General Intelligent Design (GID) Evidence
Not Classified as Restricted Intelligent Design (RID) Evidence
And Other Significant Facts about GID

Robert A. Herrmann, Ph. D.
12 MAY 2006. Last revision 18 JAN 2016.

The following is an in-depth article that does not include the specialized mathematics or the required theorems that establish the presented results.

Description. The term "description" means a collection (a set) of statements taken from a language L, where L contains written symbols, images or diagrams in the usual sense, and human or machine duplicating sensory impressions. (For this article, the term "natural" always means "physical" as physical is defined by a specific science-community.) Descriptions first represent tangible objects that can be observed and that provide the specific information that characterizes a natural-system. (The term "observe" is more fully defined below.) This includes all observed values taken from measuring instruments. (It can also be assumed that such information is digitized in the sense of virtual reality.) By personal choice, descriptions can also include the assumed physical objects that are not directly observable. The collection of objects that yield the set of all descriptions is termed a "general language." When the term "language" is used it refers to a general language. When descriptions correspond to science-community defined physical reality, then they are often called "physical events" since such descriptions should faithfully represent reality as reality is defined by science-communities. The modifier "physical" is often understood.

Finite Consequence Operator. In this article, such an operator is applied to a specific L. When it is applied to a collection of L members, it produces a single collection of L members. This operator also has a set of characteristics that model the most basic aspects of human deductive thought. Hence, as interpreted in the GID-model, these characteristics signify that the operator represents intelligent actions.

General logic-system. As in formal logic, a logic-system is intuitively collection of sets composed of members from L. Such a set can contain but one or two members, indeed, any finite number of members of L. In a logical argument we can choose one or more of the one member sets and choose the single member it contains. (Our choices are always finite in number.) We then can choose members from a set of hypotheses. In a systematic way, these sets are searched. If all but one of the members of a set have been previously chosen, them the remaining one is chosen. This search and choice process is repeated. All classical and everyday deductive thought is equivalent to this process. Each consequence operator is generated by a general logic-system and conversely. The "systematic" part is more accurately defined mathematically.

As mathematically defined, a logic-system is formally composed of a fixed set of n-ary (n-placed) relations RI(L) = {R(1),R(2), . . . }. Each R(i) is composed of n-tuples that are denoted by symbols such as (a(1),a(2),...,(a(n)), with "n" coordinates a(i) and each a(i) is a member of L. Let X denote a "set." As such, it can contain but one member of L and this member might be one of the coordinates a(i). Or, X can contain more than one member and various members of X can be coordinates of an n-tuple contained in some R(i). (Technically, X may contain no members.) In terms of a coordinate language, there is a descriptive algorithm A that employs RI(L) and generates a deduction, in a finite number of steps, from a set of hypotheses X contained in L. This generalizes the notion of a formal proof.) For the GGU-model, the RI(L) is an easily displayed binary relation with or without a one element set.

Practical Applications of Logic-systems - the Practical Logic-systems. As applied to physical science, applications of logic-systems to deduction proceed as follows: A particular language is expressed in specific forms and these are used to generate the relations R(i) in RL(L). Usually, the hypotheses are the members of R(1). The set R(1) also includes all other auxiliary material such as the mathematical correspondences and procedures. These are part of the employed language. Further, what is not generally stated but rather "understood" is that a logic-system is expandable. This simply means that when deduction is applied it is relative to a particular logic-system and language and, hence, a continual deduction can occur relative to an expanded RI(L). Thus, at the conclusion of a set of derivations, the final logic-system is considered as the complete expanded logic-system that yields the entire collection of deductions. It is at this point that practical logic-systems are most often analyzed.

Within mathematical logic, the classical logic-system is based upon specific "forms" of expression. The forms are expressed symbolically and carry no additional content. The established results are then applied to create practical logic-systems, where the symbols within the forms are replaced by meaningful language elements. For example, if a form is P &Q => R, then a practical form is "If P = a photon and Q = an electron interact, then R = the photon will impart momentum to the electron." As shown in Herrmann, (2002), these elements can be images.

