Suppose Max comes to you with a sealed but clear container consisting of two separate chambers with two visible certified thermometers mounted on the sides of the two chambers. Thermometer one reads 100 degrees and Thermometer 2 reads 10 degrees. Max tells you that the temperature differential you see is the result of tiny invisible demon that controls a microscopic door between the two chambers. As individual gas molecules approach the door, the demon quickly opens and shuts the door so that only fast molecules are passed into chamber one, while only slow molecules are passed into chamber two.
Your mission if you choose to accept it is to devise a way to objectively verify the demon’s design influence on the contents of the container?
As always when it comes to riddles like this there are few ground rules.
1) you may examine the container and it’s contents in any way you like as long as you don’t violate it’s physical integrity because that will let the demon escape and ruin the closed nature of the system.
2) The demon is invisible so efforts to view him directly won’t work
3) You may examine the thermometers to verify that they are functioning correctly or replace them with ones of your choosing if you like.
I don’t want to spoil the fun by sharing my proposed method for detecting the demon’s design until I hear some of your ideas.
What do you say is objective design detection possible in this case?
peace
What a coincidence?! I guess fifth can read minds…lol
I am wondering how it could be possile to examine and replace the thermometers without violating the physical integrity of the system.
You do mathematical calculations…No?
Hypothetically (just spitballing) they are mounted on the outside and are connected to the inside of the chamber by some sort of a probe. You could replace them and leave the probe intact
I stipulated that they were certified thermometers so you know they worked when they came to you.
I suppose you could beam a high-temp lazer on to each probe to see if you got a similar response to that of a control thermometer if it’s a big deal to you.
peace
Physics is not just mathematical calculations.
Neil Rickert,
I’m wondering why you think the accuracy of the thermometers is relevant to detecting design in this case? Any specific reason?
peace
We can’t test them without testing how they are connected to the inside.
That doesn’t work. Their might be fakery that involves the probe.
If it turns out to be fakery, I would take that as evidence of design.
filthy,
Design doesn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics. It depends on them. So your scenario is thermodynamical nonsense.
One of the main problems with the idea that life was intelligently designed is this fucking stupid, but never spelled-out, notion that creationists have that intelligence can easily violate the laws of thermodynamics. It’s ass-backwards. It’s cart-before-the-horse nonsense.
Arguments against evolution on the basis of thermodynamics fail for three reasons:
1. Because, actually, evolution would not be possible were it not for the very laws creationists pretend to be against it.
2. because the very same laws are behind our possibility to design.
3. because, given 1 and 2, if thermodynamics made evolution impossible it would also make design impossible.
Creationists have this completely backwards. The laws of thermodynamics are the reason why we can design, and the reason why evolution happens. The very workings of intelligence are dependent on the laws of thermodynamics in the very same way that design and evolution are.
Remember the mission is to devise a way to objectively verify the demon’s design influence on the contents of the container.
Detecting design in a faker is not relevant to the riddle.
peace
What does the possibility that sort of fakery have to do with detecting design on the part of the demon?
peace
I never once said it did.
What is it about you all that makes you ascribe secret beliefs to others that they don’t express?
Please deal with the riddle as written. Thanks in advance
peace
1) I’m not making an argument against evolution
2) I have no problem with evolution
3) ID is not anti-evolution
The OP is about design detection not evolution I thought that was obvious.
peace
If it works by fakery, then there might not be a demon.
You didn’t have to say so, your “riddle” depends on that very idea: that design runs against/despite the laws of thermodynamics. You posted this shit, right? Not only that, you posted accordingly: “This entry was posted in 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Intelligent Design …”
They didn’t look so secret. See above.
That’s what I did filth. Didn’t you read what I wrote? I don’t need to ascribe any belief to you, nor do I have to believe that this was against evolution. Your riddle is thermodynamic nonsense, for the very same reason that the thermodynamic “arguments” against evolution are thermodynamic nonsense. It’s not my fault that there’s such a connection, and it’s not my fault that you thought that design would be detectable by presenting thermodynamic nonsense.
So if there is no fakery we can conclude there is demonic design??
peace
That is not true, I know this because it’s my riddle and I don’t believe that design violates the 2nd law
That is because it concerns intelligent design and Maxwell’s demon is a thought experiment associated with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
You are imagining arguments that I am not making
I don’t think that design is detectable by presenting “thermodynamic nonsense”.
You are jumping to incorrect conclusions. Instead of trying to defeat imaginary arguments that I am not making why not interact with what is actually being said and take the challenge
Can you devise a way to objectively detect design in this case or not?
peace
I already told you: because it’s thermodynamic nonsense.
ETA: I’ll stop here. Otherwise we’ll just go on in circles. Ciao.
It’s only thermodynamic nonsense if you are incapable of putting aside your incorrect assumptions as to what it’s all about. It’s a pity
OK, have a good day
Perhaps you will check back in later to see what this little exercise was really all about 😉
peace
FMM:
… ID is not anti-evolution
Eh ?
Which universe have you been in for the last several decades ?
What do you think ‘design’ is all about ?. Jeeez.
Pizza.
That’s right. Intelligent design arguments (e.g. “evolution is a natural process running in reverse”) assume that I’ve somehow violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics whenever I clean my apartment and organize my books. They think that intelligence is a magical power to break the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because they don’t understand what intelligence is. For them intelligence is just magic.
I’d love to see intelligent design advocates start off with an empirical theory of what intelligence is, but that’s asking for far too much.
I’m confused by this thought experiment proposal.
