Beyond all assumption, what are the qualifiers to determine if a thing is designed or not designed?

by examining its history and the evidence that tells us about the history.

Because humans have an innate ability/desire to find patterns in everything we see, there is no qualifier outside our own propensity to answer this question.

@ragingloli

Yes I understand but examination is not a qualifier. It is a process. What are the qualifiers that the examination uncovers to determine a thing designed or not designed?

@YARNLADY

So there is no way to tell if Mount Rushmore was designed?

Depends on how far back you want to go. The original of Mount Rushmore was surely the result of random erosion, or was it?

@YARNLADY

Heh… I speak specifically of the erosion that formed the rock to look like dead presidents. Was that intentional or not, and why?

If, as I believe, all ‘intelligent’ entities are the product of extremely complex interactions of lesser components, reducible to purely physical components, then the distinction is arbitrary; objects that are designed have simply come about through a much more complex process.

@Jayne

Yes I’ve heard that. The problem though is that complexity alone has never been proven to create an intelligent entity. Thus the distinction is not arbitrary. It is quite logical.

There are no universal qualifiers. Any hypothesis should only be accepted as far as the evidence takes it. If you would like to hypothesize that something was designed, fine, but you must provide the specific evidence to support that claim. “It looks designed, so therefore it is” and “there’s no way such a thing could have come about naturally” are not conclusive.

Re: Mt Rushmore: is it any easier to believe that the original “natural” granite formations are any more “designed” than the later sculptures of the presidents?

One supposed measure is “irreducible complexity”. So far the examples from nature turn out to be not so very irreducilbe.

@Ivan

If there are no universal qualifiers, how can we “know” the pyramids were designed? Stone Henge?

Sometimes you just know – as an example I knew the man who designed the Spiral Jetty.

@YARNLADY

I’d like to avoid “beliefs” altogether. I’m hoping for an empirical qualifier that determines one assertion or another with standard peer reviewed evidence, testable, predictable, falsifiable.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies And I want to see world peace, but it’s just about as likely.

I don’t know, but some of those pictures are beautiful!

@pdworkin

Yes I accept that fractal patterns are irreducible. Do you suggest that designs from a mind are reducible, and that is the qualifier?

As far as “knowing”... Did you know the person who made the wheel? Beyond all assumption, what is the consistent, predictable, testable, falsifiable empirical qualifier?

@augustlan

Yeah! Chillin’ in the salt cave don’t look too bad either.

If by “empirical”” you mean information obtained through the sensorium, I don’t know the answer but I sounds like there may not be one. Perhaps it’s like Justice Connor’s definition of porn. If you saw a wristwatch, would you have any doubts?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

We don’t know anything. In the cases of the pyramids and stonehenge, we have specific evidence that leads us to the conclusion that they were made by men. That is, we don’t believe they were designed because we say “Well there’s no way they just popped up naturally!” We have actual, specific evidence.

@pdworkin

Dawkins shed an excellent doubt on Paley’s watch.

I’m sorry, I don’t know who Dawkins and Paley are. Is there some way in which a wristwatch may not be the product of design, or am I missing something??

@Ivan

I agree. “Beyond all assumption” was the first line in this question. I reject “belief” in this discussion as a valid answer. I accept nothing less than the “actual, specific evidence” that you require. So the real question is, “what” is that evidence? And is it consistent, predictable, testable and falsifiable?

@Ivan

Could you please do the honors for @pdworkin‘s request? You would probably explain it better than I.

“And is it consistent, predictable, testable and falsifiable?”

Those would be the requirements of the hypothesis itself, not the evidence. Like I said, the evidence is not universally applicable. It varies from situation to situation.

@Ivan @pdworkin

I’ll get back with this tomorrow. Thanks to all and good night.

@pdworkin

William Paley was the man who came up with the “watch in the sand” parable, which stated that if you were to come across a pocket watch lying on the beach, you would come to no other conclusion than that of intelligent design. That is, you would always conclude that someone made the watch and then left it there rather than coming to the conclusion that the watch formed out of the sand naturally. This has since been dubbed the “argument from design” and is generalized to all arguments which fit the format “It couldn’t have formed naturally, therefore it formed supernaturally.”

Richard Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist at Oxford. He wrote a book called “The Blind Watchmaker” which was a long expose detailing how false Paley’s argument is.

My argument, of course, was that it must have been designed by man, but in my world view there is no room for supernatural causation.