Directly Observed. Perceived. In a general sense, the term "observed" means detection by means of human sensory impressions. Depending upon what is stated, observed also includes human sensory observations of diagrams and images. However, accept for the "machine recordable data," this is not a particularly trusted method within a "hard" physical science such as physics. Thus, a strict scientific definition is that directly observed data correspond to machine recordable information. Today, this includes methods that reproduce our major sensory impressions.

The "meanings" for human and machine sensory information are filtered through mental biases. If a machine is allowed to faithfully reproduce and record human sensory information and additional information only the machine can record, then the "interpretation" of such data is also related to an individual's training and biases. Of course, even a machine is subject to human biases relative to what it is actually "allowed" to record. In all cases, the interpretations of pure human and machine sensory data is controlled by the language, theories and biases of a particular group of individuals.

For modern predictive science, the language used to interpret data requires that it be restricted to that which is considered as unambiguous for the group members. The language must allow for classical deduction. Each group member needs to have the same "intuitive" comprehension as to the meanings mentally assigned to the expressions employed. In what follows, when the term perceived is used, one may substitute the more conservative term observed. Observation does not include imagined entities of any type.

Indirect Observation. This is a term that has been used to indicate that evidence is for something that "can be" directly observed. Observation within physical science and concepts within the Philosophy of Science should, but often do not, differentiate between these two types of observations - observations that "can be" or "have been" made. The problem is with definition of "can be." This is often merely a rather unjustified hypothesis and tends to be a matter of opinion. Under various described scenarios, it was stated that the farside of the Moon, the surface of Venus and the details of the surface of Pluto are indirectly observable. Well after such pronouncements, these three surfaces were directly observed justifying the claims. Unless otherwise indicated, in this article, the term "observation" means direct observation.

Evidence. In this article, "evidence" comprises interpreted observations that satisfy a statement. This means that when the interpreted data is logically inserted into a statement, then that statement is "true" (is satisfied) for the interpreted data. Thus, evidence is related to something else to which it refers. It is evidence "for something." However, it is important to note that this is also a group concept. Accepted observations can have different interpretations and satisfy different statements. Technically, future interpretations cannot be linguistically ruled out. Thus, from a linguistic viewpoint, evidence need not indicate an absolute truth. There are other less strict notions that are termed as "evidence." These forms of evidence are indirect in character and as such are much less convincing.

Indirect Evidence. This is defined below.

Operator. Within much of physical science, an operator is, usually, a symbolic representation for physical processes - a physical process operator. Such operators have additional properties that are represented by rules for symbol manipulation. For the GGU-model, the term operator has a much broader definition. It includes operators that represent substratum processes. When applicable, an operator is also a mathematical object represented by a set of ordered pairs {(a,b)}, where the set does not contain distinct ordered pairs of the form (a,b) and (a,c). What this means is that a specific "a" corresponds to one and only one "b."

Physical-like. Physical entities and behaviors are characterized via language elements. Similar language elements are used to characterized physical-like entities and behavior. However, these entities and behavior, although similar to the physical, also have properties that the physical cannot have, or have some property or entity that, at the least, is not part of a defined physical environment.

Physical process operator (relation). A physical process operator (function, transformation, map, mapping, etc.) is equivalent to a physical process binary relation R. For a specific L, let the ordered pair (a,b) be any member of R. Reading left-to-right, the first member "a" (also called first coordinate) is an event and the second member "b" is an event that is associated with "a." There does NOT exist a member c in L, distinct from b, such that (a,c) is in R (i.e. there are no distinct members of R that have repeated first members). The first member varies over a "domain" of events. This relation represents an operator P. The operator P is applied to "a," written as P(a), and P(a) = b is the result. When the language L is restricted to what a science-community considers as perceived physical entities or characteristics, then P is a physical process operator.

The General Intelligent Design (GID) Interpretation. The intelligent design aspects displayed by our physical as presented in this article are obtained by interpreting mathematical statements.

