Some General Intelligent Design (GID) Evidence Not Classified as Restricted Intelligent Design (RID) Evidence And Other Significant Facts
For this article, the term "image" is slightly restricted.
Image. This is a collection that can include language descriptions, images in the usual sense, and all human or machine duplicating sensory impressions for a specific natural event. This also can be assumed to be digitized in the sense of virtual reality. These are tangible objects that can actually be observed and that provide the specific information that characterizes natural-systems.
General logic-system. For a language L, this is composed of a fixed set of n-ary (n-placed) relations on L, n > 0, RI(L) = {R_1,R_2, . . . }. Then there is an algorithm that employs RI(L) and generates a deduction from a set of hypotheses X in a finite number of steps. This generalizes the notion of a formal proof.
Consequence Operator. See Herrmann (2002).
The Standard General Intelligent Design Interpretation. Specific operators that produce or alter natural-system behavior, or produce or alter natural-system characteristics, for the GID-model interpretation, are each intelligently designed by H. The images obtained by applying such operators to a specific image are intelligently designed since the methods used to obtain the images satisfy all of the rules and axioms that characterize standard scientific deduction. Each standard natural law (i.e. physical law) or scientific theory as represented by a consequence operator C, also displays a higher intelligence signature when the standard characteristics displayed by C are extended to those characterized by the "extension" *C. For a given finite set of hypotheses, the deductive conclusions denoted by C(X) are contained in the conclusions of *C(X) and, usually, there are more conclusions in *C(X) than in C(X). These additional conclusions have significant uses.
The basic GGU-model utilizes event sequences . . . ,F_k, . . . , F_j, . . ., where usually k < j. For our specific universe, this article is concerned with the processes that produce or alter the symbolized image F_k and that yield the symbolized image F_j and that give evidence that all such alterations are intelligently designed.
It's important, however, to realize that the direct evidence for intelligent design and indirect evidence for design by a higher intelligence presented here is independent from whether one accepts any GGU-model physically generated cosmology. This evidence is independent from any cosmogony or cosmology in the sense that the evidence only depends upon the rationally obtained physical laws and accepted scientific theories. This evidence does not depend upon the actual construction of the GGU-model.
(A) Natural Laws. (In this article, natural law means physical law as "physical" is define by a specific science-community.) The following somewhat extended analysis demonstrates certain conclusions.
(I) The existence of the collection of all described natural laws indicates that our universe is designed in a special manner. This is, that human intelligence can devise natural laws using languages and other devices that mimic processes that produce or alter natural-system behavior, or produce or alter natural-system characteristics. This special form of design corresponds to an intelligent purpose. This design allows humankind to use physical processes to construct a man-made universe and control many aspects of local environments.
(II) (a) A described natural law is intelligently designed since it can be represented by a general logic-system. (b) However, as demonstrated, some pure data if used as a natural law need not be modeled by GID.
(III) The production of or alterations in the behavior of a natural-system, or the production of or alterations in a natural-system's characteristics produced by application of a described natural law are modeled by the GID-model and, hence, are intelligently designed. In the absence of a presently described natural law, the imaged production of or alterations in the behavior of a natural-system, or the production of or alterations in a natural-system's characteristics can still be considered as modeled by the GID-model. There are examples where describable mental processes applied to images for natural-system behavior falsify the GID-model.
The term "natural law" has various meanings, not just for the notion of a physical law. Physical laws have the most concrete defining properties. Other "natural laws" tend to be less specifically defined as concepts. In this section, the term "natural law" refers explicitly to physical laws as well as other types of natural law that fit the circumstances discussed. The natural laws considered here have, at least, three basic characterizations.
A natural law is a "statement" that can be applied more than once to physical situations. It is considered as a rather "simple" statement often used within more complex scientific theories. It predicts a science-community's experimental data as such data are produced via application of a general logic-system.
Recall that a science-community is any individual or organization that uses implicit or explicit fixed general logic-systems. Hence, the term "science" is rather broad in character in that it is but any branch of systemize knowledge that includes a fixed general logic-system. If one uses the book's (Herrmann 2002) terminology, then natural laws are descriptions of how we perceive the combining of various "simple" levels of the universe-wide frozen-frames. (What is discussed here applies, in general, to all laboratory-obtained (i.e. empirical) data as well. Further, the expression "operator relation" means a relation between sets of descriptions, images, data or information.)