You can not know with any absolute certainty nor is there a universal checklist for forming a conclusion, valid or not. Why must you have either? Til tomorrow, then…

An important qualifier for design is energy available locally to “fight” the overall relentless increase of entropy (randomness). The loss of energy sources (when stars are dying for example) will lead to more widespread undesigned (boring) phenomena unlike the structures shown in the JPG file.

On average intelligent human life can design intricate non random structures in a very short time while natural processes on average require more time, e.g. stalactite caves.

An interesting historical example are pulsars. Their regular “beat” appeared to be designed by intelligent beings at first, but later spinning neutron stars could explain the phenomenon.

Well, if ever a question was laden with another connotation, it was this one, but let’s go…

To determine wether something was designed or not, would ask for a little research of the object in question. Then based on that research one comes to a conclusion.

Many cases are simple: houses and other artifacts that people make around you are likely designed. We often know the makers and designers and can form a pretty reliable sketch of the design and manufacturing process.

Many other cases are also simple: cloud shapes and the shapes of waves can be observed as a phenomenon that result from chaotic environments. Once we recognize the puling / pushing / enabling and inhibiting factors that help generate patterns we may even start to predict the development next patterns, once we know the recent ones.

There is a category that comes across to us as totally chaotic, because we do not recognize a pattern and therefore do not recognize them as an object. These may still be designed, but can only be judged once recognized. A carefully arranged bed of dead leaves that camouflages a trapdoor, for instance. Or an electromagnetic message encoded to look like white noise on your radio.

There is another category that is the reason why I fear this question is laden. It is the category of objects that look to have designed characteristics, such as many living organisms. In that case, however, it still holds true, that research on the object is necessary to determine the origin of the object.

The origin of human life, for instance, has been intensely researched by hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world and they have come to a consensus on a very likely scenario: evolution from simple organic compounds over a very long term through many steps of ever increasing complex self-organized systems.

In general the criterium should be: do you have a hypothesis on the origin of the object (from chaotic system versus designed) and what evidence do you have to support that hypothesis or to reject it? In case of no evidence, I would say: well you won’t know, all you can say is what seems most likely from your point of view. The more logic applies to your hypothesis, the more likely I would be to accept your point of view.

No proposition is “beyond all assumption”. Dig deep enough into any of our models of reality and we will find that they rest on assumptions. The notion of “design” itself rests on certain assumptions regarding mind, and it’s not even clear what we mean by “mind”.

for the sake of argument, lets say it was all designed. everything. man made or not. all a part of some master plan, everything happening just as it should.

just a consideration.

History of the object is not a qualifier, because it is not always available. I like MattBrowne’s answer, but i have a slightly different “take’ on it: i think that there must be statistical measures of randomness that can be applied (possibly not yet discovered by human mathematicians). For example, the watch in the sand and the faces on Mount Rushmore “clearly” (in some sense that i do not have an equation to support) differ from their surroundings in terms of level of randomness. Certainty is never available from statistical analysis of events possibly affected by randomness, but i conjecture that we could say, if we had an applicable equation, that it would take a certain amount of time to make the probability of an occurrence greater than vanishingly small. For example, the “deep time” of Earth’s existence—over four billion years—likely provides enough time for certain biological structures that at first appear to be irreducibly complex to have evolved by slight incremental changes that slightly improved the survival chances of the larger biological structure that they occur in; one of them is the human eye, which actually is not the best design that we know of—the eye of the octopus has a superior design, because it does not need a blind spot on the retina through which the optic nerves can pass.

designed or not designed?

@Ivan said:
“the evidence is not universally applicable. It varies from situation to situation.”

On the surface, Yes. But do you think it not possible to trace all of this varied evidence back to one ultimate commonality? Let’s put the hounds on some examples of your varied evidence and see if they can find a common bone.

@pdworkin said:
“…it must have been designed by man…no room for supernatural…”

Do you suggest that only humans can design?

@whatthefluther said:
“You can not know with any absolute certainty nor is there a universal checklist…”

Are you certain about that statement? How can we “know” that what I have written to you here was intentionally authored and not a random assemblage of photons that happened to make sense to you?

@whatthefluther said:
“Why must you have either?”

To determine if any object is in fact a product of chance or intention. If we cannot “know”, then the threatening letters I send to my crackhore XXX-wife are not necessarily from me. What could possibly suggest that they were?

