In the debate about our origins the crucial question is: What is the simplest thing (system or process) that needs intelligence to exist or to operate? If we can answer this question, then we can conclude that all things that are more complicated than that, must have been created by an intelligence.

 

I claim that the simplest thing is a thermodynamic cycle process (now please forgive my english, since I am not native English speaker and my terms may vary...) that goes through two points. Example Carnot process without transfer of heat, leaving only two adiabatic processes.

 

I cant give mathematical prove of this and can only say that this has been proved experimentally. (As well as heat has been experimentally proved to be one form of energy).

 

My claim can be falsified demonstrating that there are spontaneous thermodynamic cycle processes. And preferably experimentally, thank you.

 

My claim means that there are very simple things that needs intelligence to exist and this leaves very little room for the prevailing naturalist explanation of our origins.

In the debate about our origins the crucial question is: What is the simplest thing (system or process) that needs intelligence to exist or to operate? If we can answer this question, then we can conclude that all things that are more complicated than that, must have been created by an intelligence.

 

I don't think you can define this. To begin with you'd have to demonstrate a property which necessarily follows from an intelligently designed process which cannot exist in a natural process.

 

I cant give mathematical prove of this and can only say that this has been proved experimentally. (As well as heat has been experimentally proved to be one form of energy).

 

I would like to see how you can demonstrate experimentally that a given process cannot occur without intelligent direction.

 

Generally proving a negative is quite difficult. Perhaps the only experiment I can think of to that effect was the Michaelson and Morley experiment in which they sought to experimentally demonstrate a property of the luminiferous ether, only to have their experiment fail to do so.

 

This is about the only way I think you can disprove that certain types of processes can occur naturally: you must find a property which necessarily follows from a natural process, then experimentally demonstrate that such a property is absent.

 

I don't think that can be done in this instance.

i'm writing part of an essay about atmospheric dispersion and doing a thermodynamics assignment. and then i read this. it also struck me that the atmosphere is essentially a carnot cycle. (also if you have a carnot cycle without the transfer of heat then you do not have a carnot cycle.)

 

so, there is an example of a carnot cycle without intelligence. it only needs the sun.

It's not always a simple case of "this needs intelligence, boooom, there we go".

 

In life, for example, the move from non-intelligent to intelligent systems is rooted in a slow increase in the complexity of input-process-output feedback loops, and the way that they interact.

 

I doubt there is any single definable threshold for the simplest intelligence requirements, because it would never be uniformly applicable to everything. Different species face different pressures, just like different mechanical or electronic systems have a different requirements specification.