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
If you have a question take it to moderation issues please, dazz.
I like it! 🙂
Personally I don’t think that’s a bad thing. But ymmv.
Entropy had a post in which he made all sorts of comments without saying why any of them ought to be believed. Perhaps he is right but gave no indication that he understood why he was right.
Is it because the second law of thermodynamics can never be violated, and if so why not.
For me no, I don’t think aspect of the design process is the result of choice. The artist could have made a mistaken which is incorporated into the design.
But your criteria of design choice is at it core , in that case I think you do. It does seem a strange criteria for someone who doesn’t believe in free will.
If one cannot determine the “why”, can one determine an actual choice was involved?
So millions of demons are responsible for the temperature in my room being warmer near the ceiling than the floor? They must be fairly powerless because my ceiling fan on low kicks their demon ass.
Is this a the tie in with the weather, a cold front is cold demons moving cold molecules, which clashes with other demons moving warm molecules?
Perhaps the same Demon animated Jesus’s corpse and gave the impression that you could rise from the dead in order to attract people for purely selfish reasons to the death-cult that subsequently arose.
After all, given we know you cannot come back to life something like that is entirely plausible. It’s demon design.
Christianity is a life-cult. Eternal life, shall never die, etc.
Maybe it is the demons that are eternal. Is there a way to detect otherwise?
Could you elaborate on this a little bit. What do my personal choices have to do with the challenge?
Right, What we are trying to do is validate Max’s explanation if we can.
Not at all, Max thinks he has detected design. Our mission is to validate or falsify that impression.
Hallelujah
Finally!!!!!!!!!!
An honest answer that actually interacts seriously with the topic at hand. Now we are getting somewhere
I don’t think you would be surprised to know that that is exactly what I would do. Now the question is what results are we looking for that will allow us to conclude design in this case or what would rule it out.
Do you have any opinions here??
peace
What am I, chopped liver?
😉
Sure but then he would have to choose to leave it be rather than remove it.
No, Playing around with temperature forecasts just made me think of Maxwell’s thought experiment.
Since his demon was invisible it made me think that the experment might be a good place to explore design when when the designer is not accessible to us and we don’t know much about him/her
peace
Somehow, I am not surprised that you don’t think that that is a bad idea.
I’m not really sure what posts of Entropy you are referring to or what argument you are making about the failures in said posts. So I’ll take that part of your post as obscure but identifiable examples of Mung’s ironic humor.
chopped is the best kind of liver In my opinion.
peace
See, the danger of all the Mungian humor is that people mistake your serious posts for more of your borscht-belt routine.
I’m a Calvinist not a physical determinist.
I believe our choices are constrained only by who we are and not by something outside ourselves.
I don’t think we can choose to do something that is contrary to our individual nature and I don’t think our choices are random.
But we choose all the time.
I don’t think so,
the question of “why?” only makes sense if we have already determined that a choice has been made. There is no “why” if there is no choice that seems self evidently true.
peace
He just has a hunch, he is a simple fellow after all.
We need to determine if he is deluded
peace
Exactly!!!
It’s not magic at all it’s only an improbable event and an explanation that may or may not be true.
Hey mung do you have any suggestions on how we could verify design in this case? I’m especially interested in what you have to say here
peace
I knew you’d say that. But still, it is true, at least in the sense of ‘argument’ that I intended.
I leave it up to the moderators to decide whether accusing someone of being a bird-brain is guano-able.
But perhaps you mean ‘cheap’, as in mean-spirited, but making a pun on the British definition of mean? If so, much appreciated.
I am using ‘argument’ in the philosophical sense, as in making a reasoned case for a position, a case which is as well thought out and presented in some detail. Not ‘argument’ in the Monty Python sense.
Although, that is probably a better characterization of some discussions here.
Which is a tired joke I and others have used many times. So time to quit, at least for today.
I am nothing if not a terrible proofreader and speller. Sometimes I can’t even make heads or tails of my own notes 😉
I am usually very careful when I present those sorts of arguments and I let you know in advance. Good ones just don’t come around all that often. Most of the time we are able to muddle through though.
How do you like that little spelling exhibition? 😉
peace
You said that we’re supposed to show it’s a demon doing the particle sorting, not the vastly broader hypothesis of “design”.
LOL, and you think that if you were able to detect something “tiny and invisible and capable of affecting the environment” you would be entitled to infer design? demons? how about tiny and invisible force fields capable of sorting the particles?
You need to flesh out your hypothesis in a way that it’s scientifically tractable. How are we supposed to do that with demons? What do demons do? no fucking idea. They can do anything so they can be replaced with any other magic entity capable of doing anything, which means that the demon part adds nothing to the explanation. Something similar applies to “design”, it’s such a broad term that it’s useless to explain anything. For designs to actually produce something, they need to be implemented, so your “design” hypothesis should cover the implementation too, and of course, it wouldn’t be called design anymore because the implementation mechanism is what would be doing most of the explanatory heavy lifting.
