Craft of Unknown Origin

If a craft of unknown origin descended upon the white house lawn and upon inspection revealed no pilot or intelligent entity, our default position regarding this vehicle would be that an intelligent agent built it. Furthermore, it’s behavior — landing gently upon the lawn of a nation’s capital and not crashing violently into the middle of nowhere — would also require an intelligent explanation.

Technically, we have no evidence for whoever created this spacecraft -- this is an inference we make, having ruled out the alternative: that this craft was the product of 'natural' causes.

Yet, despite having no direct, positive evidence (for the craft’s maker), human experience demonstrates clearly that only the deliberate application of intelligent principles is SUFFICIENT to create vessels with flight capability (or any advanced function).  One could say that blind forces incidentally –and without intention- produced this vehicle; but unless they provided a specific and detailed explanation of HOW this might be achieved, no one would listen to them.

Such an account (accidental creation of spacecraft) has two significant problems: (1) it invokes imaginary processes, never witnessed nor described theoretically, and (2) this assertion explicitly  contradicts all objective observations of reality — namely, machines do not build themselves.

The 'null hypothesis' -- if one is to be established -- is that a machine or system (in this case, a space craft) exhibiting order and precision NOT entailed by fixed laws is the product of intelligent processes or agencies. 

The reason is that out of the MANY possible configurations for the raw materials of this craft, this ONE, very, very specific arrangement was chosen.  And this arrangement cannot be produced by fixed laws alone.  

 ------

The real question:

————————

The question is this: Why is it easy to identify objects that require Intelligent causes, such as in the case of our UFO on the White House lawn, while ‘life’ remains a controversy?  There are two answers: ignorance and bias. 

Ignorance:  Cells are small, we are BIG.  (It somehow makes more sense for small machines to build themselves).

For objects that exist at the scale we experience and understand the world, it is common sense that ‘nature’ does not build things such as cars, computers, cell phones or houses.

------

Yet, if we increase the scale to the size of a Planet (a system vastly more complex than an automobile) we are suddenly able to “imagine” unintentional forces achieving these ends, after all, the earth is just a giant sphere isn’t it?  —Actually, it is much more than a giant sphere.  We should note that ALL theories of planet formation have failed—said otherwise, the best and brightest have no idea how planets form, specifically — why all planets ever discovered have differentiated cores.

This loop-hole in our cognition works worse the other way — toward the small. In essence, all living cells are complex nano-machines.  The fact that we must STUDY for a very long time to get a job in the field of nano-engineering, or nano-electronics (pretty much anything ‘nano’) tells us that such fields are complex.  So, if nano-machines basically assemble themselves (remember, because they’re very small?) why do we bother with pesky details such as ‘math’ and ‘learning’?  The truth is, a superficial understanding (read: Wikipedia) of nano-stuff shows how complex it is.  Precise and principled application of material and theoretic sciences must be employed to create the most basic nano-machine.  (see: nano-car)

----------

Regarding Ignorance: Small Wonder

------------------------

Were it not for the sole fact that cells are small and chemicals are small, the notion that chemical interactions should ever produce motors, language, replicators, error-correction, intelligent interpretation and response to environment, etc. — basically, systems with goals, logical imperatives and strategies — would be considered absurd.

To test this claim, we must only consider our reaction if when the first rover landed on mars we discovered a small robot (see: toy car below) -- technologically inferior to even the "simplest" cell, yet -- capable of driving around without purpose or goal.  Faced with this primitive device we would at once be certain that intelligence has existed upon the surface or at least visited this planet!  For what other process would create such a thing??  Yet, in a bizarre irony, by making this primitive thing MORE advanced, not less, more refined, not less, we somehow go the opposite direction.  From evidence for intelligence, to “evidence” for non-intelligence (see cellular motor below; consider that we cannot engineer this level of precision, and if we did, it would be smart people who did it).

Objectively, then, the INFERIOR technology is PROOF of Intelligence simply for being BIGGER; while the opposite is true for the SUPERIOR, simply for being small!

It is only pure imagination (compensating for our lack of experience of things at small scales) that allows for this; no one, ever, has witnessed ‘nature’ produce a machine through ‘natural’ causes, independent of a prior intelligence, i.e. life, or machine designed by living things.

No one has explained in theory or principle why or how this would ever happen.  And not for lack of trying, nor for lack of being educated — rather, because it simply does not happen—or, at least, it is no more possible at small scales than at large. No sooner could a car be formed by accident, than a single cell should appear fitted with the most efficient propulsion possible.  