The history of how statements of "natural laws" have come about clearly indicates that all have developed through human mental procedures that include the notion of mathematical abstraction. For example, consider intuitive induction as a first step. Intuitive induction is based upon human mental processes that yield a hypothesis that states that there is a describable correlation between observed events. Once the hypothesis is stated, then this correlation is tested in a laboratory setting. "It is a perception of relations and not subject to any rules of validity, and represents the gropings and tentative guessing of a mind aiming at knowledge." (Cohen and Nagel, "An Introduction to Logic and the Scientific Method, Harcourt, Brace, NY (1934, P. 275).) However, these "gropings" are subject to "logical rules" in more than one way. The first steps for induction do fit the "finite choice operator" GID-model interpretation. When only empirical data are being considered, then a hypothesized natural law must satisfy the data at least approximately as discussed below. Empirically obtained data are used to verify or obtain a description for a natural law.
It is a fact that any data determined natural law must satisfy the requirements for a general logic-system if that natural law is used within any science-community theory. This follows from the fact that such a theory must also predict the original empirically obtained data from which the natural law is obtained when restricted to the appropriate objects. Such empirical data often represent information that requires interpretation (i.e. translation). This yields a relation between images by considering the "before" and the "after" effects of the physical processes being investigated.
***As examples show, statement (III) is established by considering the application of each natural law as predicting the data via a general logic-system and behavior-signatures as constructed in this paper. For a defined set P of images classified as "perceived," the perceived P_X is determined by the natural law applied to a set of hypotheses X, a subset of P. It has been shown that the finite consequence operator generated by the collection {P_X} of all perceived P_X is weaker than the natural law general logic-system and {P_X} has eliminated extraneous material including the natural law statements. In the converse case, a general logic-system is generated by direct observation without the need for any natural law statements. In this converse case, the intelligence being displayed is that of H, the intelligence that has defined the general logic-system and constructed its contents. However, as demonstrated by the box-law example, without further analysis, the consequence operator generated need not correspond to the data observations. This will not occur for the natural law defined P_X.***
For falsifying examples and how more detailed observations lead to an intelligently designed natural law, see empirical.htm, where a "box-law" is examined.
This box-law example demonstrates specifically that sensory observations can be made that yield 8 behavior-signatures P_X as X varies over all of the language used. Each behavior-signature taken separately is a finite logic-system. But, there are two signatures that when combined do not generate a general logic-system that yields all of the original behavior-signatures. Indeed, for this example, there is no general logic-system that yields the original two. Thus, these unmodified "observations" yield one-way to falsify the contention that there is a general logic-system that yields the combined behavior. This contradicts a GID-model basic characteristic for a natural law. However, each individual observation is still intelligently designed, where intelligence is required to follow the simple rules. These rules allow for construction of the finite rules of inference and require a simple application of the basic general logic-system algorithm. This does not preclude there being some sort of "law" that does predict these 8 outcomes. But, such a law would not follow the most basic aspects associated with human deductive thought. To obtain a natural law called the box-law, further analysis is necessary, where a logically deduced unobserved hypothesis is adjoined to the observations.
It is a fact that there are many imagined operational relations between images that do not satisfy consequence operator axioms. If any natural-system followed one of these imagined before-and-after collections of events as operational presented and there is no other general logic-system basis for the images, then as a combined collection of observations they cannot be used with any other scientific-community's general logic-system. They would lead immediately to a contradiction within the logic used to construct the general logic-system. They can be used separately. But, this example shows how additional human mental processes can lead from such data to a "physical" box-law that does satisfy consequence operator properties. On the other hand, if a consistent natural law is included as part of a science-community's general logic-system and the law is verified by laboratory data, then no behavior-s that represent the data will contradict the general logic-system.
Consider a collection of natural laws, each obtained from human observation, which are used to build our man-made universe. There is a certain amount of intelligence needed to conclude that a set of data does correlate to a specific description. But, the amount of intelligence needed to insure a non-contradictory coalescing of a collection of empirically obtained natural laws is especially great. Thus, from the GID-model viewpoint, the fact that each operator has an intelligent agent signature pales in comparison to the intelligence required to generator the necessary general logic-systems and all of the consequence operators associated with the collection of all accepted natural laws.
