Originally posted by lemon lime
That was a bit of a mouthful, so I'll try summing it up this way:
1. You've never before seen a computer or an automobile, and have not been aware of their existence (or purpose).
2. Having the sum total of all of known science at your finger tips you one day come upon these things. You endeavour to dermine their origin, and whether or not these a ...[text shortened]... idered. If so then I hereby claim first publishing rights... unless someone else beats me to it.
Yes, or no
Computers cannot reproduce thus cannot evolve to have ever greater complexity via mutation and natural selection from less complex forms of computer. That means, assuming that each computer didn't always exist, the full complexity from each must have either been created by:
1, some kind of intelligence.
2, created bit by bit from natural forces that are not totally random (like a growing complex crystal that grows from a simpler crystal nuclei )
3, spontaneously been created completely by chance.
After studying much physics and chemistry, we should be able to rule out 2, because there is know physical or chemical process that could even come close to making such complex computers.
And, if we do the maths, we see 3, must be dismissed as being absurdly improbable.
Thus, by systematic logical process of elimination, that just leaves 1, -simple!
BUT, EXTREMELY hypothetically, IF computers DID reproduce (cannot image exactly how that would work ) , and IF they passed on their characteristics to their offspring but with the possibility of an occasional mutation, this makes it possible for them to evolve from simpler and simpler computers and that would mean their could be a single 'first' computer, a “protocomputer”, that could be the common ancestor of all computers and that first one could have NONE of the complexity of modern computers thus, when you do the maths, 3, (i.e. the “protocomputer” forming spontaneously by chance, NOT modern day computers because natural selection is not totally random. so, evolution is more like 2 above ) is not improbable. Then, if that is the case, using the principle of Occam’s razor, we can reject 1, above because that assumes the existence of an intelligence that could plausibly have created all computers that, in your proposed hypothetical world here, we have not observed and have no evidence that exists when, GIVEN the high probability of 3, (plus evolution that would inevitably follow after 3 ) would clearly be a TOTALLY UNNECESSARY assumption.
I have above correctly and comprehensively answered your question and more.
Does this end this debate?