For each sequential slice of a universe, a universal-wide frozen-frame (UWFF), GID design is the intertwining of a vast number, or even infinitely many, physical-systems, as well as the design of each physical-system configuration. Each such physical-system is considered as described by a general language. Such design also refers to any alterations in the designed configurations that may occur from one UWFF to another sequentially occurring UWFF. That is, the alterations are considered as designed. GID intelligence relative to the UWFFs, referees to a specifically defined algorithm that deductively yields the intertwined physical-systems for each UWFF and the sequentially presented collection of UWFFs. As described in this article, there are other "intelligently designed" entities that are external to the design notion as applied to a UWFF. For example, various "substratum" processes. The intelligence is relative to describable modes of human intelligence.

For Restricted Intelligent Design (RID), the somewhat vague notion of "purpose" is used as a definition for intelligence. For GID there are two basic forms of intelligence being displayed. A direct application of the rules of inference, specific rules for deduction, yield a measure for GID intelligence. This measure is the number of deductions made from a set of statements during a fixed period of measurable time. It applies not only to the two rules used in classical logic but to all consequence operator deduction via the rule for a corresponding logic-system.

"H" displays these two first forms of measurable intelligence. "H" also intelligently designs different types of "operators." These are generally symbolic forms that can possess symbolic properties. They represent physical or physical-like processes that produce or alter physical or physical-like system behavior, or produce or alter physical or physical-like system characteristics. (The H also denotes the mental processes a mathematician uses to construct mathematical theories and the different types of operators used in the GGU-model.)

A Signature A signature is a collection of described characteristics that indicates that an entity has produced an event even if that entity is no longer present or cannot be directly observed.

After constructing the major part of the GGU-model and the GID interpretation, I discovered the following two remarks. Hermann Weyl wrote

Is it conceivable that immaterial factors having the nature of images, ideas, (or) "building plans" also intervene in the evolution of the world as a whole?

Then Noble Laurent Louis deBroglie wrote

[T]he structure of the universe has something in common with the workings of the human mind.

The answer to Weyl's question is yes and the deBroglie statement can be fully justified. Physical science substitutes language descriptions for physical events and physical behavior. Language descriptions can be further represented by images, and drawings. Today, language descriptions or images are translated into computer languages and the computer displays corresponding images that represent the language descriptions, and, hence, the physical world. The GGU-model uses mathematically defined operators that represent processes that produce physical entities and behavior. These operators are defined on an abstraction of the notion of a general language.

When "logical" arguments are analyzed, each member of a science-community is required to display their deductions using the science-community's specified logical-patterns. The basic GID-model idea is that each operator has a specific signature that characterizes the intelligence of the designer of the corresponding processes as well as a signature that implies that when an operator is applied a specific process is used that corresponds exactly to the intelligence necessary to infer behavior. The GID-model is an analogue model obtained by interpreting the GGU-model, which is an analogue model for the production and development of a universe. The GGU-model is an analogue model in that it allows us to describe rationally physical entities and their behavior that, without the model, we may not be able to otherwise comprehend.

It should be self-evident, that assigning intellect agency to the GGU-model operators is an hypothesis that needs verification. Thus, one needs to show that each known physical process exhibits an "intelligent design" signature. Explicitly stating this signature would be direct evidence for the acceptance of this hypothesis. Displaying this human-like common feature satisfies the deBroglie statement and incorporates how we use building plans to construct. The existence of a high-intelligence is predicted and this prediction is verified by indirect evidence. Indirect evidence is used throughout physical science for objects that cannot be directly observed.

Indirect evidence for "something" (indirectly verified) means that neither a human nor machine sensor can, often by definition, detect the actual "something." The "something" is hypothesized. The concept is entirely based upon logical deduction that yields observable predictions. Due to the possibility of other hypothesized "somethings" leading to the same observable predictions, indirect evidence is never absolute.

The "existence" of almost all assumed subatomic objects and processes comes from indirect evidence. One can accept their existence based upon how they are predicted to affect observable gross material. The same philosophy of science holds and, hence, most be allowed for the notion of an higher-intelligence.

An additional discussion on indirect evidence can be found in section F.

