2 ms·
I thought it was interesting to read some philosophical thoughts about this and the other rules. Basically, that since such complex, chaotic, or random pattern
by tunesmith 12y ago
I thought it was interesting to read some philosophical thoughts about this and the other rules. Basically, that since such complex, chaotic, or random patterns can be generated from simple rule sets, and since these simple rule sets cannot be reliably divined in reverse from analyzing these complex rulesets, it basically invalidates the Intelligent Design argument. Those arguments are something along the lines of how incomprehensible outputs can only be generated by incomprehensible inputs (like a higher power, etc).
- greggyb 12y agoLogically, it does not invalidate intelligent design. Using your summary "incomprehensible outputs can only be generated by incomprehensible inputs" this sort of thing only proves that an incomprehensible is not a necessary condition. To truly invalidate intelligent design, you would need to exhaustively show that incomprehensible inputs never yield incomprehensible outputs. Ninja edit: The sort of reasoning you discuss does strengthen the basis for evolution by natural selection, as it indicates that comprehensible inputs can yield incomprehensible outputs. This is all in the realm of logic, not observed evidence supporting one view or the other.