Well, one strong indication would be if the results of the design were optimum. What kind of damn fool intelligent designer would build the human foot, the human spine, the giraffe’s whatchamacallit nerve, snakes’ hips and whales’ finger-bones, etc.?
At very least, observation of nature allows us to dismiss a really intelligent designer. The best that could be claimed is a kludgey hackmeister with attention-span problems.
Smeghead: it’s mostly in the connotations. The word “magic” carries tons and tons of extra baggage: wish-granting genies, witches and cauldrons, Faustian bargains, wise old Gandalf, Mickey Mouse and the magic broom, etc. You can hardly say the word without conjuring (heh) images that are very specific.
“Something beyond our ability to comprehend” is more of a blank slate, a big foggy “dunno” that isn’t already highly colored with preconceptions.
Well, I can’t comprehend why there would be absolutely no sign of this immensely great thing.
Chances are…chances are there’s nothing out there.
And it doesn’t work since one can say the same thing about the universe. Plenty of cosmological theories hold that ours is only part of a greater universe, or the latest in a chain of them, or both. So one can just say “the greater universe/chain of universes always existed” without involving any gods.
Magic: Not real; a handwave. " ‘How does it work?’ ‘God/a wizard did it!’ "
“Something beyond our ability to comprehend”: Something that our minds can’t understand. Which arguably is most things; modern science is a group effort, no one person can actually understand it or even a significant part of it. Even if you don’t go that route, science has advanced as far as it has because we’ve faced problems that can be broken up into chunks small and simple enough that we can understand them, if not the whole. It’s possible that there are problems that can’t be broken up that way and are literally beyond the ability of humans to grasp.
That said, “not physical” is in the magic category, not the “too complex to understand” category. The concept doesn’t make much sense - how can something be real in the physical sense* and not physical? And it’s a handwave, an example of “a wizard did it”; there’s no evidence for any such thing and no hint that it’s a necessary explanation. It has no explanatory power.
*As opposed to real the way logic or numbers are “real”; while arguably real there’s no way such abstract things could create matter
If I understand the words correctly, “something beyond our ability to comprehend” is neither near nor far-fetched… it’s not really fetched at all. In fact, “something beyond our ability to comprehend” means it’s certainly beyond our ability to discuss. You might as well say the universe came about because of mixed pretzel unicorn papa bingo.
Learjeff posted this reply:
Finally, a probability of zero doesn’t even mean that something is impossible. It just means that you won’t see it happen. However, if you are the RESULT of it happening, and it DOES happen, you WILL see it. Put that in your probability pipe and smoke it.
Thank you for that, it always seems such a self obvious refutation of any proposal/argument, ie. that you can present any philosophical construct for the existence of ‘A’ as long as it isn’t the only ‘B’ that can prove the existence of ‘a’.
This constant idea of a non-human reference for Homo Sapiens aspirations can distract us from our potential, I think occasionally in 2013, we should remind ourselves that despite Randian, (Ayn or Corp), individuals and groups are more than capable of acting in a larger than tribe like fashion.
To return to the original question, whether Mathematics or Mathematicians have a valid place with regard to Darwinian Evolution. Well yes of course, along with Statisticians, Physicists, Chemists, Cosmologists, Astronomers et alia.
We currently have a a dearth of Philosophers whose ability can stretch across a multitude of disciplines, we need a modern day Erasmus or Aristotls.
P.
Magic we can comprehend we know it doesn’t exist but if something magic did happen we would attribute magical powers to the magician. Something beyond our ability to comprehend cannot really be discussed beyond accepting that something beyond our world may exist.
How can we know that magic doesn’t exist, but can’t know an intelligent designer doesn’t exist? What’s the demarcation for proof of nonexistence?
Because we know what the physical laws are, if magic does exist it would be from a world we can’t comprehend anyway.
Then for me the problem is the assumption that an intelligent designer must exist even if we have no evidence for it.
Sorry mate no, your mistake is applying nonsensical physical parameters to it, the original point is that it is beyond our physical understanding of the universe at the moment.
One day we may indeed find the universe came about because of mixed pretzel unicorn papa bingo and if it does then you will be proven correct, but until that day I will just stay agnostic to the idea of a creator/life force/giant elephant in the sky or insert your god here.
assume nothing, test everything. Of course this takes a lot of time up so sometimes you just have to believe the consensus of experts.
Right, so let’s not assume a magic invisible unfathomable creator.
We shall put it in the box together with the unicorns, griffins, titans etc…
We shall laugh at the idea until the time someone produces some indication that this creature might actually exist.
His point would be that you shouldn’t laugh at any of those.
My point would be that we may not live in a rational universe. This may only be the rational subset of a irrational universe, just like the macro world is a subset of the very strange quantum world.
Except that strange != irrational.
And all this talk of “magic” with no invocation of Clarke’s Law?
Is there any consensus on the “infinite/finite” universe question? My brain just locks up with that topic.
We can’t know for sure (yet), since we can’t see past an already very, very large area of it. We do know there’s even more Universe beyond what we can physically see/detect, however. So let’s just say you probably shouldn’t lose your keys (or your towel) out there.
The trouble is that the converse doesn’t work. Magic might remain distinguishable from technology, even if technology becomes indistinguishable from magic.
Dr. Strange: “I’ll believe that technology is the same as magic when Reed Richards chants, ‘Seven-Eighths Inch Lock Washer Number Five from Detroit, turn thou counter-clockwise!’ and it happens.”
Agatha Heterodyne: “Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!”
Hooray Agatha!
Also: “Siri, what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?”
Magic!
Alls I would suggest concerning the Mysteries of the Universe[sup]TM[/sup] is that an awful lot of things we take for granted now would have looked like magic not too long ago. Hell, we’re even starting (slowly) got get a handle on quantum physics, and that’s as close to magic as we’ve got right now.
Even if we bonk into something Out There that looks like magic, or God, or Big Juju…I’m pretty sure we’ll figure it out. We’re clever little monkeys.