Each standard natural law and scientific theory, as represented by an operator C, displays an higher-intelligence ID-signature. This occurs when the standard characteristics displayed by C are extended to those that characterize the, automatically obtained, "extension" *C. This *C operator's ID-signature indicates (indirectly) that it is that of an higher-intelligence. For a description X, the mathematics automatically produces *X. The description obtained when C is applied to X, as denoted by C(X), is contained in *C(*X) and, usually, there is more descriptive content in *C(*X) than in C(X). This additional content has significant uses. (Note: Throughout scientific discourse a "positive language" is often used, where such words as "could be, might be, probably etc." are missing. Further, notion of "indirect" is mostly not mentioned but is to be understood by the reader.)

The basic GGU-model utilizes instructions . . . ,I(k), . . . ,I(j), . . . that yield event sequences . . . ,E(k), . . . ,E(j), . . . , where usually k < j. For our specific universe, this article is mainly concerned with the processes that produce or alter the symbolized event E(k) and that yield the "next event" in the sequence, as symbolized by E(k + 1), and that give evidence that all such alterations are intelligently designed. (Technically, this sequence is considered as a sequence of descriptions {F(i)}, where each corresponds to an event E(i). The sequence {F(i)} has a special name. These two sequences are considered as equivalent when the unqualified term "event" is used.)

It is important to realize that the direct evidence for intelligent design and indirect evidence for design by an higher-intelligence presented here is independent from whether one accepts any GGU-model physically generated cosmology. This evidence is independent from any cosmogony or cosmology. However, for our universe, the intelligent design satisfies the perceived physical regulations that are often predicted by scientific theories.

The basic requirements for the GGU-model is that a specific set of defined operators are applied and these produce and continually sustain the development of a universe. These operators satisfy empirical evidence. For this article, the GID-model interpretation is analyzed relative to such evidence. As discussed here, this is not a complete analysis. Aspects not discussed here appear elsewhere on this website.

The empirical evidence, for intelligent design, is (1) each of the GGU-model operators is intelligently designed. That is, in restricted form, they specifically describe observable modes of human behavior that exhibit deductive thought. Then a mathematical model for these rationally predicts corresponding descriptions that give additional comparative information as to the behavior of an higher-form of intelligent design. (2) Application of each operator has a signature that implies that it is an intelligent action. (3) By implication, a structural or behavioral pattern is intelligently designed. For (2) and (3), the originally described "intelligence" being displayed predicts the existence of an higher-intelligence that satisfies these statements, where "intelligence" is interpreted as an higher-intelligence.

Statement (1) is satisfied since each of the defined operators is modeled after processes that mimic a fixed set of human actions, where each action requires human intelligence to perform. One of these operators mimics such mental processes as viewed by an higher-intelligence. The operators are designed by an intelligent being denoted by H as described in Herrmann (2002). The intelligence displayed by H can be considered as a restriction of the higher-intelligence H. Each of the operators used for all aspects of the GGU-model universe generating behavior have specific describable characteristics that mostly mimic human modes of deduction. The remaining operators mimic other mental processes and modes of human activity. They are discussed elsewhere. Hence, (1) is satisfied. Form (2), (3) is satisfied by implication.

Empirical evidence supports the use of mathematics and the classical logic it employs as a valid predictor for future physical behavior. However, in general, the mathematics tends to produce what is classified as extraneous results and, in other cases, for example General Relativity, results that are not accepted as applicable to our physical universe. Thus, although mathematics is the most rational form of predictor used throughout physical science, it need not be considered as an absolute mode by which factual predictions are made.

The remainder of this article is composed of the following sections, (A) Natural Laws, (B) Scientific Theories, (C) General Applications of Natural Law Statements and Scientific Theories, (D) More about Evidence, (E) Illusion, (F) Direct or Indirect Evidence, (G) (A link to) The Fundamental Universe-Generating Processes.