Exactly what do natural laws state? What exists when accepted physical laws are being considered? I have never seen a physical process produce an object that is in the shape of a cube. I have never seen a stone or any physical object where "nature" has carved into the object numbers that measure its mass. I have never seen a region in space with the stars or any objects, in any symbolic form, state the area, or volume, or the like. I have never seen a carving produced by pure natural means that relates mass and energy. I have seen a mushroom cloud that is a result of such energy conversion. There are mathematical relations that model natural law measures that do seem to apply, at least in part, to actual observable physical objects and there are those that do not.
Consider experiments made in 1900 relative to the notion termed the "photoelectric effect." "Light-waves" are directed at the surface of a certain piece of material. It is determined that an electric current is produced through free space and it is assumed this is caused by the light.
(1) By applications of a science-community's general logic-system, an experimental set-up is constructed. (2) Then measurements are made. (3) Then a graph is drawn. (4) Cartesian geometry is applied and an energy equation written down that relates the measured quantities. It is assumed that the newly discovered electrons cause this current and have mass and can acquire kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2. An equation hf = (1/2)mv^2 + hf_0 is deduced, where f and f_0 are two frequency measures and h is the slope of a linear graph. Notice how application of various general logic-systems yields this equation. The basic classical continuous wave-theory is applied. However, this theory implies that it would take considerable time for the current to flow, or for electrons to acquire enough kinetic energy to escape the surface. However, this prediction fails. That is, the predicted behavior-signatures do not correspond to the experimental data. Hence, for this scenario one might replace the wave-theory behavior with a new natural law.
Suppose the 1901 Max Planck general logic-system that uses "electromagnetic energy elements" is applied and this equation is re-interpreted using a different physical language. By intelligent finite choice, let h be Planck's constant and then let hf be imagined as a single "bundle" of energy called a photon. Then when a photon interacts with an electron suppose that all of this energy hf is "immediately" given to the electron. The actual natural law can be expressed in general logic-system form in various ways. For example, let p = light of a specific frequency is directed towards a photoelectric surface. Then consider the following portion of the new natural law. Notice how application of the following general logic-system, expressed as ordered pairs, and the specific information it contains models a physical process termed "photon absorption."
(p,light energy, a photon, is absorbed by an electron)
(p,a photon is absorbed, essentially, instantaneously by an electron)
(p,all of the photon is absorbed by a single electron)
(p,a portion of the absorbed energy is used to free the electron from the surface)
This is a general description for an assumed process, but does not give a more accurate description for a relation that exists between these statements. Other statements are added to complete this new natural law that is obtained by the most important of logical procedures, finite human choice. The complete description satisfies all of the data and is certainly intelligently designed to fit the data, assuming that you believe that Einstein was intelligent. These results satisfy the three natural law characteristics, at least, for different space-time locations. Of course, the equation is not displayed in any of the natural-system images. The "energy" being imparted is not displayed, only its measured effects. Certain notions do not correspond to specific and observable objects, say a particle that has no other property except for "energy" or "kinetic energy," an unobserved property associated with movement, if that movement could be observed.
It is important to realize that the above collection of ordered pairs are behavior-signatures, but not for the actual perceived results. The perceived results are the movements of mechanical devices. However, the above four ordered pairs can be supplemented with an additional scientific theory and the mechanical movements predicted, at least approximately. The photoelectric effect equation and the new description appears to be but a human mentally created model that when interpreted and a general logic-system applied allows one to predict altered images and, hence, the observed behavior-signatures.
General logic-systems are not unique. The above behavior-signatures can be replaced with a subsystem of classical logic and conversely. For this case, simply consider a general logic-system of the form {{p->f}, {(p->f,p,f)}}, where the "f" varies over the four specific statements.
