MrIntelligentDesign Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. BACKGROUND Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either “GodDidIt” Or “NatureDidIt”. But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it. They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality. You can choose which camps you want. NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin. Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this: One problem (P) = one solution (S) or If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1. One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one. The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON. Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions. One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3. Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three. (I am not thinking units here, OK?) The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON. OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1. Let us make more examples in reality: When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event. OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously. For example: Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink. In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method. Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence: Do you wanna guess? Let me share it here. Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon. If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle. THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery. If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound! Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics… I will be sharing more… -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. BACKGROUND Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either “GodDidIt” Or “NatureDidIt”. But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it. They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality. You can choose which camps you want. NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin. Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this: One problem (P) = one solution (S) or If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1. One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one. The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON. Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions. One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3. Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three. (I am not thinking units here, OK?) The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON. OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1. Let us make more examples in reality: When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event. OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously. For example: Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink. In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method. Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence: Do you wanna guess? Let me share it here. Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon. If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle. This idea of yours that attempts to measure natural processes vs. intelligent processes based on how many solutions are available is logically flawed. So, if being hungry is a natural process and you consume food as a solution to this, you are assuming that consuming food is the only solution available and hence it must be a natural process. Then, to determine if it's an intelligent process, you are stating that it will have more than one solution. So, if I bring my manager two or more paperclips and a stapler, then I have put some thought into the process and have arrived at multiple solutions to my managers problem. So, what about planetary formations? There are a billion different way ways that matter can come together to form the planets as they exist today. According to you, this results in planetary formation as being an intelligent process, but clearly it's a natural one. See what I mean? Just because something has multiple solution doesn't indicate that it's a natural process vs. an intelligent one. THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery. If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound! Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics… There is nothing Nobel Prize worthy in your statements at all. It's not even interesting. If you were to demonstrate how entropy could be used to determine natural processes vs. intelligent ones, then you might have something. For instance, natural processes usually always increases the entropy of a system or collection of particles because it takes more energy to reorganize a collection or particles than it does to cause them to be disorganized. However, intelligent beings usually take disorganized collections of particles such as metal ores and such, and organize them into cars, tools, and even paperclips. So, intelligent processes could arguably reduce the entropy of a system or collection or particles while natural processes increase the entropy of a system or collection of particles. However, even these statements about entropy aren't always true, but at least it would've made a more interesting argument than stating intelligent processes are those that have multiple solutions to the problems at hand and natural processes only have one solution. Such an argument is horribly flawed from the start. I will be sharing more… Please, don't... Edited September 14, 2015 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. This is simply untrue. I agree there is no evidence for ID. But there is a lot of evidence for evolution by natural selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics… There are no Nobel Prizes for biology, philosophy or mathematics 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 I will be sharing more… ! Moderator Note No, you won't. You were told not to re-introduce the topic when it was closed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts