05-09-2005 16:15									#1
	ID and infinite regression Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

A question - doesn't ID pretty much kill itself by falling into infinite regression ?

	05-09-2005 16:19									#2
	Increase the size of your Attachments

You DARE question the infinite and unknowable wisdom of God the intelligent designer?!

	05-09-2005 16:23									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Shrub says: "You talkin' 'bout our family tree ?"

Attachment: bushbanjo.jpg
This has been downloaded 263 time(s).

	05-09-2005 16:24									#4
	Re: ID and infinite regression Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm A question - doesn't ID pretty much kill itself by falling into infinite regression ?

I didn't notice any problem when creating the world and all that stuff.

	05-09-2005 18:05									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

To elaborate :

Assumptions : Let us assume that we are the lowest level of created - creator^0 , if you will . Let us also assume that reality has a certain finite complexity , and also a set of rules ( or arbitrary complexity ) governing its behaviour .

Proof and Deductions : If complexity requires a creator ( or intellgent agent - I use the words to mean the same , and creator is shorter ) , then of necessity that creator has to be equal in complexity to the complexity he creates ( as if this is not so , ID falls apart . Why that is so is explained in the first footnote , given at the end of the passage ) .

Therefore , the applying ID to the creator , there has to be a creator^2 of a complexity equal to or greater than the creator^1 . Applying ID to the creator^2 , we come to the creator^3 , and so on until creator ^infinity , who is infinitely complex , therefore uncreatable , therefore organically ( or otherwise ) derived , therefore impervious to the application of ID , and thus ID falls apart .


Footnote 1 : If a creator of an order of complexity can create entities of a higher complexity by the application of systems of rules which he may or may not understand, then ID falls apart as it is , as any level of complexity could be reached without a creator , by assuming that reality has an inherent level of complexity in its structure , and a set of rules ( complex conjugations of which lead to further , more complex sets of rules ) that governs its behaviour .

Hence 0wned .



Trollnote 1 : ID must be a rather ill-thought out theory if a science student in India , who has never studied philosophy formally ( or even informally ) , can disprove and dismiss it using one of the most rudementaty logical fallacies .

Not that I hope to convince anyone - the believers believe not to feel , but because they want to believe .

	05-09-2005 20:11									#6
	Put an end to popups!

your theory = bag of shite

	05-09-2005 20:13									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

whole theory = bag of shite

	05-09-2005 20:15									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

bag of shite = bag of shite

	05-09-2005 20:40									#9
	Got spare money?

Yes, it's not regression though, it's more like progression. This is one of the thorny problems that Creationism faces, ID is just a thinly-veiled form of Creationism.

ID is not a scientific theory. There is no theory to ID. All it relies are a) some "god in the gaps" argument and b) some "equal time" bollocks. But since ID is not a scientific theory it should not be mentioned in any science class.

ID proponents are using the disingenuously using False Dilemma. All they do now are attacking evolution and attempting to create an impression that, if evolution is wrong, ID must be right. They completely forget that a) both can be wrong and b) more importantly, ID is not a theory.

	05-09-2005 21:48									#10
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm Trollnote 1 : ID must be a rather ill-thought out theory if a science student in India , who has never studied philosophy formally ( or even informally ) , can disprove and dismiss it using one of the most rudementaty logical fallacies .

Who ever said religion was logical?

	05-09-2005 21:59									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It's turtles, turtles, turtles all the way!

	05-09-2005 22:05									#12
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm Therefore , the applying ID to the creator , there has to be a creator^2 of a complexity equal to or greater than the creator^1 . Applying ID to the creator^2 , we come to the creator^3 , and so on until creator ^infinity , who is infinitely complex , therefore uncreatable , therefore organically ( or otherwise ) derived , therefore impervious to the application of ID , and thus ID falls apart .

There are an infinite number or class of infinities. So in theory you can go on indefinitely with ever more infinities. So whilst your concluson is more than likely right, your reasoning is too simplistic. Turtles all the way down, as Cort says, is the answer.

	05-09-2005 22:11									#13
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

ID cannot be falsified, it is therefore not science.

	05-09-2005 22:15									#14
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I suspect it has something to do with religion

	05-09-2005 22:46									#15
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin There are an infinite number or class of infinities. So in theory you can go on indefinitely with ever more infinities. So whilst your concluson is more than likely right, your reasoning is too simplistic. Turtles all the way down, as Cort says, is the answer.

Apply this to creator^inf^inf^. . . . . ^inf . . . . . . and so on until you are satisfied . It still works on any number of infinities - the final collapse still has to come , when complexity exceeds the universe's ability to support it . And , as far as I have been able to ascertain , this universe only supports a one-level physical manifestation of infinite complexity .

Another point this raises - would it not take infinite mass to represent infinite complexity if it is to be derived from finite complexity having finite mass and rules of behaviour ? Would it not take more than this universe ( or any number of unverses ) to represent the point even before ID breaks down ? This objection should lay to rest the "it's turtles all the way down" fallacy .




@ Odin

I just falsified it , didn't I ? It cannot be falsified by observation , but it can be falsified by deduction - as I have proceeded to do .