The major missing part of the actual physical observations is the mathematical expression. Can this be considered as mimicking something else? The GGU-model predicts the existence of objects called "ultimate subparticles." They are of one and only one type and they reside in a substratum or background universe. Such an object is modeled in such a manner that it contains every known fundamental physical property, even those that are not representable in mathematical terms. For example, energy, mass, electric charge, polarization, . . . . Considering universal units, only one "simple" process, the hyperfinite combination, is necessary to produce photons and electrons with the requisite measures that will satisfy the mathematical expression exactly. Although not strictly necessary, this can be considered as an additional intelligently design feature. Further, when a few other representable processes are applied, actual behavior is introduced into the material world at an apparent level of approximation. The GGU-model shows that these approximations, termed as statistical or perturbations, can be produced by intelligently designed laws and procedures that follow patterns directed by a higher intelligence. Even with these additional unobserved substratum features adjoined, the GGU-model still is but analogue model (it rationally represents behavior and properties where the actual objects used may be different from those presented) that yields the hyperfinite combinations and does so in such a manner that the humanly deduced natural laws and certain scientific theories are preserved.
Stated behavior-signatures for this experiment might consist of the set of ordered pairs, where p is the first coordinate and the second coordinates describe the readings from various measuring instruments. These simple observations could be considered as a type of natural law. In this case, the intelligent agent represented by each signature is sufficient from the GID viewpoint. Each signature is not dependent upon it being predicted by an accepted natural law. The unification of a set of behavior-signatures might yield a general logic-system that generates the original behavior-signatures if the original behavior-signatures are stated in a special way, such as in this simple case. On the other hand, you might be able to adjoin other unobserved notions to the general logic-system and these additional features yield a predictive natural law. This process can continue to include the GGU-model substratum notions. It is a matter of choice as to what an individual accepts as the unobserved notions. However, (I) gives an apparent reason for establishing logical procedures that model these real or imagined regularities.
There are hundreds of illustrations as to how this laboratory "data-to-assumed-natural-law" process requires general logic-systems to achieve. We don't observe a force separate from its effects. We can use the effects to measure it, whatever it is. We see a rocket burning fuel. Then we're told that it's burning the fuel at a constant rate. The rocket appears to be "picking up speed" as it rises into the morning sky. This "picking up speed" can be measured. We're told that the term for this is that the rocket is accelerating. Well, the "force is equal to the rocket's mass at the moment (times) its acceleration." But, we do not observe the "force" as an actual physical object, only its effects. Note that if you were to computer animate this rocket's behavior, you would need to translate the F = ma, as m varies, into what would actually be observed. This would be the last "intelligently designed" step in applying a natural law to a specific situation. These computer images should represent the direct observable effects of application of a natural law. Of course, in a laboratory setting, the observed effects may only be the data being displayed.
The above method that describes the natural law that governs the photoelectric effect can be applied to every accepted natural law. From the GID-model interpretation, this yields (II)a. The original box-law data illustrates the (II)b.
***Although natural law behavior-signatures are evidence for GID, it is the use of such additional notions as "energy, force, mass, virtual process, virtual particles" and others that do not correspond to actual observable objects that imply that constructed natural laws may be but modeling "something" else going on within our natural environment that preserves the properties of intelligent design.***
General logic-systems are more fundamental than the generated consequence operators since they give the details of how natural laws affect a natural-system's behavior. Thus, the actual statement of a natural law requires intelligence to determine and express. An H consequence operator models this, in general, within the GID-model interpretation.
What this demonstrates, when (II)(a) and (III) are taken together, is that the production of or alternations in natural-system behavior, or production of or alterations in a natural-system's characteristics produced by accepted physical laws occurs because "something" has produced regularities through procedures that, at the least, model human general logic-systems. From this viewpoint, this verifies the De Broglie conjecture that "Our material universe has something in common with the workings of the human mind." In particular, it has a rational logical structure as modeled by the GID-model and intelligent agency.
(For a discussion of the notions of "direct" and "indirect evidence," see the end of this article.)