I told you already. The relationship between matter and gravity is well known. It would make no sense to appeal to dark matter to explain anomalies in magnetic fields for instance. Demons, like gods, like magical force fields, OTOH are useless wildcards that explain nothing. I can’t believe you still don’t get this after having been discussed for ages here.
We’ll see. If it’s not natural processes it will be some stupid interpretation of randomness. I’m pretty sure about that
Whatever intelligence that is doing the sorting is the demon.
That is the design hypothesis when you are talking specifically about Max’s demon .
If you recall we had a rabbit trial in which every single molecule would qualify collectively as the demon as long as they chose to sort themselves.
An invisible force field would not qualify as the demon unless it actually chooses to sort the particles.
“Dark” matter does not share that relationship except in a single area and only then some of the time. It is also undetectable and invisible as far as we know.
It really does not sound very much like ordinary matter at all except that it has a mysterious tug on things we can observe .
In fact it behaves a lot like Max’s demon. 😉
You are incorrect about that as well. I’m not interested in randomness in this exercise either it’s just noise to filter out.
peace
How does one determine a choice has been made, then? How would we know the demons were not compelled?
We agree, unless one can determine “why” we can’t ,from your point of view, determine if choice and design is involved. Unless you have an alternative method in determining a choice was
Ever seen “Strangers On A Train”?
There is no reason to assume that Max’s demon is immaterial she could be just as physical as you and me.
All that is required is the she be invisible like a force field.
peace
You got the reference to a prior post by fifth?
I’ve been described as a “lateral thinker” which may not be too far off.
That was a typo on my part . I should have said that “I think so”. I mistook you question for a statement.
Here is what I think
You start with the realization that a choice has been made then move to asking why it was made.
Great flick. Lots of choices made in that one. The police knew there was a murder committed but asking the why question lead them astray as to who the killer was.
peace
I do not. I just wanted to provide a response that took your post seriously and gave a serious answer without all the baggage of trying to predict in advance where you were going.
I’m a disappointment. I know. 🙂
How about if the changes in temperature were in one degree increments and just happened to vary back and forth such that a rise of one degree on one thermometer and a drop in one degree in the other thermometer was assigned a “1” and a rise and drop in the opposite way were assigned a “0” and when you created a string of ones and zeros and used an ASCII mapping they spelled lout “methinks it is like a demon”?
That’s what you’re supposed to show, and those are different things. Showing that a demon did it would imply intentionality (assuming we could establish demons have minds) but “design” would not imply demons did it. I think these are important distinctions.
Well, duh, that’s the fucking point! invisible magical force fields would “explain” it all the same, only that there would be no intentionality – no design – involved. So if you can swap demons for force fields and get the same result, then you know you haven’t really shown that “design” plays any relevant role in the explanation. Your problem is that, being a presuppositionalist, you just can’t detach yourself from the idea that you’re assuming demons, instead of simply treating demons as a hypothesis that needs to be defined and tested.
No, because we can test matter and determine empirically that it interacts with gravity, demons on the other hand… Get it now? That’s why “demons” is an ad hoc explanation, matter isn’t. The “dark” qualifier is there simply because we don’t really know what it is, but it seems to behave like matter. Not like demons of force fields or sweet jeebus on a pogo stick. Like matter.
I never said anything about assuming demons are immaterial. The crux of the matter is the total lack of entailments of “demons” as an explanation.
Yep.
What is the alternative? It just happened, that’s all, doesn’t entail anything either.
Still better than introducing useless, unexplained entities
No, I missed it. One problem is I don’t read all of fifth’s posts. Not by a long shot.
Ok new here but let’s see if I can unpack the op.
First without a formal definition of “design” the op is not so much a riddle as an invitation to define design. I doubt that you will ever find a useful definition in this context.
Second, if the temperature difference between the two chambers is constant then there is nothing that needs explaining by design or anything else. You just have a hot insulated chamber and a cold insulated chamber.
If the temperature difference is growing then entropy is decreasing. The only way a tiny demon or anything else can do this is to expend energy. If something in the chambers is expending energy then the heat content of the two chambers must increase. But you don’t need a demon for this. Just a heat pump and a battery.
If the difference in temperature between the chambers is increasing without an increase in total heat then you have broken physics and we can’t reason about the system at all. If you postulate magic then there is no point in reason.
ppnl,
Welcome to TSZ, ppnl.
For the purposes of this riddle I suggest we define design as the affects of personal choice on an object or environment.
I think that is a useful working definition what do you think?
I agree!!!!
We should vary the temperature in different ways to see if is the difference is constant.
It’s very interesting to me how we are coming up with similar criteria/methods to detect design when the example is concrete
In that case the heat pump and battery together with the fellow who put them there is the demon. Nothing changes there is still design and we detected it !!!!!
I agree up to a point but
1) the increase in heat might be invisible to us in some way
2) Remember Mung’s point that the 2LoT is a statistical “law” and not a physical law so perhaps we are viewing a highly improbable event.
Welcome ppnl. You just got here and already you are my new favorite 😉
peace
But we have an entailment in this case, gravity demons do things that we can observe just like Max’s demon.
peace
Really? show us your experimental work on demons
Do you really not get it??