(A) Natural (Physical) Laws. How does the dictionary define a law of nature? My dictionary states that a "law of nature" is "(a) a cause and effect sequence of events in nature or human activities that has been observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions or (b) the formation in words of such a sequence." For the GID-model, using a natural law statement (b), rational processes are applied to obtain representations for the (a) cause and effect(s). These rational processes are the same as those used to deduce conclusions from an hypothesis (b). As demonstrated below, a natural law statement (b) is an intelligently designed aspect of the GGU-model and rational processes lead to (a) and to data verification. For our, universe it satisfies the designed sequential alterations, if any, in the UWFFs. Hypothesized natural law statements that do not allow one to test the required unvarying uniformity may or may not be accepted as natural laws. Even if testing is possible over a specific interval of observer time, there is no scientific way that absolutely determines that the natural law will remain unvarying and uniform during a "future" time period. Moreover, some science-communities may require a natural law statement to be tested in a specific way. It is not relevant to this article how one obtains verifying natural law data and whether data exist prior to or after the natural law statement is discovered.

(I) The existence of the collection of all described natural law statements indicates that our universe is externally designed in a special manner. This is, human intelligence can devise natural law statements using languages and other devices that mimic processes that appear to produce or alter natural-system behavior, or produce or alter natural-system characteristics. For science, these yield comprehensible "cause and effect" statements. These regulations are used to build our man-made universe or to predict behavior.

(II) (a) A natural law statement is intelligently design in such a manner that basic logical processes can be applied. In order to verify experimental data or predict experimental data, a natural law statement requires application of a logic-system. The statement itself most be designed in a form applicable to the logic-system employed. As demonstrated below, there are different ways to do this. (b) If some pure data is used to determine directly physical behavior without requiring additional assumptions, then such data need not be modeled by GID. Such data can falsify aspects of the GID-model. There are mathematical examples of data that do falsify these aspects.

(III) (a) The production of or alterations in the behavior of a natural-system, or the production of or alterations in a natural-system's characteristics produced by application of a natural law statement are modeled by the GID-model. When any operator discussed here is applied, the operator's characteristics imply that the application is an intelligent action. Hence, the structural or behavioral patterns produced are intelligently designed. (b) In the absence of any presently known natural law statement, the production of or alterations in the behavior of a natural-system, or the production of or alterations in a natural-system's characteristics is modeled by the underlying *S operator, in Herrmann (2002), and by *A for the recently generalized refined approach. There are examples where describable mental processes applied to descriptions for natural-system behavior falsify the GID-model (Herrmann (2002, p. 73)).

(IV) The GGU-model is a cosmogony. It is capable of producing every described cosmology and infinite many other ones. The production of or alterations in the behavior of a comprehensible natural-system is not the result of application of a natural law or physical theory. The construction of the GGU-model shows that these regulations satisfy or verify the law or theory predictions. These show that the production of or successive alterations in the behavior a natural-system is intelligently designed for an additional purpose and they are signatures for a physically restricted higher-intelligence.

The following illustration of (IV) is presented in various articles. Consider a DVD, which when played depicts a rubber ball dropped from the tall table to the ground. There is a measuring rod affixed to the table that "measures" the ball's distance from the top of the table to the ground as it falls under the influence of gravity. As it begins its fall, pause the DVD player. The image displayed on the monitor appears fixed. Now forward the display one frame at a time. From our observation, the ball appears in slightly different places in each frame. Correspond the lapsed "time" to the number of frames observed. There is no law of gravity, there is no gravitational force "pulling down" on the rock. But for this locally observed experiment, we know that the distance moved, s, is proportional to the lapsed time squared. So, this allows us to calculate the distance, s, if we only know the frame number. This calculation is in good agreement with the numbers on the measuring rod. (Of course, the law is actually rather more complex than this.)

So, this illustration implies that this behavior is intelligently designed so as to allow us to make such a calculation. We have directly observed behavior that is attributable to an intelligent agent that is, apparently, hidden from view. For a small "time" interval, the number of frames is so vast that even if one assumes the behavior is "continuous," the values for any comprehensible measure could not detect that the behavior is actually sequential.

