> >Why doeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undirectedor
? Undirected is the synonym
> >for [[Randomness]]
> "Undirected" and "random[ness]" are not synonyms. Where did you get
> the idea that they are?
The following video clips are shown:
Vid1(no purpose): Cat walks on the table and knocks over container
filled with alphabetic letters made out of wood.
Vid2(purpose): Man walks into room picks up container and throws out
the letters on the floor.
A copper ball is placed on the table beside all videos of type Vid1
and a lead ball besides all videos of type Vid2, meaning we
symbolically represent a pattern with a purpose with copper and those
without purpose with a lead ball. This raises the question: What other
possible means could there be as to how these wood letters fell on the
ground? Any other way would only be of two *types* Vid1 or Vid2.
If we were to sit there with a video camera from now to eternity
capturing each event of the container spilling the letters on the
ground of what possible type could they be other than Vid1 or Vid2?
The reasonable answer would be none, based on experience: there are
only two Platonic primary binary contrasts either the letters on the
ground is a pattern with a purpose or a pattern without a purpose.
Earthquake, tornado -> type Vid1
Clock timing device pulling in relay to knock over container -> type
Copper itself, representing only itself is not the contrast to the
lead ball: the only contrast is the contrast in *concepts*. The only
literal meaning that the copper ball and lead ball have are copper and
lead, they only represent themselves. The copper ball does not mean
events of type Vid1, it is only an arbitrary object used to
metaphorically represent events of type Vid1. Meaning is only
something observers of type Vid1 and Vid2 can agree on.
YEC are using volitional type language that was used to represent all
concepts as either type Vid1 or Vid2. Atheists disagrees that type
Vid1 and Vid2 are our only options and are using the same semantic
objects YEC use to represent a world view where Platonic primary
contrasts are not *assumed*. Note that I wrote assume and Dawkins also
wrote that he does not *assume* Platonic opposites, because this is
not a matter of falsifiable scientific testable constructs but about
what unfalsifiable untestable validities we *assume* as logical.
By the precepts of empiricism the claims of logic are not falsifiable
and since our falsifiable theories must assume logical validities , we
have to make clear what we assume, that which we know to be true,
neither refutable nor verifiable for eternity.
There is therefore no such thing as a literal meaning with alphabetic
objects found in a dictionary, all semantic objects are used in either
the majority metaphor or minority metaphor. Dictionaries document the
Many dictionaries post Darwin around 1901 started to list a *''third
option''* for the object 'selection'. Before around 1901 its majority
metaphor is to make a decision (type Vid2) and its minority
metaphorical usage is type Vid1 , after this the dictionaries began to
list its ''Biological'' usage.
But from the YEC Platonic primary contrasts there can't be such a
thing as a ''Biological'' meaning, only a type Vid1 and Vid2 meaning,
since this is our only experiential reference frame.
By analogy , if people across the world were to agree on a copper ball
representing patterns without a purpose then it would be documented as
the *majority metaphor* in dictionaries.
Undirected does not mean the concept displayed with Vid1(no purpose):
it is an arbitrary object or symbol we agree on to *symbolically*
represent Vid1 and Vid1 we understand as the contrast to Vid2.
Undirected can merely be some *defined* majority metaphor and we find
these definitions in dictionaries.
The semantic objects you choose to use is whatever you want. In many
cases an object such as 'random' is used in the minority metaphor such
as representing purpose(Vid2) , when a person does Probability
What type of Vid1(no purpose) or Vid2(purpose) is represented with
''undirected'' in the ID article on Wikipedia? If neither type then
explain what would be the third option and how we would avoid infinite
A device through which random sized balls are thrown have rings with
round holes ranking from large to small spaced down a tube with an
equal set distance between the rings. It will sort(algorithmic design)
the balls from large to small and is an *object with a purpose*.