so it's not metaphysical design, but design that can at least theoretically
be actually established or measured and that is therefore quite physical,
and that therefore should belong in probability theory.
anyway, fundamental concepts in probability theory seem to be events,
data,
evidence, coincidence and design, and perhaps chaos. how these relate
exactly I don't know, or I would have to brainstorm something rightaway,
but
a question that would deserve an answer would be if data and evidence
aren't
in fact identical concepts, n.b. in probability theory.
data the way I put it is enough knowledge about the cause of an event to
stop considering (calling) it coincidental. whereas evidence would be
events
itself, specifically those sup****ting a suspicion of design. but outside
of
this framework evidence is of course data as well, and perhaps it would be
impossible to gather data in the sense of the framework in another way
than
by producing evidence in the sense of the framework, i.e. by doing tests.
only physical tests seem to be somewhat more useful than the largely
confirmatory tests that probability theory does. it's like testing the
metaphysical and as we know you cannot test the metaphysical and expect to
get the unexpected because, it entirely comprises, consists of and equals
the set of all things tautologous. the metaphysical is the complementary
set
of the contingent.
as to coincidence and design, once we have enough knowledge about the
cause
of evidence to stop calling it coincidental, it would of course not
necessarily be design. it would either be due to the normal chaotic
behaviour of 3D space, or it would be in such a way singular or regular
that
it would be indicative of a more regular cause or origin, and the only
thing
regular in all of space is life.
so what event or evidence is coincidental without knowledge or data, with
such data is either chaoticly defined or not. if it's not, it would be
alive, and the cause would be design.
|