***In summary, what this means for the GID-model interpretation, is that (I) is indirect evidence for intelligent design, and (II)(a) coupled with (III) is mostly direct evidence for intelligent designed. Type (III) evidence is not RID evidence. Type (I) may be RID evidence.***
(B) Scientific Theories. For the GID-model, the notion of what constitutes a scientific theory is very broad in character. A natural law needs to be applied to objects that it relates. This is the case for any natural law whether physical, economic, morel or others. Such a law may have no affect upon other objects. General logic-systems used by science-communities include other allowable modes of general deduction from premises. However, there need not be any additional deductive modes of thought expressed by a general logic-system. It can be very simple in construction. Such general logic-systems need not even mention the natural laws being considered. They can give the proper correlations that the natural laws would yield when applied to specific objects. These generate some of the consequence operators S_N^V used throughout the GID-model. The general logic-systems that generate each S_N^V are mostly very different from the original ones that produce the S_N. The S_N generates a scientific theory based upon a general logic-system and a set of selected representations for each natural law in N and many additional notions such as mathematical theories, measurement schemes and such theories tend to be rather complex in construction. Theories generated by S_N^V can be substituted for scientific theories that contain the natural laws and additional complexities. That is, the natural laws and the additional complexities are no longer in the scientific theory. But, the consequence operator obtained still predicts the same natural-system images. Physically, in this case, the consequence operator models correlations between physical images and, hence, images that lead to verification of the laws, which are not now stated specifically.
From the viewpoint of a general logic-system itself, a theory-signature general logic-system produces behavior-signatures and each such behavior-signature correlates to actual physically observed behavior and this is done without specifically mentioning any physical, logical, or other laws or axioms (See this URL, previously mentioned). Indeed, for a given natural-system representation X, the "deduced" members can be highly restricted to very specific members of the originally deduced S_N(X). Depending upon what one accepts as observable, a great deal more can be eliminated such as so-called virtual objects. In general for quantum physical probabilistic theories S_N(X), the GID-model displays two different intelligent agents. One agent is a restriction of S_N(X) to a specific physical language that describes a physical state-of-affairs. The second intelligent agent is represented by a pure ultralogic. This ultralogic guides the physical behavior being depicted in that it controls the actual accordance of the physical event. It does this is such a manner that the probabilistic character of an event's occurrence is preserved. (See this URL.)
***It is self-evident that scientific theories are intelligently designed. (Indeed, by the GID-model H operator.) Further, for any physical science theory generated by a general logic-system, there is a general logic-system that yields no extraneous results and that relates only the actual physical imaged production of or alteration in a natural-system as predicted by the original general logic-system. This theory-signature implies that, in this case, the imaged production of or alternation in a natural-system is intelligently designed. This is strong evidence for GID. Such evidence is not RID evidence.***
I point out that if there is neither production of nor alteration in a natural-system, then the theory-signature indicates this. Mathematically, in the case that the operator S_N is utilized, further and very useful analysis can be applied, which leads to such notions as "ultranatural" laws and "ultranatural" objects. Depending upon which of these approaches is used, there may be an additional step required to complete the process. However, this step is intelligently designed from the viewpoint of the GID-model.
The actual rules of logic used by individuals to construct scientific theories may not be known. On the other hand, they may be informally known such as informal set theory. The following is shown in General Logic-systems and Consequence Operators. The "metalogical" rules need not be explicitly stated as long as the "arguments" for certain conclusions are accepted by science-communities. The conclusions can come from both inductive processes through observation or other means or by pure general deduction using an explicit set of rules. This yields informal "scientific theories" that are intelligently designed by trained individuals. However, when challenged to specify the deduction, such arguments must lead to a formal definition of a general logic-system and the general rules of inference. It is shown in the referenced paper that the notion of the finite consequence operate is equivalent to the notion of the general logic-system. Hence, there is a finite consequence operator that corresponds to the informal theory and becomes an intelligent agent for an intelligently designed general logic-system. I point out that general logic-systems and consequence operators are not based upon the notion of logical "values" such as two valued models for "True or False" or any other valuation notations.
(C) General Applications of Natural Laws and Scientific Theories. There are, at the least, two ways to show that such applications are, for the GID-model, intelligently designed, at least, from the viewpoint of human intelligence. One is my published method to obtain the best possible (consequence operator or general logic-system) unification for any set of consequence operators and shows that any application, finite or infinite, of natural laws and scientific theories is equivalent to a single collection of physical processes and, for the GID-model, is intelligently designed, at least, on the level of human forms of intelligence. (See Herrmann, R. A., "General Logic-Systems and Finite Consequence Operators," Logica Universalis, 1(2006):201-208 or Best Possible . . . (Note: There is a slight typographical error in the Lemma 2.7 statement.)) Then there is the example, discussed in the chance.pdf file in chance.zip.