I thought all of these design arguments had to involve coin flips somehow. But the demon does not seem to be flipping any coins. Am I missing something?
Maybe the demon has a coin with goat’s head and goat’s tails?
Whoever “they” are. They did not author this OP so their opinions are immaterial to this discussion.
Once again just to clarify I don’t think intelligence breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
That should put the matter to rest as far as this thread goes
peace
Because we are not detecting the demons existence but his design influence on the physical environment of the container.
Other than being tiny and invisible and capable of affecting the environment in the container else would you need to know about the demon to answer the challenge?
What exactly is the difference between a “gravity demon” and dark matter other than the name?
I hope that is not the answer we end up with. I certainly don’t think the best way to detect design is to rule out natural processes and declare design as a last resort.
peace
Who says the demon doesn’t use a coin flip to choose which chamber to heat up.
😉
Doesn’t anyone want to give the challenge a go.
Is the political partisanship surrounding this topic so stifling that you all are not even able to have a normal discussion about an innocent riddle?
peace
Since you asked
Design is about the effects of personal choice on an environment or object.
peace
I know* I must be missing something, but I just find posts with riddles or obscure coin flipping examples to be tiresome. They seem to be lead-ins to some kind of intellectual gotcha.
If there is an argument for a position to be made, why not make it?
Of course, you’ve told me before that you don’t make arguments. So me hoping for a forum where making arguments is the norm is only a dream. Or maybe a Cartesian vision produced by a
—————————————–
* Please do not ask me how I know.
Entropy,
It’s the No Need For Lunch Theorem.
Then to determine demonic design ,one would need to determine why the choice to segregate molecules was made?
Those molecules aren’t going to segregate themselves, you know.
There is no argument. I’m trying to clarify my own thoughts. I have a hunch about what needs to be done and a rough idea about how to implement it but I’d like to see if I’m on the right track
I’m not working toward an intellectual gotcha but I am feeling you out to see if you have an open mind or are just in this to score cheep points on the ignorant fundamentalist
Why are “arguments” so important to you? Why not have a discussion instead. What’s wrong with us both learning something instead on one side wining and the other losing an argument?
peace
Interesting, do you really need to know why an artist chooses a particular color over another to know that he made a choice?
peace
They could I guess.
That would mean that molecules were persons and instead of one demon we would be dealing with millions in the container.
I don’t think the challenge would change in that case however, we would still be looking to detect design
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
It’s an expression. As in ‘those dishes aren’t going to wash themselves, you know’.
Ok,
Why is it relevant to this discussion?
Peace
The irony of a thread dedicated to the detection of intelligent design seems to have escaped the poster of the OP.
Why not apply the method detailed there to this “puzzle”?
Be glad to,but I think people are having a normal discussion just not the one you designed.. Commenters are trying to detect the design of the riddle by the structure of riddle by trying to speculate of your personal choices. Kind of a film within a film.
We have Max’s explanation. Doors and Demons. And two thermometers.
1. We could have faith Max is truthful and leave it at that. Result: demon causation detected.
2. We could ask Max “ how do you know things?”. This could devolve into a lengthy epistemological discussion. Result: cannot even be sure anything exists.
3. We can ask Max if he has a receipt for the container. If he has one and it specifies a container with tiny door between two compartments and one invisible demon . Result: demon design tentatively supported.
4. If no receipt, we can ask Max what other evidence he has. Result: indeterminate. It would depend on the evidence and new information.
5. Max responds ” many people say there is a demon”. Result: Max become President of the US. And is no longer able to be contacted without a subpoena.
6. We apply heat to container, first one side and the other. Then both. Observe results. Change orientation of container. Observe results. Employ ultra sensitive motion detector. Observe results. Play Black Sabbath at a high volume. Observe the results .Result: depends what we find.
Obviously “Max” is an idiot who is not worth listening to. He believes in demons.
There’s a thermal diode in the box, separating the two chambers.
Job done.
Sure, otherwise Max couldn’t have known there is a tiny invisible demon there.
How did he find out by the way?
Backwards, preferably.
Maxwell’s demon is nothing new people. Entire books have been written on it.
Neither are the macroscopic variables V, P, and T anything new. You’d think that the science of thermodynamics is impossible given some comments.
The OP points out something interesting about the second law. It’s not really a law at all.
Assume there is no door at all. You would expect the system to reach a state of equilibrium. The thermometers would show the same temperature. But given that the 2LoT is a statistical “law” and not a physical law there is nothing preventing the improbable state described in the OP. Nothing at all. Boltzmann himself said so, though I cannot find the quote.
So I would say we could not detect the action of the demon at all.
Improbable, but not impossible. 🙂
You support ID. Therefore you are anti-evolution. It follows as a corrolary that everything you write is against evolution. Q.E.D.
ETA:
You support ID. Therefore you are a creationist. It follows from this that you believe all the nonsensical things that some creationists believe. Q.E.D.
This is true. Humans design things all the time without violating any laws of physics.
Some of them may even be little demons. 😉
I think it’s because they don’t understand the second law. And that’s probably because they were taught false ideas about the second law. The literature is full of them.
Moved a comment to Guano.
Revelation, obviously!
Pick me!
It’s easier to blame “the other side” for the lack of quality discussions than to actually engage in one. I appreciated the OP. I saw it as different and thought provoking.
I wonder what the response would be if we saw every OP posted by one of the non-ID members as an attack on Christianity and all our responses reflected that notion.
deleted
As opposed to an impersonal choice?
🙂