qetzal
Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 25 2007,22:34) | Hi qetzal,
If you have heard a better pro-ID presention, I would like to know where.
I would even be interested in knowing about any that matched this one. |
Oh, I agree yours is as good as any and better than most. For what that's worth. ;-) Quote | Ok, let's play the game...
"The purpose of our teleological universe is to be internally consistent."
This is a falsifiable statement. It is being tested each and every day. It the universe should suddenly quit being consistent we will know it. Then again, maybe we won't. |
No, "The universe is internally consistent" is a falsifiable statement. The fact that the universe is (so far) internally consistent does not demonstrate that consistency is the universe's purpose. It's the assertion of purpose that I object to, not the statement about consistency. Quote | "The wavefunction is purposeful design."
This follows from the first statement and the reference to Anthropic principle that you skipped over. Your problem may be in the word "design". I had indicated earlier that design, for all practical purposes, means non-random. |
No, my problem is with the adjective "purposeful." It implies conscious intention in the design, an intention that you have not justified. Quote | "Whether via anthropic principle or divine whim, life may be necessary to make the teleological universe complete."
You did notice the word "may", right? I provided an example of how it "may" be necessary. |
Exactly. It may be necessary, or it may not. It's just a statement of possibility. Which is fine, as far as it goes, but that doesn't support anything one way or another. Quote | "If the universe needs something to be consistent, than interconnected quantum effects will make it happen and time order isn’t a restriction." I posted three long comments explaining this one. |
But you haven't justified that the universe needs something to be consistent. So, again, this is really just a statement of possibility. Quote | "While quantum effects are inherent in both living and non-living material, living material is inherently more flexible."
Don't like the word "flexible"? How about more utilitarian? |
I don't accept either. You haven't defined what flexible or utilitarian mean in this context, or shown how living material is more flexible/utilitarian, or shown how greater flexibility/utilitarianism relates to quantum effects, or tied that putative relationship to the overall ID hypothesis. Quote | "MikeGene’s front loading is essentially looking for a preponderance of clues that a future need was satisfied by a past feature."
Are you demanding citations and references to MikeGene's works? |
No. I wasn't objecting to that sentence by itself. I quoted it because your next sentence refers to it. (Although I will note, in passing, that most people mean something much more specific by "front loading." If I eat that banana in my office tomorrow, my future hunger will have been satisfied by my past purchase of a banana. Would MikeGene consider that front loading?) Quote | "Retrocausality would be something that interconnected quantum effects would demonstrate."
Interconnected via space and time, means interconnected via space and time. Time is just another dimension that extends in two directions. |
Right. So if the purpose of the universe is to be consistent, and if the universe needs life to be complete, and if interconnected quantum effects allow for retrocausality, then that's consistent with a weak version of ID that boils down to "life was inevitable."
Sure. If we posit those ifs and that version of ID, I agree. It's consistent. So what? To me, it seems like your whole point is to find a way to argue that some version of ID could be true, based on QM. If so, then you've succeeded. I, for one, will happily concede that certain versions of ID could be true, at least hypothetically.
But hypothetically, there could also be a teapot in orbit around Mars. If I claim (without empirical evidence) that the universe may require a celestial teapot to be internally consistent, does that make the teapot's existence significantly more likely?
|