Order vs. Randomness

[Rayaan]

The only thing I have to add to that is that I would not describe inanimate matter as having a "mind of its own." There are "rules" in our universe, that cause local patterns of order to emerge, and among these the possibility of actual minds.

I agree.

But, now, since you just said that local patterns are caused by "rules," you can't say that order comes from disorder because "rules" are orderly, not disorderly. Therefore you should agree that order/pattern/complexity arises from a pre-existing order, not from disorderliness or randomness.

For all we know, "the cosmological constant" that "needs to be set to 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion" was a lucky shot that fails a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times every trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillionth of a second in the "quantum vacuum" or whatever is the state of existence prior to universes.

But is that really a "lucky shot" if the universe and all the patterns it generated came into existence as a result of non-random processes?

Oh look. Another theist repackaging the same old, many times refuted bag of shit and presenting it with a shit eating grin.

Oh look. Another person touting the same, old "This Has Been Refuted Many Times Already" bag of shit without even presenting anything to demonstrate that. How very convenient.

I seriously forgot that you were a theist when I planned to reply, but it's not much surprising why.

@Rayaan: At what point in time was the universe pure randomness?

I never said it was pure randomness, but I said the opposite: i.e. that the fundamental/initial state of the universe cannot be pure randomness.

And, technically, the word "randomness" means an "absence of order" which is the same meaning as "pure randomness."

What an odd expression: "everything is obeying the laws of physics". I thought the laws of physics were our construct to describe patterns in what shit does. I don't see anything that looks like "obeying". It is we who must ensure that our laws we note remain descriptive. Really, everything is just doing what it does anyway and it is our so called laws which must conform to what it does.

"Our laws" and "our construct" ... Frankly, those expressions are even odder to me ...

I disagree because we didn't "construct" the laws of physics. Rather, we discovered the laws. The way that we express/describe the laws is our own construct indeed, but that doesn't mean that they are simply that. The laws of gravity, for example, can continue to exist if all of us completely disappeared from this universe tomorrow. The "our construct" part only applies to the way that we describe those laws. The laws themselves are real, regardless of what we call them or how we describe them.