Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism

[entropie]

"It's a problem going with the odds if the odds happen to be wrong."

Well, yeah. Of course.

I could say believing in gravity in every circumstance is a problem if gravity is not always correct. But it seems like a good bet it is; it's observable and explains the behavior of objects adequately. [In your example, endermen are also part of the system, not some violation of the system.]

The "But what if it's not???" argument doesn't have much weight. That kind of rationale is not substantial enough to make people change how they bet or how they play the stock market or how they invest their energy/time/money. They still believe and invest in ways that they think will be most correct / have the best payoff.

Minecraft is also different because you know it was created by human beings who are still changing the source code. You already know all the information, you're not being forced to figure out what is true without being able to see into the black box. In the example you describe, it comes down to (1) Is there some mysterious figure who is writing and changing reality around me or (2) are there rules of the reality that I yet don't understand but that I possibly can if I keep on studying it, since so many things in the past that seemed indecipherable are now understandable and even replicable through careful-enough study?

Big problem with ID is that it's not replicable, and it shuts down exploration by its nature; it just makes up answers to questions rather than actually trying to find the real answers if they exist.

Thats a true thing you've said here. I think being forced to decide between whether the universe was intelligently designed or it just evolved is not necessary. Its a kind of religious, either you are with us or against us mumbo jumbo.

I absolutely think its possible that humans were an experiment by Aliens, something like an ant box. I doubt tho that they call themselves God, tho never say never.

 

[sprinkles]

"It's a problem going with the odds if the odds happen to be wrong."

Well, yeah. Of course.

I could say believing in gravity in every circumstance is a problem if gravity is not always correct. But it seems like a good bet it is; it's observable and explains the behavior of objects adequately. [In your example, endermen are also part of the system, not some violation of the system.]

The "But what if it's not???" argument doesn't have much weight. That kind of rationale is not substantial enough to make people change how they bet or how they play the stock market or how they invest their energy/time/money. They still believe and invest in ways that they think will be most correct / have the best payoff.

Minecraft is also different because you know it was created by human beings who are still changing the source code. You already know all the information, you're not being forced to figure out what is true without being able to see into the black box. In the example you describe, it comes down to (1) Is there some mysterious figure who is writing and changing reality around me or (2) are there rules of the reality that I yet don't understand but that I possibly can if I keep on studying it, since so many things in the past that seemed indecipherable are now understandable and even replicable through careful-enough study?

Big problem with ID is that it's not replicable, and it shuts down exploration by its nature; it just makes up answers to questions rather than actually trying to find the real answers if they exist.

Well I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't even matter. The hypothesis doesn't change anything.

After a certain point I stop caring about answers if knowing the truth doesn't actually do anything for me. It's nice if I come across it, but otherwise it's inconsequential.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't even matter. The hypothesis doesn't change anything.

After a certain point I stop caring about answers if knowing the truth doesn't actually do anything for me. It's nice if I come across it, but otherwise it's inconsequential.

I don't really get into these discussions much anymore, except where it interfaces public policy and such; people are inclined to believe what they want to believe, and on a personal level that seems to make sense.

I think at this stage of my life, the values I hold are part of me regardless of what is shown to be true in this circumstance, so it doesn't matter a ton to me in terms of the personal impact. But I remember a time when it did.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't really get into these discussions much anymore, except where it interfaces public policy and such; people are inclined to believe what they want to believe, and on a personal level that seems to make sense.

I think at this stage of my life, the values I hold are part of me regardless of what is shown to be true in this circumstance, so it doesn't matter a ton to me in terms of the personal impact. But I remember a time when it did.

Yup, what is is what's gonna be. I'm so much better off letting go of certain things. It's like why do I need to fight to believe this? Believing it doesn't make it true or false, and I can't mess around and test it, so forcing myself to believe it for security or whatever is just stressing myself unnecessarily.

 

[RaptorWizard]

If anything we should be freaking out about debates like science vs young earth creationists.

Then there's the new agers, not that a little mysticism here and there is bad, but they take it all on faith like fools without question.

If anything everything should be questioned and treated as a possibility, not as absolutes like true and false.

So it follows that new agers could be right AND they could be wrong or somewhere in the middle about lots of things!

 

[entropie]

What's the most intruiging is that they all claim to know something about the universe but havent even left Earth yet.

(And think about that: you have to write 'universe' with small letters while 'Earth' with a capital in english !)