There may be those who reject any natural law or scientific theory that postulates the existence of any unobserved object. This rejection will not eliminate the statement that our universe is intelligently designed.
***(iv) The following is a rather trivial fact. Consider the language L used to image objects. If one accepts that the image X in F_k either produces image Y in F_j or is altered to yield the image Y in F_j, then by using a single symbol not in L, say |, and attaching it to each such X, say X|, then there exists the entire set of ordered pairs {(X|,Y)}. This general logic-system will generate each Y from the specific X|. Notice that logical processes, including finite choice, are used to define this general logic-system. To apply the system, the simple general logic-system algorithm is applied in order to account for each image Y from a particular image X|. A few members of {(X|,Y)} may correspond to RID. Significantly, (I) does not apply to this general logic-system.***
(D) Evidence. It is fact that (A) natural law statements (I), and (II)(a) coupled with (III), (B) scientific theories as applied to the production of or alterations in natural-systems and (C) any finite combination of these, as well as (iv) imply that our universe is intelligently designed. With certain exceptions, direct evidence for this is that, technically, the actual general logic-systems that produce such statements, as (A), (B), (C), and (iv) can be displayed. Exceptions to direct evidence are (I), perturbations and individual event behavior that follows probabilistic models where each individual event is considered "random." Perturbations and probabilistic behavior are intelligently designed, but intelligent agency is only indirectly implied. [See Probability Models.]
Does all of this imply indirectly that there is "something" within "nature" itself that corresponds to intelligent agency? That is, for physical laws, does this notion of intelligent design model the behavior of actual objects? This is similar to quantum mechanics or early history cosmology where physical objects or processes are accepted based only upon deduction and indirect evidence. Thus, by similar rational choice, one can accept this GID-model interpretation as corresponding to an actual intelligence.
In Herrmann (2002), I discuss, beginning on page 178, the notion of apparent design or illusion as stemming from a basic evolutionary explanation based upon how the human brain has evolved and the "evolution of conscientious." This presupposes that the natural-system behavior comes first. One then argues via the notion of the evolution of human consciousness and corresponding brain development, that human observations and the brain evolved in such a manner that the behavior patters we perceive within nature developed the mental machinery we now term as rational thinking. However, I show that this evolutionary argument apparently fails for the notion of mathematical abstraction and, hence, appears to fail for the GID-model interpretation of the GGU-model. Whether the maximum or minimum scenarios are employed, the GGU-model is based entirely upon mathematical abstractions.
Besides (I) and those mentioned in the referenced book, there are additional arguments that this interpretation is not illusion. For example, the logical generation of models that represent natural laws and scientific theories that predict behavior is a recent development. The ability of the human brain to perform this activity is not restricted to specific regions or social environments. Indeed, there have been and there are today thousands of individuals who engage in this activity. Individuals perceive, and then describe or model physical regularities. Some of these are used to produce technical advancements. Certain of these technical advancements are used to describe or model additional physical regulations. Some of these regulations are used for technical advancements and so on. It is self-evident that such a human aptitude is required prior to and during this process. The ability appears to be rather widespread in character since a manifestation often requires one "to be in the right place at the right time." This aptitude has been displayed over a period that is much too recent to be produced by any known rationally described evolutionary mechanism. The simplest and most rational explanation is that this mental ability is a pre-designed aspect of brain activity that displays itself in concert with technical advancements.
The actual indirect evidence for the higher intelligence that probabilistically produces a natural-system or natural-system activities does not correspond exactly to any form of human intelligence. It cannot come from any form of material brain activity that predicts the observed natural-system patterns. This fact comes from the proof of the main theorem in the above-mentioned "Probability Models" paper. This higher intelligence is NOT an "extension" of any form of modeled human intelligence. No biological object within our universe can apply this general logic-system and obtain any of the stated results.
As pointed out in the first paragraph of my comparison article, all claimed direct or indirect RID evidence is also GID evidence. Finally, what follows is a detailed discussion of a remarkable fact - a fact that gives further evidence that the GID-model notion of intelligent design is not illusion.