The experimental work on gravity demons is exactly the same as the experimental work on dark matter.
That is because so far the only difference we can see between dark matter and gravity demons is the name. They behave in the same way from what we can tell so far.
The riddle is all about looking for ways that we can distinguish between things like dark matter and gravity demons.
peace
LOL, just like talking to a wall. I’m not going to repeat myself. I’ll just point this out before I leave
That’s from the genius who said that the only difference between dark matter and gravity demons was the name. LMFAO
fifthmonarchyman,
No, defining design in terms of choice or free will simply repeats the problem. I don’t know what “free will” or “choice” is. The whole strong AI problem is a testament to this. Dennett, for example, takes a position opposite of yours arguing that design has nothing to do with “choice” as you would understand it.
You see to be just playing with words that you only define intuitively.
ppnl,
There is truth in this, but possibly not in the way you intended.
As Dennett pointed out:
Science is not about some essence which exists independently of behavior. Rather, behavior is essence.
ETA: If you want to talk further about essence, then you are dealing in philosophy or theology or magic, not science.
A lot of misdirection.
Being unable to answer correctly the “why question” lead them astray. Not asking by it.
And to identify the design required the correct answer which Guy knew.
And my question is how do you realize a choice was made rather than the particular being caused by necessity? Why that particular from the realm of possibilities?
Then the choice was to leave the mistake in place, not the choice of the color. Then the color was not designed( not chosen) ,the choice to leave it was. Without knowing the “why” ( a mistake, necessity, random , unforeseen, choice ) the particular color exists, you cannot determine if it was designed.
It is your criteria. You might assume it like Max, look how that turned out.
How much does the demon eat?
I don’t understand why you’d ask somebody else about my comments without referring them to the appropriate comment(s). I’m not sure which comments you refer to either, but I suspect the ones about creationist misunderstanding of entropy, and the absurd implications there in.
I’m right, and I know why I’m right.
That wasn’t the point. The point was that creationists have a backwards understanding of the second law, and thus claim it to be against evolution, when the opposite is true. Not only that, in doing so, creationists are also implying that intelligence has no problem breaking the laws of thermodynamics. But, I repeat, both, evolution and design are possible because of the second law, not despite it.
Entropy is what gives directionality to energy flow, which makes work possible. Any work. You do know that design requires energy, right? Any activity requires energy. Thinking, walking, designing, imagining, eating, digesting, metabolizing, living-thus-evolving. All of it is possible because of entropy. because energy flows from a concentrated form to a dispersed form.
Can these laws be broken? That’s equivalent to asking if work is possible without energy flow. That sounds absurd because this connection between work and energy is so well understood that work is measured in the very same units as energy. So, if you think that the laws of thermodynamics can be broken you have some deep problems to solve before getting to the point where you can demonstrate that the work implied by intelligent design doesn’t even have to be measured in energetic terms. That it would still be possible, and that nothing but intelligence-plus-the-design-processes-and-products belong to the new physics of the no-energy-required world. Yes. That means that you have to produce a brand new branch of physics.
ETA: In the meantime, maybe this helps you understand why there’s wars over oil (besides greed), since oil represents quite a lot of the concentrated energy currently necessary for keeping human activities going. So, it doesn’t look like intelligence and design break the laws of thermodynamics. Maybe better for you to save the time and, ahem, energy, trying to produce a new branch of physics.
No need to get philosophical here.
You can be a determinist or a indeterminist a duelist or a phyisicalist and still hold that choice happens.
A choice can be free in the libertarian sense or fully determined and still be a choice.
Are you actually going to maintain that we persons don’t choose in any sense what so ever?
I agree that this has bearing in the possibility of strong AI.
By the way it’s my position that strong AI is impossible. And I think that something like my riddle is a possible way to put the matter to rest as an improved Turing Test.
If we replace the Demon in the container with an AI that is not externally constrained in some and still detect design then it passes the Turing Test. It’s a win win.
I think that it’s the exactly the algorithmic nature of AI that makes choice impossible for these systems and choice is a much better thing to look for in our Turing Tests.
For extra credit to get you up to speed with where I’m coming from check out the following links
https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1897
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/417818/scientists-develop-financial-turing-test/
and finally
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/mathematical-model-of-consciousness-proves-human-experience-cannot-be-modelled-on-a-computer-898b104158d
I would disagree. If we can’t agree there is such a thing as choice that persons do then we have bigger problems than just my riddle. ;-).
peace
We don’t know. We don’t even know if she does eat.
It could be that she feeds on the confusion and muddleheadedness of those who insist on referring to themselves in the plural. 😉
peace
We are not concercend exactly what choice was made only that a choice has been made and in the words of that great philosopher Geddy Lee “if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice”
peace
This is important.
We are not looking to see if the temperature difference was designed. We are looking to verify that there was “design influence” on the contents of the container.
The demon might have been trying to raise the temperature in one of the containers or he may have be trying to collect the slow molecules in the other chamber and the temperature difference is an unintentional side effect
For the purposes of our riddle we just don’t care.
peace
Welcome!