The term "natural law" (law of nature) can also refer to human activities. These include such things as economic laws, among others, that are not usually considered as physical laws. Physical laws tend to have the most concrete defining properties. In this section, the term "natural law" refers explicitly to a physical regulation and possibly other accepted types of "natural laws" that fit the physical circumstances.

Although a (humanly) comprehensible natural law starts as a "statement" that can be logically applied more than once to physical situations, this does not mean that such an law is actually applied more than once. The statement comes from a language as defined in this article. The statement is considered as rather "simple" and is often used within more complex scientific theories. Such a law predicts, via application of a general logic-system, a science-community's experimental data. Such a law can be represented by language elements other than written strings of symbols. (As shown below, technically, a natural law statement also yields a theory and the theory operator.)

Recall that a science-community is any individual or organization that, at least, uses an implicit or explicit fixed general logic-system. Hence, a meaning for the term "science" can be rather broad in character. "Science" can refer to any branch of systemize knowledge that includes a fixed general logic-system. Whether an investigation is "scientific" in character is also irrelevant for this article. If one uses terminology contained in Herrmann (2002), then natural law statements can include descriptions for how we comprehend the combining of various "simple" levels of the universe-wide frozen-frames (UWFF), sequential slices.)

The history of how natural law statements are obtained clearly indicates that all have developed through human mental procedures that, for recent history, include the notion of mathematical abstraction. Consider observed data, where intuition is a first step. Materially, intuition is based upon human mental processes that yield directly an hypothesis that states that there is a correlation between observed physical events. Once the hypothesis is stated, then this correlation is tested. "It is a perception of relations and not subject to any rules of validity, and represents the gropings and tentative guessing of a mind aiming at knowledge." (Cohen and Nagel, "An Introduction to Logic and the Scientific Method, Harcourt, Brace, NY (1934, P. 275).) However, these "gropings" use mental processes and often use back-and-forth refinements that yield an improved correspondence between a natural law statement and data. The first step for such intuition does fit the "finite choice operator" as GID-model interpreted. When only empirical data are being considered, then an hypothesized natural law statement must satisfy the data. Verification establishes a correlation between data and the purposed law and requires a logic-system. (The logic-systems used in this article have a slightly more technical name. They are the general logic-systems.)

It is a fact that any data determined natural law statement must satisfy the requirements for a logic-system if that natural law statement is used within any science-community theory. This follows since such a theory must predict the original empirically obtained data from which the natural law statement is obtained when restricted to appropriate objects. Such empirical data often represent information that requires interpretation (i.e. translation). This yields a relation between descriptions by considering the "before" and the "after" effects for the physical state-of-affairs investigated.

***As examples show, statement (III)(a) is established by considering the application of each natural law statement to members X of a language L and applying the required logic-system rules. This yields a collection of statements Y that includes the data being tested. As the X is varied over all collections taken from L, the results obtained define a consequence operator. Hence, this intelligently designed operator N is a model for application of the natural law statement to the physical world. When applied, N has an ID-signature as well. This operator produces another operator based upon a science-community defined collection of perceived physical entities or characteristics. These are the "behavior-signatures" as defined in this paper, ( this copy.)

In more detail, contained in L is a defined set P' of descriptions for what a science-community considers as perceived. A designed, but slightly modified, N (as discussed below) is applied to a set of descriptions X contained in P' and this determines a set P(X) of descriptions that correspond to members of the set P'. It has been shown that the operator N' generated by the collection {P(X)} eliminates all extraneous material, if any. Depending upon how the natural law is expressed, the natural law statement is also eliminated. The set {P(X)} immediately generates an intelligently designed physical process operator. Hence, for the GID-model, the application of any natural law statement (b) generates perceived events. Each step in the procedure yields an ID-signature. Thus, the structural or behavioral patterns produced exhibit intelligently design signatures. But, the physical process operator is intelligently designed only when it is determine by a general logic-system.