Consider 100 different science-communities, and 100 books that summarize, for each set of hypotheses X, all of the predicted results Y(j) that should be expected, as j varies from 1 to 100. [These books are specifically defining the behavior-signature consequence operators generated by the general logic-systems. Moreover, one only needs a finite language.] I note that a science-community can be composed of one individual or the community may concentrate only upon a very small portion of the area identified as "rational science." Many of predictions Y(j) are different since each community concentrates upon specific scientific hypotheses and specific and often narrow deductive conclusions. If X should be the same as Y(j), then this simply means that j science-community predicts no different behavior via different images. This will always hold when you consider any Y(j) as a set of hypotheses.
(A') Usually, to obtain detailed images for natural-system behavior based upon X, the entire combined collection of book summaries Y(j) for X, as j varies from 1 to 100, is considered. (This can be represented by the set-theoretic union operator.) This is not only the usual approach but is the exact way such science-community results are combined when many individuals construct portions of our man-made universe or discuss physical predictions.
I mention that most of the general logic-systems used by each science-community have not been totally expressed in an explicit manner. They are implicit. But, members of a given science-community have no difficulty in apply them with the "full knowledge" that if challenged they can show the actual logical steps taken in going from X to Y(j).
Does the (A') approach follow the rules for logical deduction?
(B') NO, in general, since there are potentially infinitely-many general logic-systems that when method (A') is applied to two or more members of each of these general logic-systems the results DO NOT correspond to rational predictions. The basic observed data used to determine the box-law is an example.
The fact is that it is atypical for the (A) approach to correspond to rational predictions. This fact has been known since 1931 by a few logicians but not at all by physical scientists. But, now, there is a new significant result in terms of general logic-systems that substantiates the significance of fact (B) relative to intelligent design.
It has been established that, to combine any collection of general logic-systems together and assert that the results are scientifically rational, individuals would need immense amounts knowledge. [See General Logic-Systems.]
***(C') An individual would need to combine ALL of the general logic-systems used by each science-community into one general logic-system and apply the combined general logic-system to X, as well as all the other possible hypotheses, just to get a rational combined theory and not simply apply the (A') method.***
Moreover, the (C') method leads to the least amount of unnecessary deduction. Using the atypical (A') method, evidence shows that this method DOES lead to rational scientific predictions. This method does yield a logical unification. In such a case, the (A') method is equivalent to the much more complex, if not humanly impossible to apply, (C') method.
Since there are different ways to combine rationally such behavior, I cannot argue using the evolutionary notion of apparent design that the design presented by the atypical (A') method - a method that for our universe does yield scientifically rational results - is illusion. This is especially so since the (A') method serves a specific purpose. The purpose is that rather ordinary human beings can apply the summarized (A') method results in order to build our man-made universe. It appears that our universe and human beings are designed in, yet another, special manner to maintain this special coalescing of natural-system behavior.
What has been presented here is the major piece of a vast mosaic that indirectly establishes that an "intelligence" has purposefully designed all there was, all there is and all there ever will be. Although these results satisfy all the physical science rules for indirect evidence and the conclusions cannot be eliminated, they can be ignored.
Most scientifically described cosmogonies and cosmologies, including the GGU-model, are not constructed from explicit or hidden theological assumptions. The fact is, however, that they can usually be theologically interpreted after their construction. One such interpretation for these the GID-model conclusions is that they rationally satisfy many Biblical statements. For example, they satisfy the Genesis 1:26 "our image," and, relative to "purpose," they satisfy the "dominion over . . ." as well as the Genesis 1:28 statement "subdue it" in the sense stated in (I).
(E) Direct or indirect evidence. It is shown that every natural law can be replaced by a general logic-system. But, in general usage, this representation is not necessary. What the replacement does, however, is to show that each "physical law" can be consider as intelligently designed. The GID-model uses the idea that when "something" can be replaced by a general logic-system, then the "something" is intelligently designed. In practice, such a replacement need not be made.
