Intelligent Design: Scientific FACT
This paper will statistically and mathematically prove the odds of our universe existing in it’s present scientific state without being guided by intelligent design are significantly less than the odds of a specific single person on a specific single occasion playing exactly 1 ticket per lotto game for 1000 consecutive lotto games and winning every one.
Consider an Olympic size swimming pool filled with small blue marbles, where N is the number of blue marbles. Suppose a mindless process selects a single marble. The probability of that specific marble being chosen from the pool is 1/N. But the probability of a blue ball being chosen from the pool is N/N = 1 because the mindless process will always select one but it never cares what one. For the purposes of argument only, I concede that every physical phenomena in our universe can be completely and unambiguously described in terms of mindless process.
Yet, if the entire universe is driven by mindless process including us and our minds, then how can we explain what happens when we write sentences on paper or even think an intelligent thought? We can specifically observe intelligence by examining written sentences. Yet where is that intelligence that we know to exist revealed or expressed in terms of probability? It must exist hidden within the number space of mindless processes. And where is it hidden? Right in front of your eyes.
A mindless process does not care what marble is chosen. That is why the odds that a blue marble will be chosen are N/N = 1. But intelligence does care what marble is chosen. Suppose we go to the swimming pool and paint one of the marbles red. When the mindless process selects the red marble we now no longer have a probability of 1 but rather a probability of 1/N since we are specifying a particular marble by painting it red before the mindless process makes its choice. Similarly, suppose we paint all the marbles red except a single blue marble. The probability that a red marble is selected in this case is (N-1)/N.
Whenever we see a probability of 1 the process must be mindless and without intelligence. That means all the marbles must be blue or all the marbles must be red. Then any process with a probability of occurrence less than 1 cannot possibly be mindless without intelligence. Hence, the process must be mindless with intelligent, thus we define intelligence numerically as:
Intelligence = probabilistic distance from 1 toward 0 specifying the occurrence of a mindless process.
That is just a fancy way of saying that the smaller the probability, the greater the intelligence. It also says that an intelligence of 1 is a mindless process containing no intelligence where every outcome is equally preferred. We can easily and obviously see with our own eyes how seamlessly the numbers match our intuitive expectations. When the pool contains all red marbles except a single blue marble and a red marble is chosen we see a very weak sign of intelligence as the probability is nearly the same as a mindless process of all blue marbles. This is perfectly consistent with our numerical value of an intelligence of (N-1)/N being very close to 1 hence very close to mindless process without intelligence.
Similarly, we see that when a single red marble is chosen by mindless process it shows a very strong sign of intelligence. This is particularly evident when we see the same mindless process consistently repeating itself. Suppose a different mindless process consistently deposits red marble into the pool immediately after the previous red one was removed. Each time the mindless process chooses the red marble from a pool of remaining blue marbles, intelligence thanks it for providing such a convenient way to express itself. As each iteration of the mindless process continues to faithfully select the single red marble from a pool otherwise filled with blue marbles, our intuitive sense that this process is one of intelligence is confirmed. This matches our numeric definition of intelligence telling us that the numeric probability of the totality of these iterative selections continually drives lower and lower with each successive iteration.
Furthermore, this definition of intelligence is consistent with the entire premise of the debate since the entirety of the argument does, in fact, rest upon the unstated assumption that a very low probability can be interpreted as intelligence. Until now, we really had no direct link from this probability to our conclusion of intelligence. Instead we have had to rely upon comparison to our known experience such as our, somewhat contrived, line in the sand of winning 1000 lottos. Again, we consistently see that our real life reaction to a person winning 1000 lottos would match our numeric expression of intelligence since our typical reaction would be one of incredulous disbelief. Such an actual occurrence would immediately garner serious suspicion since we all would have an innate sense that someone was somehow altering the selection process to somehow “fix” the games thereby indicating that intelligence was involved in the observed outcome even if we could not find where this intelligence was introduced.