Each of the operators used to produce the physical process relation can be extended so that the intelligence being displayed is a restriction of an higher-intelligence. However, as would be expected, there is no converse to this process. The physical process operator does not directly yield a natural law statement. This is demonstrated by the box-law example (discussed at the next link) that, without further analysis, generates an operator that does not correspond to the observed data. Physical science continues in its efforts to predict each recognized cause and effect physical process relation from hypothesized entities or behavior. ***

For a falsifying example and how more detailed observations lead to an intelligently designed natural law operator, see empirical.htm, where the "box-law" is examined.)

The box-law can be generalized, not necessarily over the objects used, but over repeated time-dependent applications. This box-law example demonstrates specifically that sensory observations can be made that yield 8 relations, P(X), as X varies over all of the language used. Each relation taken separately is a logic-system. But, there are two relations that when combined do not generate a logic-system that yields the data. This is due to the logic-system algorithm employed to generate an operator. (Below is a link that leads to an article that discusses this algorithm in more detail.) Indeed, for this example, there is no logic-system that yields the original two relations. Thus, these unmodified observations yield one-way to falsify the contention that there is a logic-system that yields the combined behavior. (There would be no intelligent design signature.) If such data occur in physical reality and are accepted, then this contradicts a GID-model basic characteristic for a natural law operator.

Each individual observation is still intelligently designed, where intelligence is required to follow the simple rules. These rules allow for construction of the rules of inference and require a simple application of the basic logic-system algorithm. This does not preclude there being some sort of "law" that does predict these 8 outcomes. But, such a law would not follow the most basic aspects associated with human deductive thought. To obtain a new box-law that can be used within physical theories, further analysis is necessary, where an unobserved hypothesis is adjoined to the observations.

It is a fact that there are many relations between descriptions that do not satisfy finite consequence operator axioms. If any natural-system followed one of these before-and-after relations as operational presented and there is no other logic-system basis for the descriptions, then as a combined collection of observations they cannot be included within any other scientific-community's general logic-system. For if they were included, then this leads immediately to a contradiction within the combined logic-system. They can be used separately. But, this box-law example shows how additional human mental processes can lead from such data to a "physical" box-law that does satisfy operator properties. On the other hand, if a natural law statement is included as part of a science-community's logic-system and the law is verified by laboratory data, then no behavior that represents the data will contradict the general logic-system.

Consider a collection of natural law statements, each obtained from human observation, which are used to build our man-made universe. There is a certain amount of intelligence needed to conclude that a set of data does correlate to a specific description. But, the amount of intelligence needed to insure a non-contradictory coalescing of the entire collection of empirically verified natural law statements and natural law operators is especially great. Thus, from the GID-model viewpoint, the fact that each operator N has an intelligent design signature pales when compared to the intelligence required to construct a universe in such a manner that the entire universe satisfies a unified logic-system generated by all of the accepted natural law statements.

How does "nature" actually reveal uniform physical processes? I have never seen a stone or any physical object where "nature" has carved into the object numbers that denote its mass. I have never seen a region in space where the stars or any objects, in any symbolic form, state the area, volume, density or the like for the region. I have never seen a carving produced by pure natural means that relates mass and energy. I have never seen a natural-system that has the exact form of various objects studied in Euclidian geometry. Of course, "we" build measuring instruments that yield observed numerical values. For example, consider a voltmeter and an ammeter as measuring voltage applied and the current for a resistive material that is kept at constant temperature and pressure. The voltage is varied 10 times and 10 different ammeter values are observed. But, using these instrument values there is no indication, within the physical world exterior to our brains, that the voltages and measured currents are related by the same constant of proportionality. Ohm was the first to make such a declaration. All that "nature" reveals is a physical process relation that might be obtained from a natural law operator.

What is actually accepted as a natural law statement depends upon the science-community. Definition (a) is still applied but a science-community might allow perceived and not observed entities or processes to be included. Consider Kepler's Second Law Planetary Motion. He used the orbit of Mars as his one example. He considered the numerical data obtained by observation from the earth and assumes the earth is in a circular orbit about the sun. This data allowed him to consider the Mars path of motion over fixed periods of time. He selected many different assumptions and tried to deduce the data. After much contemplation and calculation Kepler discovered principles that do predict the data. He showed that for any fixed period of time, the line segment from the planet to the sun will sweep out a constant space region area. And, this law satisfies the data. Technically, the geometric configuration predicted is mostly not related to observable physical entities but this numerical result is mentally perceivable. Notice that deduction is a required aspect for determining whether a statement is a candidate for been termed a natural law, even if the following PA form is not employed.

