suggestive of an intelligent designer then too?

Not suggestive; the possibility couldn't be denied though.

[Edit inserted by me, Laird]

I think the argument [of the anthropic principle] is more like: there must be observers in order for there to be observations.

That's still very tautological in my opinion, and doesn't explain why there are both observers and observations.

Essentially, as I understand it, the anthropic principle argument is that: the universe must have the particular order/laws/characteristics that it has, or else we humans would not exist as we do, and thus we would not be able to ask the question of why the universe has the particular order/laws/characteristics it has in the first place. Amongst other things, it's an argument against assigning inherent specialness/significance to the specific manifestation of the universe(including conscious reflective beings) that exists.

I'm still not seeing much more than tautological reasoning that doesn't get beyond the superficial. Yes, since we are here, the universe must be capable of supporting us. Well... obviously. That doesn't explain why both circumstances obtain.

Ummmm, they're the fundamental laws of the universe, the universe was built using them, so wouldn't you expect them to have no exceptions, and wouldn't you expect them to perfectly reflect reality? I'm not sure I see your point....

From whatever experience you have programming computers, you might agree that some collections of "fundamental laws" (e.g. the primitive operations supported by the microprocessor, and/or the primitive operations supported by the operating system, if any) are more elegant than others. Sometimes it seems like some operations are "workarounds" to the poor design both of other operations and of the collection as a whole - that's kind of analogous to my "exceptions" in the rules of the universe.

Jason: But wouldn't it theoretically be just as possible for different fundamental laws of nature to exist? What's so special about the existing laws? Why are they any more elegant than other laws that might be formulated?

guest_of_logic: What's so special about them, as I tried to emphasise in my OP, is that they support order of the degree that particular entities are present in the universe with the capacity for reflecting on that order, as we are doing now, which seems to me to be pretty remarkable.

Jason: Here I could refer back to the anthropic principle. Is it inherently special when you roll a 6 on a die? From a probabilistic point of view 1,2,3,4 and 5 are just as likely to occur. Just as probabilistically, "an entity capable of reflecting upon the universe" may be just one of a billion possibilities, and only appears special when it occurs because you are such an entity yourself.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. I sense a lack of personal consistency. From what I know of you as a human being, you have a high degree of awe for the possibilities granted by and to conscious human life, and yet with this argument you seem to dismiss and deny that awe, and diminish and relegate our consciousness to "just one of a billion possibilities".

I could respond in other more analytical ways, but they don't seem to be as appropriate or effective.

Well, all those judging what is noise/music and elegant/inelegant are likely going to be human with relatively very similar experiences(compared to the silicon beings of Rigel 8.) Perhaps any chance of arbitrariness has already been largely eliminated simply by the non-arbitrary choice/availability of judges.

Will your judgement of the quality of consciousness of the silicon beings of Rigel 8 be arbitrary?

Jason: Through iteration the current laws led to forms of intelligence(like humans) sure....but what's so special about intelligence exactly? Other laws might lead to other equally interesting outcomes.

guest_of_logic: And those "equally interesting outcomes" would equally demand explanation for the order that supports them.

Jason: Maybe you wouldn't perceive those other outcomes as "ordered"(due to your carbon-specific water-centric gravity-well-oriented temporally-limited existence) and so not make your puny "demands" for explanation. :)

Maybe not, but if not, then it would simply be due to my ignorance.

Do you think an intelligent designer could be successfully incorporated into scientific cosmology?

That's the million dollar question. I think that certainly the God of deism could easily be incorporated into (what I know of) scientific cosmology: as the first cause that initiates the Big Bang. As for an interventionist God - that's a more difficult question: I think that an equally difficult (and interesting) question is whether mainstream scientific consensus successfully accounts for the synchronicity of life.

[Robert]

One of the most abstract and also most complex categories is explanations of intangible phenomena - "Explain calculus" or "Explain the theory of relativity". These explanations are quite divorced from causality in the usual sense of the word, although they certainly rely on relationships. This is the closest match that I can find for a category that would fit the explanation of "order". Is there a category "beyond" this one, which is even more abstract and capable of explaining order? I don't know, but let's assume that there isn't one and see what follows.

Here's a question. How do you account for order in mathematical constants, like say pi for example?

Here are some possibilities that I can see, from most to least satisfactory:

Are you sure you have that the right way round? Least to most, surely... ?

[guest_of_logic]

Here's a question. How do you account for order in mathematical constants, like say pi for example?

What exactly do you mean by order? Do you mean, for example, the fact that pi is universally the answer to dividing a circle's diameter into its circumference?

Are you sure you have that the right way round? Least to most, surely... ?

It's the way I intended it - what's satisfactory about the impossible?

[IJesusChrist]

You guys have such long winded answers, yet you never really answer much. Why don't you just direct your responses exactly to the point rather than showing off your vocabulary?

You guys seem like you have enough intelligence to make a constructive conversation but you're almost wrapped up in the title of this forum. You want to express that you can create a logical invention that is 'better' or something than the other persons.

When it comes down to it, most of you don't know, yet you try to use logic to explain what you don't know, and end up writing hundreds of words for nothing.

Its good for writing books, but in conversation it makes you seem like you're denying an attempt to gain any knowledge, but rather are firm, and will only bend to change others.