jdawg2

(uh...lol, I forgot I was in this forum. Move this wherever you feel is best, moderators)

I'm having trouble trying to figure this out. We can infer design for human created objects...because well, they are human created. If I see a regular car, and then another object with a tailpipe sticking out of the gas tank which is connected to the radio, then I could say that it's "not designed". We have a frame of reference for comparison...

How can anyone do this for the universe? Forgive me, if this topic is old hat...

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: jdawg2 ]</p>

seebs

Well, for starters, the color schemes clash. In an undesigned universe, for instance, you'd have a bunch of early Tudor solar systems in a galaxy, and then you'd suddenly have Art Deco, in the same galaxy!

Oh, wait. That would be *amateur* design.

I have no idea how one would distinguish between these. I don't know which one we're in, but I'm fairly sure I've only seen one, so I can't compare.

I tend to think this is the designed one, but I honestly can't offer a useful description of the other sort. Perhaps the undesigned universe is the one where nothing ever quite lines up right, so there's no sentient life, and no one observes it, so it goes away quietly.

Ojuice5001

I would say that being designed and being non-arbitrary go hand in hand. For instance, TV static is almost certainly not designed; this is so because that particular combination of black and white dots has no meaningful difference from the others. A rock is probably not designed, as there is more reason, but not a whole lot, to consider Rock A to "make more sense" than Rock B. A leaf might seem to be just as simple as a rock (superficially) but we know that its origin requires an equivalent of designe. Why? Because we know that leaves have specific effects on a plant that is very different from, and preferable to, the effects on an entity somewhat different from a leaf. And the universe has properties, including suitability for life and predictability, that make more sense as planned features than as things that just happened to be.

There is, of course, an equivalent of design: Darwinian evolution. But I don't find it at all convincing that this universe evolved from universes that are less suitable for life and less consistent. Nor does it make sense to consider these to be properites that just happened to be.

WWSD

An "undesigned" universe, if I were an intelligent design type, would look like a large patch of evenly distributed matter of some sort or other.

So it would basically be a large dark area IMO.

But since I don't buy the intelligent design thing, I'd say the "undesigned" universe looks pretty nifty the way it is.

An interesting question might be, what would you do if you were the designer of the universe?

I'm make mine doughnut shaped. Mmmmmm...doughnuts...

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: WWSD ]</p>

seebs

I can't tell a pattern I can't see from a lack of a pattern. In particular, *good* cryptography produces no detectable patterns - but believe me, there's a *LOT* of design involved in making such systems.

So, I'm not sure how I'd detect design. My head hurts, can I go now?

WWSD

I would say, if I were into ID, that to detect design, one must ascribe a purpose to the object in question. Such as OJuice5001's leaf analogy.

Although, ascribing purpose might be colored by one's personality. I like climbing up large piles of granite boulders. They seem perfect for just such a purpose, thus I might decide that they were placed there in such a conformation as to allow me to climb them. Then again, who knows?

One problem I have with ID is that there seem to be better ways to design things like knees so that they are more efficient and less prone to wear.
Another problem I often have with ID is that, when certain IDers wish to demonstrate the existence of a deity, they fail to mention that the deity also designed such things as trypanosomes and malaria, two organisms that are very adept at evading the complex human immune system. What specific purpose do complex parasites serve in the context of a universe designed for human life or life in general?

Daydreamer

The biggest indicator of an undesigned universe that I can think of is a stable equilibrium of suffering (in terms of life expectancy) in the animal kingdom, and was brought up by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker.

The basic idea being that in a biome with competing organisms, any decrease in the total amount of suffering would increase population sizes and all related selection pressures until the same level of suffering was restored.

To me, at least, this simply shouts a lack of design

GunnerJ

LAUGHING. OUT. LOUD.

WWSD

A lack of design or a sadistic designer IMO.
I think I'd rather just have no designer...

Pitshade

Definitely in the wrong place.