@mattbrowne said:
“…energy available locally to “fight” the overall relentless increase of entropy (randomness)”

Good perception equating entropy to randomness and JPG artifacts.

@mattbrowne said:
“…life can design intricate non random structures in a very short time while natural processes on average require more time…”

Debatable, but I get your point. Consider that randomness can occur in a flash and design can take a very long time. But I don’t equate design with construction. Design is first, yes?

—though I consistently see humans mistaking the phrase “ready, aim, fire” for “fire, aim, ready”.—

@whitenoise said:
“…if ever a question was laden…”

You earned a great deal of my respect by standing on the sidelines during my debate with Thammuz. If you have any questions about that episode I will be glad to address them here. I’d hoped you were giving careful consideration to all points.

This question offers you respect by not concluding the ultimate qualifier in advance. If it leads to the same qualifier, then my previous argument is supported. If it leads elsewhere, then that argument is trumped.

@whitenoise said:
“Then based on that research one comes to a conclusion.”

I’m hoping for evidence uncovered by research before any conclusions are reached.

@whitenoise said:
“…houses and other artifacts that people make around you are likely designed.”

Agreed. But what is the specific qualifier to absolutely determine that likeliness? My sick gambling addicted pedophile fool Uncle “says” that he built his house. But he did not build it. He only paid for it. How can we know for sure that the house was designed? The workmen on the project might be just slapping it all together randomly. How can we know they are not?

@whitenoise said:
“We often know the makers and designers and can form a pretty reliable sketch of the design…”

How does knowing someone allow us to form a sketch of a design? Beyond all assumption please.

@whitenoise said:
“cloud shapes and the shapes of waves can be observed as a phenomenon that result from chaotic environments.”

Dawkins sees Paley’s watch in the very same way. Why should we assume that one is designed and the other not? Likewise, why should we assume that either is or isn’t a product of chaos?

@whitenoise said:
“These may still be designed, but can only be judged once recognized.”

What is IT that is being recognized? What is the IT? Whatever IT is, THAT is the qualifier.

@whitenoise said:
“The origin of human life…intensely researched by hundreds of thousands of scientists…evolution from simple organic compounds…through many steps of ever increasing complex self-organized systems”

That explains evolution, not origins. Origins should explain how the evolution got started.

@whitenoise said:
“…the criterium should be: do you have a hypothesis on the origin of the object…”

It seems so. I’m not so sure though, preferring to simply research the object with no assumptions as to its origins whatsoever. The research produces evidence a very specific kind for those things that are from design. Let’s not presume to hypothesize until that evidence is revealed to us. What is that evidence?

@whitenoise said:
“In case of no evidence, I would say: well you won’t know…”

Agreed.

@whitenoise said:
“…all you can say is what seems most likely from your point of view.”

Subjective assumptions are best kept to ones self.

@Harp said:
“No proposition is “beyond all assumption”.

Including that one?

@Harp said:
“The notion of “design” itself rests on certain assumptions regarding mind…”

That’s a different subject. I’m not speaking of the “notion”. I’m speaking of the empirically verifiable physical “reality” of design or not designed. We can discuss image/object relationships elsewhere.

@lazydaisy said:
“for the sake of argument… just a consideration”

It has been considered, yet most find ME inconsiderate.

@LexWordsmith said:
“…i think that there must be statistical measures of randomness that can be applied (possibly not yet discovered by human mathematicians).”

That’s called Information Entropy, developed by Claude Shannon.
“Intuitively, entropy quantifies the uncertainty involved when encountering a random variable.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

@LexWordsmith said:
“For example, the watch…and the faces on Mount Rushmore “clearly” differ from their surroundings in terms of level of randomness.

Cancer cells “clearly” differ from their surroundings too. What’s so clear about clarity?

Similar to @whitenoise notion of “recognize” where he states:
“Once we recognize the puling / pushing / enabling and inhibiting factors that help generate patterns”… and also where

@whitenoise said:
“These may still be designed, but can only be judged once recognized.”

You say “clear”. He says “recognition”… and @pdworkin says “Sometimes you just know”.

Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds exactly like Fundamentalist Christian Creationist talk. They often say the same things about their beliefs. It seems so obvious. But is this a proper methodology for pursuing truth in reality?

@LexWordsmith said:
“Certainty is never available from statistical analysis of events possibly affected by randomness”

Do you suggest that certainty IS available when randomness is removed? Keep going there..!