Consider a hypothesis stated in a "scientific" language. If everything within the hypothesis is actually observable, then direct verification may be possible. Galileo's law of fall, if one had a vacuum chamber, can be directly verified, at least via an acceptable approximation, using direct evidence. The term "direct" means that the measures used are directly observed by human or machine sensors. Taking his law of fall and using mathematical reasoning based upon a portion of the finite logic-system called "informal classical logic" (i.e. ICL) the instantaneous velocity of the "falling" object is predicted. The portion of ICL used can be replaced by a finite logic-system, which yields the same prediction using his law. Now the prediction is verified by comparing observed results with the predicted results. Then one might state that "the prediction holds" or is verified. If a different general logic-system had been chosen, such as suggested by Marx or Brower, and a prediction made, then it's definitely possible that the prediction would not be verified.
So, what is it that is actually being testing? Basically, the general logic-system is being tested. It's the general logic-system that yields the prediction. The prediction is "rationally" obtained. For the GID-model, the prediction is intelligently designed. After billions of applications, the ICL does directly verify predictions for describable natural laws. Some scientists consider ICL as a "universal" logic-system although certain behavior within quantum measure theory does not directly correspond to some basic ICL rules. However, ICL is used to produce the underlying theory itself. Hence, even if some behavior is not following the ICL patterns, the behavior is being controlled in a certain manner by the ICL. This is the same type of control exhibited by the GGU-model and all known scientific cosmologies. In the GGU-model, the general logic-system being used by H to produce all of the intelligent agents is ICL.
Now consider the "photoelectric effect." Neither human nor machine sensors can observe most of the law's constituents. Hence, the law cannot be verified directly. For this case, any possible verification as "indirect verification." How do most of the science-communities do this? They use the hypotheses, usually using portions of ICL, to predict statements that are directly verified by human or machine sensors. Assuming from experience, that in all such cases ICL "correctly" correlates physical hypotheses and predictions, this gives predicted "evidence" that "indirectly verifies" the hypotheses. Such evidence is often called "indirect evidence" in that it "indirectly verifies" hypotheses via the direct verification of predictions.
The above-discussed evidence for the GID-model is not dependent upon the type of general logic-system employed. Any accepted general logic-system yields evidence for the GID-model. Moreover, any intelligent agent associated with any general logic-system can, but need not, be interpreted as a restriction of an agent that carries a higher intelligence signature. Of course, for a specific physical hypothesis the assumption about ICL may not be correct in all cases. For two reasons, the hypotheses need not be the correct hypotheses. (A'') Other hypotheses, and ICL, may lead to the same predictions. (B'') Or, other or the same hypotheses, and a different general logic-system can lead to the same predictions. Even if one assumes, as most science-communities do, that ICL is rather universal, there can be no absolute "scientific" knowledge that hypotheses, which cannot be observed, actually depict reality. This is especially due to (A'') since most of the modern natural laws are only indirectly verifiable. (A'') is a definite possibility and forms the bases of many alternate theories. Importantly, for the GID-model interpretation, (B'') is rather significant. Although natural laws and almost all scientific theories are based upon ICL, for a most perplexing aspect of physical-science, probabilistic behavior, the GID-model interpretation shows that an intelligent agent, which is not characterized by any portion of ICL that differentiates ICL from other logic-systems, guides and sustains the behavior. This intelligent agent represents a "higher" form of intelligence that cannot be "exactly" replicated by human thought.
All of the mathematical "proofs" and modeling results needed to justify the above remarks are contained in various books, published journal articles or they are stored at the arXiv.org Archives. However, I won't list all of these references in this article. I have gathered most of them together into one zip file, bookmath and I have given above the necessary additional links. It's best that you not concern yourself with the actual mathematics itself, due to its difficulty, until you grasp the intuitive basic for general intelligent design theory.
Herrmann, Robert A., 2002. "Science Declares Our Universe IS Intelligently Designed," Xulon Press, Fairfax, VA.Herrmann, Robert A., 1991, "Nonstandard Analysis Applied to Advanced Undergraduate Mathematics, Infinitesimal Modeling and Very elementary Physics," http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0312432
Herrmann, Robert A., 1986. D-world evidence, C. R. S. Quarterly 22(2):47-53
Return to the exact place from which you accessed to page by clicking once on your browser's back button. Return to the top of the home page.