ID and infinite regression

[aneeshm]

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

[DRoseDARs]

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

[molly bloom]

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

[BeBMan]

Re: ID and infinite regression

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.

[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 .

[C0ckney]

your theory = bag of ****e

[Provost Harrison]

whole theory = bag of ****e

[BeBMan]

bag of ****e = bag of ****e

[Urban Ranger]

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.

[chequita guevara]

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?

[Cort Haus]

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

[Dauphin]

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.

[Odin]

ID cannot be falsified, it is therefore not science.

[BeBMan]

I suspect it has something to do with religion

[aneeshm]

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 .