 

[Society]

Big problem with ID is that it's not replicable, and it shuts down exploration by its nature;

actually minecraft is a perfect example for how it is replicable.

it's an algorithmic simulated world, following basic interdependence between variables and one random seed. when you design such an algorithm, in order to be have results you can control, modify and change, so that you can be the "Creator", if you are building a metaphysics designed for you to have results you want, you need a lot of tweaking room with specific constants. the mathematical metaphysics of such a world demands that you'd have a lot of independent constants that are not emergent from anything else other then your own will - the variable notch switched so that mountains will be this high or that dungeons will be this deep in minecraft, or the variable that god would switch so that primordial pools will be this common in realcraft.
yet so far, each time we find a universal constant, we find that its an emergent property of behaviors. it seems that the universe is a very complicated and yet elegent results of very few independent variables, with little to no sign of any constants that emerge simply because of someone's will. where are all the arbitrary constants? those constant that might be important to a result but have no emergent reason to be there?

thus, the requirement for god are that much greater, because it is a god who either relinquished or merely decided to not use his powers of creation beyond the initial conditions.

FYI - all bow before notch, ascended NTP deity:

 

[ptgatsby]

actually minecraft is a perfect example for how it is replicable

I'd say there is one major flaw with that analogy. Minecraft still renders everything even when it isn't viewable. Our universe is slightly better designed: things don't really exist in an unmeasured (unviewed) state.

It's one of the best reasons to think our universe is a simulation, which would imply external purpose and intelligence. By intelligence, I mean high degree of order in terms of information theory.

I'd put the odds of design relatively high. It's high because the the high number of iterations that exist: all it takes is one high order universe to have been designed, and by extension, all existences below that are emergent from a design. By extension, we are not far from simulation of high order; therefore, it becomes a near certainty that there exists a higher order state that simulates. Unless there is a fundamental issue with simulation, it approaches near-certainty that our existence is by design (either by definition, or through some fundamental information limit).

Is the initial state of everything a simulation? Possibly not, but that's so far removed from what we can comprehend that it is near impossible to discuss. A completely ordered existence of all known matter could not compute a significant amount of a higher order existence*. Within our context of existence, it is probably that it is by design.


(* it's like trying to compare a 2d plane to a 3d cube; how much larger is a cube to a 2nd plane?)

 

[sprinkles]

I'd say there is one major flaw with that analogy. Minecraft still renders everything even when it isn't viewable.

Actually it doesn't. It only renders chunks in a defined radius around the player. No activity takes place outside this distance.

In fact, the very first time you load a new world, nothing exists yet outside of this radius.

The entire world works on a 'generate as you go' basis so as you move along it is actually building everything just before you get there. This is why on very old worlds, when new features or terrain are added, you can travel far and the new stuff will generate even though your previous area will be lacking it.

It maintains the already built chunks, but even when they are built, it unloads them from memory when you are out of the radius. This even can cause problems on mega large redstone contraptions, such as large computers.

Edit:
Also interestingly, this means the best way to protect an NPC village is to not be near it at night. If you're outside its distance, it effectively remains in stasis and zombies won't break down the doors and zombify the villagers.

 

[Mole]

Thats a true thing you've said here. I think being forced to decide between whether the universe was intelligently designed or it just evolved is not necessary. Its a kind of religious, either you are with us or against us mumbo jumbo.

I absolutely think its possible that humans were an experiment by Aliens, something like an ant box. I doubt tho that they call themselves God, tho never say never.

Genetics tells us precisely how natural selection works, and it works without aliens.

So Occam's Razor tells us that the hypothesis of aliens is unnecessary.

 

[entropie]

Genetics tells us precisely how natural selection works, and it works without aliens.

So Occam's Razor tells us that the hypothesis of aliens is unnecessary.

You know that in the moment you get intrested into another mens razor you should think about your sexuality !

 

[ptgatsby]

Actually it doesn't. It only renders chunks in a defined radius around the player. No activity takes place outside this distance.

Ah, I should of been clear. Once a chunk is loaded, it is defined and exists as an object (collection of objects, whatever). When the game goes to render, it doesn't just do a surface (I see the camera) render, it works will all loaded objects. I suppose it's still similar, since chunks get unloaded. The real difference is what "constitutes" observer" in Minecraft.

Now that I think about it, I think they fixed some of this, along with the render addons.

 

[sprinkles]

Ah, I should of been clear. Once a chunk is loaded, it is defined and exists as an object (collection of objects, whatever). When the game goes to render, it doesn't just do a surface (I see the camera) render, it works will all loaded objects. I suppose it's still similar, since chunks get unloaded. The real difference is what "constitutes" observer" in Minecraft.

