lemon lime
You asked in your OP:
Imagine no one ever seeing or knowing about computers or automobiles, and then one day coming across one or both of these things. Using all of the knowledge we have available today, knowledge of physics, chemistry, information systems, biology, statistical analysis, etc. etc., is there any logical way to determine (without knowing) whether or not these objects were able to self assemble through the agency of the physical forces of nature? Or, can we confidently assert (without having direct knowledge) that these objects would not exist (and do what they do) without purposeful and intelligent guidance?
We then answered this question. Here is yet another way of answering your question:
Yes, because;
If something X reproduces and can evolve, then, applying Occam's razor, until if or when we have evidence to the contrary, the default assumption should be it evolved and therefore we determine that it was created by nature and without intelligence involved. BUT, we know that computers cannot reproduce so that, unlike with life (which you DID bring up in your OP so please don't say it is irrelevant here ) which we know CAN reproduce, we know that computer cannot reproduce and therefore cannot evolve. We know that computers cannot reproduce because we know that reproductive organs or cell division etc allows reproduction which computers don't have and, applying Occam's razor again, we should determine that something X (where X could be a computer ) cannot reproduce until if or when we have evidence to the contrary and, therefore, we determine computers cannot reproduce.
If something X does NOT reproduces, then, logically, it cannot evolve (Via Darwinian natural evolution) and therefore we can rule out evolution as being created by natural means although that doesn't rule out other kinds of natural means. In that case, applying Occam’s razor, we should STILL assume natural causes of computers (if we had no prior knowledge that they are created via intelligence ) until if or when we have evidence to the contrary. Note that this determination of it being natural and not involving intelligence is not guaranteed to be correct but rather, because it uses Occam's razor, is probabilistic with subjective probability because it depends on you current personal knowledge without the benefit of hindsight.
But, we may then observe, for example, some screws inserted in the back of the computer and then, using our knowledge of physics and other natural processes, conclude that there is no known natural process not involving intelligence that could have possibly turned all those screws in although that would not rule out an unknown natural process. But we may then also note that a human hand with a screwdriver could easily have put those screws in thus we DO have a known possible Unnatural cause of those screws going in. So lets summarize that: we have a known Unnatural cause of those screws going in with intelligence involved but no known natural cause -this is surely evidence that an intelligence was involved. Now, suddenly, since we have evidence that an intelligence was involved with the assembly for part of the computer, it doesn't seem nearly as far fetched that intelligence may have been involved with the assembly with the rest of the computer. But this would not yet be enough to determine with confidence that intelligence was involved for the assembly of the WHOLE computer.
But if we were then to open up the computer and observed wires soldered together, then we would similarly note that no known natural process without intelligence could put that solder there but we know that a human with a soldering iron could have put it there thus the solder there is evidence of intelligence involved but for yet another part of the computer. Now we can extrapolate from those two bits of evidence inductively and say it is probably the case that the WHOLE of the computer was assembled with intelligence involved. If we then find yet more evidence of other parts being assembled, we can determine from that a higher probability of intelligence involved with the assembly of the whole computer and, with sufficiently more evidence, we can eventually determine that the probability of the whole computer NOT being assembled via intelligence is so low that we can then call it a proven scientific fact that it was created with intelligence and then we would have certainly determined that intelligence was involved.
In other words, as exemplified from the above, the answer to your question is:
yes, because:
In the initial absence of evidence, we can determine by applying Occam's razor that X was NOT created via an intelligence until if or when we have evidence that determines that it WAS created via an intelligence.
(Note how that determination is probabilistic and involves subjective probabilities that is dependent on personal knowledge. This cannot be avoided. )
Now, exactly how on earth does that above (esp the bit in bold type ) NOT answer your question? please explain.
04 Jan '14 11:41
Yes or no, and the reason why
Back to Top