In example after example, we consistently find that our definition of intelligence consistently matches our intuitive sense of probability of occurrence everywhere we see it. Similarly, we find no occurrence anywhere in the scientific description of our universe that compels us to consider any other numeric definition of intelligence while simultaneously having every reason to trust our definition as it consistently and repeatedly represented structurally in every case we consider.
Perhaps someone may propose that this is all some sort of parlor trick of numbers where I set up definitions to suit my own ends rather than presenting the true mathematical expression of what intelligence actually is. To this argument I appeal to Occam’s razor since some alternate statistical definition of intelligence could be proposed to contradict the results shown in this writing rather than simply refining them the way that Einstein’s relativity refines Newton’s laws. Of such an alternative definition we need to ask if it can so basically capture the essence of what intelligence is in any simpler and more elegant way than simply equating it to probability. If not, we should reject it.
Now knowing what intelligence is now allows us to see that we need an absolute reference point to measure from in relation to physical states. The third law of thermodynamics provides the perfect such reference point almost as if this entropy and intelligence stuff are maybe interrelated. Perhaps even designed.
We also reference The Einstein Statement
The entropy of any substance approaches a finite value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.
This is consistent with our notion that we did indeed miss some extra entropy going on since he says approaches a finite value instead of saying it approaches zero.
The physical description of this “zero” Intelligence state is basically something similar to a hydrogen atom alone in space not interacting with anyone. A similar configuration could also appear with two hydrogen atoms orbiting around each other without interacting, yet I cant help but think that even that would contain interaction between the two at some quantum level.
In any case, as was the case for the 1000 lotto games, this too is a somewhat arbitrary case since, even very early after the big bang there were clear signs of intelligences. Likely in every quantum wave function collapse, intelligence interjects itself into physical reality since that is precisely the measurement that defines physical reality including the fate of Schrodinger’s cat.
While this may or may not be proven true, we do know that at every quantum time-step, intelligence presents itself as deviation from our lone hydrogen floating in space. Bumping into other atoms adds a little intelligence but smooshing together with another atom to form helium adds way more intelligence.
As 30 year veteran of the Atheist - Theist Debate, I can tell you that the serious players who sit at the big boy table probably by now see the handwriting on the wall. For everyone else we simply call this compound exponential growth on top of compound exponential growth. Quantum time-step after quantum time-step, as the entire universe increments through time, physical reality is expressed through exponential growth fuelling exponential growth ultimately leading to the final actual probability of occurrence significantly close to zero that I have already won.
Since we can only hypothesize of what zero intelligence could even mean, we examine the numerical value expressed in the formation of stars and planets before life. Since any non-zero probability value at any level gets amplified through the layers of exponents, we quickly achieve our meager reference point of winning 1000 lottos and now it is official.
For this reason we do not need the actual number since the structure of the calculation tells us that we are so far beneath the odds that we stated initially. Furthermore, by doing this exercise we now know that we can see intelligence everywhere and in everything clearly demonstrated during ATP production from cellular respiration. From the rows of solid state proton pumps to the cam stalks driven by a driveshaft connected to a gear powered like a water wheel using protons. Anyone objectively looking at all the integrated little pieces constantly doing what they are supposed to instead of a bunch of hydrogen atoms sitting frozen across the universe. Big difference.
And big numbers. Driving tiny probabilities.
So there it is and now it is done. Many, many facts and formulas that are professionally considered and recognized as scientific fact have significantly less statistical foundation than the one shown in this writing.
We thus conclude intelligent design is a scientific fact and required for our universe to exist.
This scientific fact must now be taught in public schools.
I would hope that those now proven to be mathematically and statistically incorrect will have the common decency, morality and professional integrity to vigorously lobby to require this scientific fact to be taught as such in public schools with the same intensity that they spent in fighting on the losing side.
GOD
PEACE
LOVE
Someone Who Cares