@LexWordsmith said:
“…but i conjecture that we could say, if we had an applicable equation, that it would take a certain amount of time to make the probability of an occurrence greater than vanishingly small.”

Yes, yes, keep going there..! What is this mysterious applicable equation?

@ragingloli asked:
“designed or not designed?”

How may I answer you honestly without first discovering a set of plans expressing codified information which predetermined its existence before the object was ever constructed?

it is a bismut crystal, it grew that way naturally

A perfect example for this question. And unspeakably beautiful…

I actually guessed it was designed. How tempting to make that presumptuous mistake without a set of plans to refer to for confirmation.

Chaos = energy + matter + force of nature

Design = energy + matter + codified plans

@ragingloli I deserved that correction. As far as I know right now, humans and certain infrahuman primates are capable of design.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

In the case of the pyramids, we found construction plans, tools, worker housing, etc.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “No proposition is “beyond all assumption”. Including that one?

Yes, certainly, since I don’t know all propositions. But, of course, in order for there to be a proposition that isn’t based on an assumption, we would have to be able to identify an absolute truth upon which to construct it. What would you propose that absolute truth to be? Until we find one, I’ll continue to assume that all propositions are based on assumptions.

“The notion of “design” itself rests on certain assumptions regarding mind…” That’s a different subject. I’m not speaking of the “notion”. I’m speaking of the empirically verifiable physical “reality” of design or not designed. We can discuss image/object relationships elsewhere.

Here you make the assumption that this “designed/not designed” dichotomy has some hard, empirical reality and you insist that we make the same assumption for the purpose of this question. But since the question asks whether we can dispense with assumptions, we’re off to a rocky start.

@Ivan gets it!

“we found construction plans”

Codified instructions that predetermine an objects existence before that object ever becomes a physical reality are THE ONLY way to determine if an object was designed or not. If we don’t find a set of plans, we cannot possibly do anything else but assume one way or another.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

The tools and the worker housing probably would have been enough on their own.

Seriously, your attempt has failed.

The tools and the worker housing says absolutely nothing about pyramids. THAT my friend, is the Creationist argument for Design. It all an assumption until we see a pyramid on papyrus referring to the exact pyramid in reality.

@Harp said:
“we would have to be able to identify an absolute truth upon which to construct it. What would you propose that absolute truth to be?”

That nothing can be designed without a set of plans to predetermine a specific outcome.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

If you see a bunch of protractors and ramps next to a gigantic pyramid along with the foundations of a temporary worker barracks, I don’t think you need much more evidence. Also, people create things all the time without making detailed plans of it ahead of time.

Where is the Chimpanzee’s set of plans for honing the correct stick to the correct diameter for termites in one case and honey in another?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Does this seriously pass as absolute truth in your eyes?

@Ivan

If you see a watch in the sand…

@pdworkin

Plans do not necessarily need to be written down. They only need to be encoded, somehow. The Chimp’s plans (intentions) are codified the very moment when her brain transduces an immaterial thought into electro chemical impulses to engage specific muscle movement to achieve an objective end result.

@Harp

Codified Information based upon intentions from a mind may be the ONLY absolute truth there is in the universe.

Sure, but how would we know?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “Codified Information based upon intentions…” This means what?

Wait, you’re saying that plans constitute truth? Reality, if reduced to its absolute essence, is a plan in a mind? This is your assertion?

@pdworkin

In this case, we know enough about chimps to accept their capacity for image/object relationships. Numerous studies have been done on this where chimps are provided keyboards to express their desires. A thought from the mind is represented by an image icon and a physical action is engaged to manifest that thought into reality. Not much of a leap for the chimp to associate a stick with a thought of pursuing food. The honing is the physical action expressing thought into reality.

However, I’m not ready to claim that honing a stick is actual design. Perhaps a very primitive form of design is even a stretch. Because the chimp does not predetermine the end result before the physicality appears in reality. It’s more of a trial and error process. The only predetermined result she wants is food, and not a honed stick. More of a means to an end, albeit a rather crude one.

@Harp asked: “This means what?”

I cannot guarantee that my transmitted objective meaning will in any way be received on the other end by you as anything less than subjective. There are many processes involved with effective information communication. None the least of which are information entropy, error correction, noise reduction, redundancy, syntax, semantics, code mapping A to B… All attempting to assist in transmitting my objective intentions to you with as little signal degradation as possible. Yet there is always some form of entropy to accompany every transmission.