	05-09-2005 23:32									#16
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm To elaborate : Assumptions : Let us assume that we are the lowest level of created - creator^0 , if you will . Let us also assume that reality has a certain finite complexity , and also a set of rules ( or arbitrary complexity ) governing its behaviour . Proof and Deductions : If complexity requires a creator ( or intellgent agent - I use the words to mean the same , and creator is shorter ) , then of necessity that creator has to be equal in complexity to the complexity he creates ( as if this is not so , ID falls apart . Why that is so is explained in the first footnote , given at the end of the passage ) . Therefore , the applying ID to the creator , there has to be a creator^2 of a complexity equal to or greater than the creator^1 . Applying ID to the creator^2 , we come to the creator^3 , and so on until creator ^infinity , who is infinitely complex , therefore uncreatable , therefore organically ( or otherwise ) derived , therefore impervious to the application of ID , and thus ID falls apart . Footnote 1 : If a creator of an order of complexity can create entities of a higher complexity by the application of systems of rules which he may or may not understand, then ID falls apart as it is , as any level of complexity could be reached without a creator , by assuming that reality has an inherent level of complexity in its structure , and a set of rules ( complex conjugations of which lead to further , more complex sets of rules ) that governs its behaviour . Hence 0wned . Trollnote 1 : ID must be a rather ill-thought out theory if a science student in India , who has never studied philosophy formally ( or even informally ) , can disprove and dismiss it using one of the most rudementaty logical fallacies . Not that I hope to convince anyone - the believers believe not to feel , but because they want to believe .

ID advocates are probably just going to reply that the "creator ^infinity , who is infinitely complex , therefore uncreatable" is in fact "God" and smugly insist you've "proven" that God doesn't require a creator.

	05-09-2005 23:49									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The common sidestep to this is to argue that the Designer is a necessarily existent being. Creation, including its design is contingent on his existence.

Most modern people would find the metaphysical notion of causality that underpins this line of argument to be odd. Having said that our current notion of causality is not particularly well-defined.

	05-09-2005 23:50									#18
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm @ Odin I just falsified it , didn't I ? It cannot be falsified by observation , but it can be falsified by deduction - as I have proceeded to do .

It is only scientific if it can be disproven EMPERICALY, that is, through experiment or observation. "pure reason" isn't good enough. Descartes's mind-matter dualism and his "proof" of the existance of God is an example of the nonsense you can "prove" with pure reason.

	05-09-2005 23:52									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Odin It is only scientific if it can be disproven EMPERICALY, that is, through experiment or observation. "pure reason" isn't good enough. Descartes's mind-matter dualism and his "proof" of the existance of God is an example of the nonsense you can "prove" with pure reason.

It's fairly naive to think that there is such a thing as pure observation. I wrote my Masters dissertation on this. To think that there is a "given" in experience is a myth.

	06-09-2005 00:19									#20
	Remove this text

Science doesn't prove anything and doesn't rely on 'pure observation' anyhow. It doesn't work on 'pure logic' either.

	06-09-2005 00:24									#21
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin Science doesn't prove anything and doesn't rely on 'pure observation' anyhow. It doesn't work on 'pure logic' either.

Because there is no such thing in either case.

	06-09-2005 00:29									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The most annoying thing about the concept of ID is the apparently widespread use of the abbreviation itself.

It's already taken, dimwits!

	06-09-2005 00:29									#23
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Agathon It's fairly naive to think that there is such a thing as pure observation. I wrote my Masters dissertation on this. To think that there is a "given" in experience is a myth.

Of course, we inject our cultural and institutional biases into our thoeries all the time (look at the stubborness of geologists of accepting the K-T asteroid impact as that cause of that mass extinction out of an almost pathetic fear of Catastrophism). What I am saying is that, we cannot rely on pure reason either. I think the purpose of reason is to keep the biases to a minimum.

	06-09-2005 00:30									#24
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Odin Of course, we inject our cultural and institutional biases into our thoeries all the time (look at the stubborness of geologists of accepting the K-T asteroid impact as that cause of that mass extinction out of an almost pathetic fear of Catastrophism). What I am saying is that, we cannot rely on pure reason either. I think the purpose of reason is to keep the biases to a minimum.

That has nothing to do with my argument. My position is that it is in principle impossible to identify an experiential given as the justificatory basis for our beliefs, because there is in fact no such thing.

	06-09-2005 00:36									#25
	Support Apolyton

Trying to understand Aggie's Philosopherese ------->

	06-09-2005 00:53									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

molly?

	06-09-2005 01:09									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Winston The most annoying thing about the concept of ID is the apparently widespread use of the abbreviation itself. It's already taken, dimwits!

That's what I was thinking. What does freud have to do with infinite regression???

That said, I'll be honest and just admit that I can't make heads or tails of the argument which, it is said, disproves intelligent design. Personally, I believe in unintelligent design.

	06-09-2005 02:50									#28
	Get a bigger avatar today!

ID isn't a theory or even an explanation, it's a ploy to try and get creationism back into American schoolrooms.

To any IDist reading this: You want to screw up a generation of American children. Don't talk to me about the evils of "atheist immorality".

	06-09-2005 06:20									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Winston The most annoying thing about the concept of ID is the apparently widespread use of the abbreviation itself. It's already taken, dimwits!

Yeah, I have to say that contributed to this being one of the most confusing threads I have ever read.

	06-09-2005 06:50									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by monolith94 That's what I was thinking. What does freud have to do with infinite regression???

Isn't that Carl Jung? Though that's id, not ID. ID (all caps) is either an acronym or an abbreviation.