KBCid wrote:if you can't comprehend what it means to be spatially controlled then how can you understand what it means to not be controlled?
Proinsias wrote: I was hoping an example may elucidate the distinction you see between random & controlled, allowing me to gain a better idea of where you are coming from.
Lets revisit the analogy of the cubes of sand on the beach which were already used for this purpose. As you walk along a beach you begin to see nearly perfect 1 foot cubes of sand that are at definable distances from one another. The bits of sand that are used to form the cubes don't 'necessarily have to be arranged in that shape hence the reason why artists use wet sand as a medium to carve a nearly endless variety of shapes such as sand castles etc. There is no inherent control within a bit of sand itself that causes it to arrange itself in a specific manner relative to another bit of sand. Thus, sand is entirely subject to where an outside force moves it in 3 dimensional space.
At the other end of the inherent control topic would be something along the lines of magnets which was also already used to define the subject of inherent control vs. outside control. 1" long by 1/4" square magnets will control their own positions as they come near each other as most anyone knows who has played with them. They have so much inherent control that you can be harmed by being in the wrong place as one approaches another.
Magnets are analogous to matter involved in crystaline structuring and sand would be analogous to matter used to form most of the designed products we use every day. Since I have already provided both of these analogies previous in the thread I don't see how restating them will provide a comprehension benefit for you at this point unless you didn't read the thread.
Proinsias wrote: As I see it we now have three factors: 1.Matter moving with inherent control or cause, like crystals, planetary systems, atoms......
Crystals don't share an analogy with planatary systems but they do share analogy with atomic positioning since crystalline structuring is based on atomic structuring.
Proinsias wrote:2.Matter moving with control which is not inherent, life and its consequences like factories, houses, bird nests....
All of these are correct.
Proinsias wrote:3.Matter being moved by random forces, like...
sand on a beach.
Proinsias wrote:The gist of the thread seems to be that point 2 is where one must infer an intelligent designer. The distinctions to me seem rather arbitrary.
The distinction is in how material formations can replicate that have no inherent control causing it to occur. How arbitrary is it to infer design when you observe 1 foot cubes of sand occuring in a repetitive manner? By what criteria do you assert that it may be natural in contrast to designed? By your rationale the fact that there are mllions of number 2 pencils does not invoke any design consideration based on mechanistic structure at all. They can just naturally occur that way without design.
Proinsias wrote:It sounds a little like Donald Rumsfeld's known knowns, known unknowns & unknown unknowns. Items in category 1 you can dismiss as they are explainable, how planets or crystals form. Items in category 2 are also operating on the same rules as category 1 items but can carry an additional set of unknowns which may one day have a great light shone on them when the engineers collaborate with the biologists. 3 you'll need to define.
obviously you are not paying attention. Items in 2 are not operating on the same rules as 1 which is defined by 1 having an inherent cause for structuring and 2 not having that inherent control. 3 has been defined a number of times but you refuse to aknowlege that it has already been covered. Both 2 and 3 have no inherent positional control and the only difference between the two is that one keeps repeating specifiable structure. There are no unknowns to be discovered. you have only one choice in defining why a structure repeats that is not inherently controlled... it is controlled from outside itself systematically.
KBCid wrote:If we were to look out into space and see that the planet mars and all the other planets in our milkyway looked nearly identical and we sent probes that confirmed that the structures on the surface of each planet were also nearly identical then we have rationale to infer such a control exists. Beyond finding such evidences you don't have a rationale to properly assert spatiotemporal control here.
Proinsias wrote:Nearly identical? I thought the was the point of language and concepts like planets, animals etc. If you want to find planets which more closely match each other you need a better description. If I look around my garden I must conclude that due to the cats, trees, birds & flowers all looking rather different you have no rationale to infer such a control exists in life.
I said nothing about what I want to find. I said everything about what you are observing and rationalizing how its possible. Intelligence designs a plethora of material objects that have no inherent positional control, repetitiously. Define how that is possible? The fact that there are a multitude of different designs is a testament to the fact that intelligence does not act like a crystal. It is free to create any structuring allowed within the limits of physics.