I have codified my objective intentions and transmitted them to you as:
“Codified Information based upon intentions from a mind…”

The meaning of which is objective because that code represents the exact information that was authored by the thought full intentions of my mind. I will attempt to codify new information that represents the same thought full intentions of my mind as before. Hopefully, this new codified information will act as redundancy for the original codified information and assist in a more accurate subjective reception on your end.

“Codified Information based upon intentions from a mind…”

is synonymous with

“Objective information created by a mind, which is represented upon an assembled objective code, to express specifically objective intentions”

The transmitted meaning of which is extremely objective and absolute, regardless of how the received meaning is subjectively interpreted.

@Harp

Sorry I missed your edit.

“Wait, you’re saying that plans constitute truth?”

So to speak. Plans represent information, and I assert that information is equal to truth. But plans are not synonymous with info/truth. Plans only represent info/truth.

Plans are a specific type of code. Code is a material object made up of three elements. Energy, Matter, and Information. Take the Information away from a book and we are left with nothing more than a rock. Code is a material lens used to view the immaterial realm of information. We cannot touch information or truth. But we can infer its existence with code. We can also create info/truth by authoring new code. Yes, we can create our very own truth.

“Reality, if reduced to its absolute essence, is a plan in a mind? This is your assertion?”

That depends upon how we agree to define reality. I put forth there are local realities and non local realities. I define my local reality by authoring a codified information description of the observable phenomenon that I am aware of. I create my own truth. My local reality is one of your non local realities and so it is also reverse from where you stand. Yet our spheres of local reality have recently merged with one another, and portions of them are forever shared as local realities between us. Everyone on Fluther shares a portion of their local reality sphere.

We don’t individually create our shared local realities. We affect one another’s local realities and thus jointly create the portions that are shared between us.

Non local realities are those of people we have not met, or phenomenon we have not observed.

Reality viewed as the physical energy/matter convulsing in chaos is irreducible complexity. So it cannot be reduced in any way by physical means alone.

Reality viewed as energy/matter/information is expressed upon a codified description. Codes represent the absolute knowable essence of a thing. Codes are always reducible down to a factor of 1 bit.

Here is the plan for a human being. It consists of codified information in material form. Now there remains this question of mind. How will you determine whether or not this issued from a mind?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

With all rspect…. you are drawing illogical conclusions and use straw man arguments in opposing my answer. To me, that is not a rewarding way of debating.

I’ll illustrate:

(from your post)
@whitenoise said:
“Then based on that research one comes to a conclusion.”
I’m hoping for evidence uncovered by research before any conclusions are reached.

Your reaction is just nonsense and seems to only serve the goal of making you look smart. A perfect conclusions could be: there is no evidence for either position, based on the research. Even without evidence one can perfectly conclude on the likeliness of a hypothesis. I can quite surely conclude that it is highly unlikely that I was visited by aliens last night, without being able to proof it wasn’t.

(from your post)
The workmen on the project might be just slapping it all together randomly. How can we know they are not?
you’re joking, right?

(from your post)
@whitenoise said:
“We often know the makers and designers and can form a pretty reliable sketch of the design…”
How does knowing someone allow us to form a sketch of a design? Beyond all assumption please.

Now that again is a straw man argument I didn’t write “designers, therefore can form ”. You put words in my mouth and then disagree with them. That gives me the urge to brush my teeth.

(from your post)
@whitenoise said:
“cloud shapes and the shapes of waves can be observed as a phenomenon that result from chaotic environments.”
Dawkins sees Paley’s watch in the very same way. Why should we assume that one is designed and the other not? Likewise, why should we assume that either is or isn’t a product of chaos?

What gives you the idea Dawkins does that. Do you have any reason to think so? What source? Dawkins says that ‘lucky assembly’ of watches cannot be compared to evolutionary, biological development, because of the self-organising character of natural selection. Evolution is not dependent ‘on luck’. Dawkins opposes the position that life needs a designer, you cannot extrapolate that into that he states that clouds may be designed.
Unless you know Mr. Dawkins, don’t let him speak for you. (Quote him, if you like.)

(from your post)
@whitenoise said:
“The origin of human life…intensely researched by hundreds of thousands of scientists…evolution from simple organic compounds…through many steps of ever increasing complex self-organized systems”
That explains evolution, not origins. Origins should explain how the evolution got started.

