Make Comprehensibility Comprehensible Again

Is "intelligent design" a scientific theory? Its advocates argue that it is, but I don't see how it could be falsified. Like its retarded twin, unintelligent non-design, it cannot be disproved experimentally. 

However, as we know from our Gödel, there are any number of unprovable truths to which we have access. And just because we can't prove the existence of a transcendent ground of intelligence, it hardly means it doesn't exist. 

Besides, there are other, less direct, means of proof, such as the Principle of Least Paradox discussed a few posts ago. If one's metaphysic generates absurdity, or is self-refuting, or unexplains more than it explains, we ought to look for a better one -- one that is more consistent and complete.

When we speak of "intelligent design," the deeper question is whether intelligence is a cause or a consequence of what is beneath it. But could intelligence really be a consequence of unintelligence? How can anything be a consequence not only of its opposite, but its negation? It's analogous to calling light a consequence of darkness, ugliness the cause of beauty, or randomness the cause of information.

A holistic metaphysic that grounds intelligence at the top simply rejects the assumptions of scientism -- which is to say, it rejects the vision of a closed universe reducible to matter in motion, or to pure quantity. 

But even quantity can't be a self-licking, can it? I'm thinking of G.H. Hardy, who wrote a classic little book called A Mathematician's Apology, which is filed away somewhere in the bowels of the liberatorium, so I'll defer to Gemini:

Hardy held a strong belief that mathematical reality exists independently of human minds, and that the mathematician's role is to discover or observe it. The theorems they prove are not "creations" but rather "notes of our observations" of this external, inherent mathematical truth. This gives mathematics a unique permanence and universality, unlike [mere] empirical sciences whose findings can be overturned [i.e., falsified] by new evidence.

Now, if inherent mathematical truths exist independent of human minds, well, do the math. Or meta-math, rather. 

At the same time, Hardy maintained that 

The primary test of good mathematics is its beauty. This beauty is found in the harmonious arrangement of ideas, exhibiting qualities like inevitability, unexpectedness, and economy. He believed there was "no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics."

So, mathematics is about no fewer than two of the transcendentals, truth and beauty. Therefore, to use mathematics to deny transcendence should be a non-starter. Nevertheless, here we are, living under the Reign of Quantity; or, to be precise, an immanentized quantity that denies transcendence and pretends that it -- and its intelligibility -- is somehow self-explanatory. 

Now, math was always a bit of a mystery to me. But it is also mysterious in a higher sense, as in Einstein's remark that "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

This profound statement, found in his 1936 essay "Physics and Reality," expresses a deep sense of wonder and almost disbelief at the fact that the universe, in all its vast complexity, seems to operate according to consistent, discoverable laws that human minds can grasp and express, particularly through mathematics.

Indeed, a key aspect of this comprehensibility is the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics." 

Einstein marveled at how abstract mathematical concepts and theories, often developed purely through thought, could so accurately describe the physical world. This suggested a deep, almost mystical connection between the human mind's capacity for abstract thought and the fundamental structure of the universe. 

We are so accustomed to this fit between intellect and intelligibility that we take it for granted. But we need to ask, by virtue of what principle is this even possible? Because Albert suggested that, from a purely logical standpoint, one might expect a chaotic, irrational universe that would be utterly beyond human comprehension. He found no inherent reason why reality should lend itself to orderly, predictable patterns.

But perhaps there is an inherent reason. For either there is or there isn't, and it seems a bit rash to jump to the latter conclusion, which is what physicalists and eliminativists do -- as if the most comprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible. 

In contrast to what Albert just said, from a purely logical standpoint we should not expect a chaotic, irrational universe beyond human comprehension. This is not due to any logical operation per se, rather, a consequence of the very existence of logic. For, like mathematical truth, it exists independently of human minds, nor would minds be human without access to the logic anterior to them.

So, let's stipulate that conscious intelligence explains science but that science doesn't explain the conscious intelligence that explains science.

The image is an abstract blend of elements, each chosen to symbolize a key concept from your post:

• Intricate Lines and Shapes: These are reminiscent of mathematical equations, neural networks, and complex data, symbolizing the inherent order and comprehensibility of the universe that Einstein marveled at, as well as the structures of human intelligence and logic you discuss.

• Subtly Shifting Hues of Blues and Purples: These colors evoke the vastness of space and the mystery of the cosmos, representing the transcendent, non-material aspects of reality you explore -- the "unprovable truths" and the "transcendent ground of intelligence."

• Bursts of Golden Light: These signify flashes of insight, understanding, and the inherent beauty and truth that G.H. Hardy found in mathematics. They also suggest the active role of conscious intelligence in comprehending the world.

Essentially, the image is a visual metaphor for the deep, almost mystical connection between the human mind's capacity for abstract thought and the fundamental structure of the universe -- a core idea in your blog post. It aims to evoke a sense of intrigue and awe, prompting contemplation on the mysteries at the heart of existence that transcend a purely materialist view.