When we see multitudes of cats there must be a cause capable of reproducing that form since the matter used to form them has no reason to naturally form that shape. Sand on a beach has no reason to form itself into 1 foot cubes over and over. At the very bottom of rational thought you would have to be able to define how such an occurance of repetition can possibly happen. You don't seem to want to address the point being made about repetition, for you this has no bearing worth consideration but, this is exactly where rational thought must make consideration because chance does not make consistent repetition and if it's not chance then you must consider what cause is capable of explaining the observation. Sytematic control. The same foundational control that intelligence applies in nearly every automated process ever designed. You apply force to make matter move in space and time into arrangements that it does not naturally form on its own.
KBCid wrote:The specifications for how these required functions are implemented is the only thing still awaiting an answer.
Proinsias wrote:Indeed. You have inferred an unspecified control system. Without any specifications it's little more than an engineer's interpretation of Bergson's élan vital.
No it is not undefined. To be undefined you would have to be able to assert that any cause could possibly be the control and as is quite clear here chance is not an option nor is there any other option available. The one and only specifiable cause possible is systematic control, which defines the type of control in operation.
As any engineer can confirm systematic control does not occur by chance. Randomness occurs by chance. To explain repetitious behavior one must infer the most logical cause and that is systematic control. Thus, systematic control is exactly how one defines the cause for the observable evidence. Any questions about 'how' the cause is implemented are secondary considerations to how the observable evidence is explained to be possible.
KBCid wrote:On the other hand why is such a requirement of information not asked of evolutionary theory prior to acceptance of its beliefs? It provides no rationale as to how theoretically 3 dimensional structures occur at all.
Proinsias wrote:Evolution tends to focus on biology from a hypothetical most recent common ancestor of all life to where we are today. I don't think it bothers many people that it has no sound rationale as to how theoretical three dimensional structures occur at all, that's what physics & metaphysics are for.
You are avoiding the question. no attempt is offered to explain how life can be formed 3 dimensionally from a code and yet you see no problem holding a belief in the little explanation it offers. However, when the subject is broached as I have done here and pointed to a necessity for intelligence to form such an irreducible system then all of a sudden it requires that every specific of its implementation must be defined or it has no explanitory power.
KBCid wrote:As I have described the physics of the requirement of exertion of force in 3 planes on substrates used to make a formation, no individual component of matter exhibits this ability, none. Nor could a single bit of matter exert a force in 3 dimensions as described since such an action requires 3 separate positional points in space to accomplish such an action. Physics...
Thus, anytime you observe precision replicated movement in space you should know that it is occuring by systematic control.
Proinsias wrote:Matter moves, that's what it does.
No it doesn't. matter can only move in space and time by definable causes. Had you read the reference to the laws of motion that would be clear;
Newton's laws of motion
Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[1] and can be summarized as follows:
1.First law: If an object experiences no net force, then its velocity is constant: the object is either at rest (if its velocity is zero), or it moves in a straight line with constant speed (if its velocity is nonzero).[2][3][4]
2.Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.
3.Third law: When a first body exerts a force F1 on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F2 = −F1 on the first body. This means that F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
Proinsias wrote:When we look at it we see patterns. The essence of the above appears to be that anytime we come across anything familiar at all in the physical world we should infer an intelligent designer behind it.
When you observe matter you may indeed see a pattern and every pattern has definable causes, an inherent cause between two instances of matter or a force from outside an instance of matter that affects it. That is all you have to define a cause for how a pattern can occur.
Snowflakes have an identified inherent cause, 1 foot cubes of sand don't. So how would you explain the repetition of 1 foot cubes of sand?
KBCid wrote:Explain why precision repetition of structured matter requires systematic spatiotemporal control. It is a simple answer of 5 words.
Proinsias wrote:I think you said it best earlier:
KBCid wrote:Once non-random movement was detected they did assert an answer. Spatiotemporal control, because this is the only answer that is logically and ratioanally conceivable based on the known laws of physics.
that answer to this question is a generalization of 'my' understanding since I know the laws of physics and have proven my ability to apply them properly I can begin with a generalization and upon any futher questioning I can be specific about the laws and their application,
the question being asked is "do you comprehend them and do you understand how they can be applied".