Why do you bring up origins. We were talking designed versus non-designed. Regardless of what the origin was hundreds of millions of years ago, and whether that was consciously caused by something intelligent or not, is irrelevant. At that moment the outcome was not yet determined, so the origin has no consequence for the aspect of design when it comes to the resulting life as it is manifesting. At least not based on its origin.

(from your post)
@whitenoise said:
“…the criterium should be: do you have a hypothesis on the origin of the object…”
It seems so. I’m not so sure though, preferring to simply research the object with no assumptions as to its origins whatsoever. The research produces evidence a very specific kind for those things that are from design. Let’s not presume to hypothesize until that evidence is revealed to us. What is that evidence?

Again: i talked about hypothesis, not assumptions. And what is wrong with assumptions. We all make them, researchers make them all the time. Good researches make them explicitly.
You’re misquoting me and your stating nonsense. Quite eloquently, I must admit, nonsense nevertheless.

(from your post)
@whitenoise said:
“…all you can say is what seems most likely from your point of view.”
Subjective assumptions are best kept to ones self.

Why? Just be honest and open about them. Again try to differentiate between hypothesis and assumption. Also realize that without assumptions, you couldn’t even function.

Now you are just pretending not to stoop so low as to say anything that is assumed, implying that all you say is true. yeach

Final note:
Personally I find ”@Ivan gets it” a bit condescending.
You want to be our teacher?

Sorry for the long mail, but hey, I feel you made me do it. Please.

Gordon Gallup, Jr and his group at SUNY Albany seem to have demonstrated ratiocination in chimps as opposed to trial and error learning, so it seems arbitrary not to grant them at least some limited capacity for design, suggested further by the fact that they modify their sticks to suit the particular food they are after.

@Harp
That’s right Harp! Thank you for bringing us here. The fact that code exists IS the determining factor of whether something came from chaos or sentient authorship. The code itself IS the evidence. Where there be plans, there must also be a mind that planned them.

@whitenoise
Whether it makes me “look smart” or not, evidence is the only item to make a qualified conclusion upon. The “un”likeliness of aliens visiting us is a logical fallacy of arguing from the negative position. Science progresses upon that which is known, not that which is unknown.

And no, I’m not joking about the workmen. The reason we confidently “assume” that they are not working randomly is because we know that ultimately any debate with them about it will be referred back to a set of original plans to settle the argument. Without the plans, we cannot “know” they are building a house. They could be running a social experiment. They could be actors on a movie set. They could be training new workers. They could be testing material integrity for a new type of lumber/nail combination. They could be testing power tools. They could be creating a diversion for drug smugglers next door.

But whatever they are doing, we can only know for sure upon the predetermined instructions of the plan they are working from.

I’m confused about the “straw man” you think I set up. How did I put words in your mouth?

As to Dawkins, your example was cloud shapes and waves, not evolutionary biology. I don’t claim that clouds were designed for the very same reasons he breaks down Paley’s watch with luck. I used Dawkins to refute that clouds are designed. I agree with him here. But the moment we find a code on that watch, luck is trumped and design rules the day. And that’s the element Dawkins leaves out with evolutionary biology. The discovery of a pre-existing code changes luck into intentions.

Origins? I didn’t bring it up, you did when you said:
“The origin of human life” and then leap frogged into “evolution from simple organic compounds”

You brought it up and conflated it with evolution. I simply addressed your comment for clarification. And of course “the origin has no consequence for the aspect of design…” Quite the opposite. The design has great consequence for the aspect of origins. It starts with design (if and only if it is designed). It just so happens that design (sentient authorship) is the only mechanism that has shown itself to produce codified information.

And please stop telling me that I’m speaking nonsense. It is very sensible to acknowledge what is known from science and that’s all I’m doing. People just don’t like the ultimate implications of doing so, and so they claim I’m cracked.

Assumptions?
They will be our undoing. They are not to be confused with “presumptions”. Presumption allows a valid hypothesis to formed. Anything less is “presumptuous”.

@pdworkin
Interest and thanks for the info. More evidence to consider is always good. A great source of new material so thanks to you!

Well @RealEyesRealizeRealLies, nonsense remains nonsense

If you want me to call it different, I will. How about pancakes? You make great pancakes!

Thanks for your consideration. I really do enjoy speaking with you so hopefully no hard feelings.

Information theory and entropy provide a useful theoretical substrate, but how to calculate the likelihood that the faces on Mt. Rushmore occurred by chance—that is a question of applying the theory, and that’s the equation i’m looking for—an engineering, almost tehnological method for calculating the likelihoods.