If physics alone could assemble machines with functions, then physics would not NEED information (DNA) or a plan, or a program, to read and follow in order to assemble cellular machines. When naturally occurring (non-synthesized) molecules are formed, they follow laws of thermodynamics and chemistry, they do not require ‘instructions’ to assemble themselves. 

Bias—Small and Not Like Us

But what about nano-machines?  Suppose, for instance, secret service agents found a series of nano-technological  machines resembling known living organisms (such as insects) scattered about the white house — upon inspection it was determined that these devices were not DNA-based biological organisms.  Might they be suspicious these devices (objects) were created to serve a perhaps nefarious purpose?  But why not suspect natural causes?  BECAUSE SMALL MACHINES DO NOT, nor have ever been witnessed to, create themselves by ‘natural causes’.  People design or create things that serve functions to fulfill a purpose. 

 As with the UFO, or single cell, so the Universe

----------------------------

THEREFORE — In the absence of Positive knowledge for the Sufficient cause or causes of the Universe,  -- in the same way we would interpret the craft of Unknown origin in the absence of a Pilot or Designer -- the null hypothesis, or default stance, is that a Selective principle was applied (through means above our understanding) to produce the outcome of Order and ultimately, Manifest Intelligence (in the form of you, and me, and all living systems).

In a world just like ours, with creatures as intelligent as ourselves, but built upon a totally different system of biology, a scientist presented a single living cell from our world would quite non-controversially conclude this ‘object’ was created by some alien form of intelligence.  Or, if not drawing this specific conclusion, in the absence of positive knowledge regarding the origin of this elegant and bizarre machine, would at least consider this the most likely (i.e. default) position. 

It is equally true in the world of our alien friends (living in our universe with the same laws of physics and chemistry) that machines don't design themselves, nor do they build themselves, nor do they seek out the energy they ‘need’ if left to their own devices; and most certainly they don't become infinitely more advanced than the original prototype by accident. 

Closer to home, if not for the fact we ARE biological (and therefore biased by definition) our scientists would see no controversy in declaring living systems the obvious effect of a cause exhibiting the selective application of principles for the sake of outcome — or, more plainly, Intelligence. 

Imagine, if we were distinct in every way from a material system identical to what we know to be ‘living cells’.  Would there really be a controversy?  Or is it because WE are US, and we are sensitive about our origins? About our identities?  Is it because we are clouded by the baggage of connotation held by words such as intelligence?  Would we really argue, if we weren’t arguing about our own nature?

It is doubtful — any more than we would argue the causes of a UFO landing on the White House lawn.  It is ONLY the institutional, (irrational) and political biases of the church and scientific communities that cloud this issue.  If approached rationally, there is no paradox, no controversy. 

 ---%---

Back to Basics: The Framing Problem

The problem is always presented as if ‘blind’ chemical causes being the source of bio-genesis is the default or most practical solution unless or until evidence FOR an alternative theory is given.  Yet, what warrants this particular position to be the prevailing (practical) wisdom?

Consider this chart, and decide what is the most practical (i.e. least likely to be wrong) scenario:

Known origins of all language:                                  Intelligent Minds

Known origins of complex machinery:                       Intelligent Minds

Known origins of logical systems:                              Intelligent Minds

Known origins of purpose based systems:                   Intelligent Minds

Notice that for all systems whose causes are known and understood, including language, complex machinery, logical behavior and purpose, as a fact about the world the source is an intelligent mind.  And while this fact alone does not constitute ‘proof’ it clearly signifies which hypothesis, “in the absence of conclusive evidence” should be the default!  Presently, (though fortunately not for much longer) the prevalent “wisdom” is that the opposite should be true.  That identical processes of language, complex machinery, logic, and purpose should have the opposite cause to what we know them to be.

We must always remember, and keep in mind the power of bias -- we must always look at the evidence, and if we do we see that NONE of it suggests these systems assembled themselves according to any chemical law whatsoever; so when these otherwise intelligent people INSIST chemical law can create living arrangements, they do so ONLY from a philosophical position that Intelligent causes are NOT to be considered.  This is a manifest bias and can be characterized no other way.  It is the very nemesis of proper science and is in fact the very intellectual cancer science (as a method) was meant to prevent. 

These men and women argue against the obvious for the impossible because they equate Intelligence with Religious Deities, and Religious Deities with Irrational behavior.  Yet, as we mentioned, Human beings are intelligent -- and so, if we acknowledge this simple fact, there is evidently no intrinsic relationship between intelligent behavior in the universe (as we exist) and supernatural magical deities.

Whatever one thinks of such things, the facts speak for themselves.  There is NO possible way, by definition -- DNA being language and language being arbitrary, physics being non-arbitrary -- that the latter can create the former.