Now that I think about it, I think they fixed some of this, along with the render addons.

Yeah, even then it isn't real time rendering. Each chunk is split up into mini chunks for rendering so it's kind of like looking at only a snapshot of the terrain since most of it isn't changing most of the time. It'll update one of these mini chunks when a block in it is changed.

You can see this when the renderer glitches, it doesn't draw the back of stuff, and it doesn't draw filled volumes. This some times allows an 'x-ray' vision effect without any cheating.

But yeah, it does load the entire chunk block from sky to bottom.

 

[RaptorWizard]

The universe may have been intelligently designed in a way that things evolve, but that doesn't make its source benevolent and worthy of worship!

 

[Fluffywolf]

The universe may have been intelligently designed in a way that things evolve, but that doesn't make its source benevolent and worthy of worship!

Here's a question I think you'd enjoy. What if in the future of the human race we're able to sent so many particles and energy back in time that we were the ones that created the big bang and thus created our very existance?

Wouldn't that be intelligent design on a most wonderfully ironic and paradoxial scale.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Here's a question I think you'd enjoy. What if in the future of the human race we're able to sent so many particles and energy back in time that we were the ones that created the big bang and thus created our very existance?

Wouldn't that be intelligent design on a most wonderfully ironic and paradoxial scale.

This is a good idea against the laws of cause and effect moving in the foward direction applying universally in every context. Time at higher levels seems much like a multi-faceted crystallization.

 

[Standuble]

Here's a question I think you'd enjoy. What if in the future of the human race we're able to sent so many particles and energy back in time that we were the ones that created the big bang and thus created our very existance?

Wouldn't that be intelligent design on a most wonderfully ironic and paradoxial scale.

You would need to send back all the energy and particles in the universe to achieve that. However wouldn't the ever increasing age of the energy and particles prevent it from becoming a stable time loop where the increasing variance per iteration would lead to eventual failure? It could happen by either the universe somehow collapsing prematurely (possibly entropy) or make it so chaotic deviance led to an eventual loop where humans are not able to send the particles back in time. Unless of course you send them back to pre-big bang and this somehow negates their age.

As for evolution/intelligent design I would strongly support the former (as well as seconding RW's argument that God could easily utilise evolution as his MO for life if he wanted). However I think evolution is blind and random. There is no such thing as an inherently good or bad mutation, just helpful and maladaptive ones to the environment at hand. If you survive you continue to take part in the game called life. However there are the mutations which neither help nor hinder, they survive and continue though they convey no edge. Why would God seek to evolve lifeforms with so many useless parts?

 

[Mole]

The most fascinating thing about Intelligent Design is that the world looks, it really does look, as though it has been designed.

And so until, "The Origin of Species", it was natural and rational to believe in an Intelligent Designer.

So it is intuitive to believe in an Intelligent Designer and counter-intuitive to believe in Natural Selection.

So the interesting question is how did we move from an intuitive mindset to a counter-intuitive mindset?

And an even more revealing question is why do we still think in terms of the intuitive mindset in MBTI?

 

[Standuble]

The most fascinating thing about Intelligent Design is that the world looks, it really does look, as though it has been designed.

And so until, "The Origin of Species", it was natural and rational to believe in an Intelligent Designer.

So it is intuitive to believe in an Intelligent Designer and counter-intuitive to believe in Natural Selection.

So the interesting question is how did we move from an intuitive mindset to a counter-intuitive mindset?

And an even more revealing question is why do we still think in terms of the intuitive mindset in MBTI?

Paradigm shifts I would say. I have encountered my fair share of evolution believers who exclaimed evolution as "extremely obvious" and "common sense". I think they merely needed someone to show them that the natural selection theory is reasonable and just as "intuitive" as the intelligent design model. Even if there is no final proof for the theory of natural selection its premises are observable: some people survive diseases or injuries due to their physical composition whilst others wouldn't, others are allowed to advance and develop through possessing a greater level of "talent" compared to others and some people are born into relative comfort whilst others are born into poverty and have to struggle to survive merely because of the environmental conditions of where they exist.

My personal view is that intelligent design isn't intuitive. But I'm going to avoid getting into too much detail about that.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

The latter's name; it's ironic really. The actuality is haphazard. Ineffecient. Incompetent, even.

Ah, c'est un artiste! They say.
God has divine taste - artistic merit!

No, no, it's just that natural selection is the superior explanation. Or perhaps god is a comedian.