Consider experiments made in 1900 relative to the notion termed the "photoelectric effect." Light-"waves" fall on the surface of a certain piece of material. It is determined that an electric current can be produced and it is assumed this current is caused by the light. But, this "law" can be stated in different ways. One textbook states that when a high-frequency of radiation falls on a certain metal, it is found that electrons are ejected. In the first statement, the cause and effect are observable via human sensory impressions and a machine. The second statement has an observable cause, but the effect would probably not be considered as being observed since I know of no instance where the ejection of an electron was observed. Only the effect such an electron has on gross matter was observed. This second statement uses a defined "mentally perceived" entity.

(1) By applications of a science-community's general logic-system, an experimental set-up is constructed. (2) Then measurements are made. (3) Then a graph is drawn. (4) Cartesian geometry is applied and an energy equation is written down that relates the measured quantities. It is hypothesized that electrons with mass m cause this current and they can acquire kinetic energy of (1/2)mv^2, where v is the electron's relative speed. An equation hf = (1/2)mv^2 + hf(0) is deduced, where f and f(0) are two frequency measures and h is the slope of a linear graph. Notice how application of various general logic-systems yields this equation. This is yet another way to describe this law. The graph relates observable quantities and the equation is immediately apparent. The basic classical continuous wave-theory is applied. However, that theory implies that it would take considerable time for the current to flow. This wave-theory prediction does not correspond to the experimental data. Hence, for this scenario one might replace the wave-theory behavior with a new natural law statement.

Suppose the (1900-01) Planck general logic-system that uses "electromagnetic energy elements" is applied and this equation is re-interpreted using a different physical language. By intelligent finite choice, let h be Planck's constant and then let hf be imagined as a single "bundle" of energy, later called a photon, which corresponds to an electromagnetic energy element. Then when a photon interacts with an electron suppose that all of this energy hf is "immediately" given to the electron. The actual natural law statement can be expressed in general logic-system form in various ways. It can be stated in the general rules of inference when used for any physical theory. Let p = light of a specific frequency falls on a photoelectric surface. Then consider the following, PA, tentative natural law statement, where for many scientists, the PA description is mentally comprehensible.

(p,(a) = light energy (a photon) is absorbed by an electron)
(p,(b) = a photon is essentially absorbed instantaneously by an electron)
(p,(c) = all of the photon is absorbed by a single electron)
(p,(d) = a portion of the absorbed energy is used to free the electron from the surface)
(p,(e) = the current produced by the photoelectric surface is proportional to the number of photons)

Notice how application of the first three ordered pairs of PA models a physical process termed "photon absorption."

These five ordered pairs form a "general rules of inference." To use this general rules of inference an algorithm is applied, where the first step is to consider the one hypothesis p. Then these five characteristics are predicted. (This can be considered as a shortened version of a basic set of "if" and "then" statements or a single statement as described below.)

This binary relation, PA, does not give a description for a relation that exists between measured values. It is self-evident and implicitly assumed that such unobserved predictions are translated into a general rules of inference that yields observed numerical values. There are infinitely many general rules of inference that yield the same natural law operator. The obtained physical process relation satisfies all of the data and the natural law statement is certainly intelligently designed to fit the data, assuming that you believe that Einstein was intelligent. Of course, the equation is not displayed in PA. The "energy" being imparted is not displayed. Members (a) - (d) do not correspond to specific and observable objects, say a particle that is only a bundle of "energy" or another particle's "kinetic energy," an unobserved property associated with movement. Of course, (e) might, at least, be partially measured by a machine. The natural law statement is obtain by writing the (cause) p statement. Then the rules for deduction yield effects statement (a) - (e).

The GID-model states that duplicating such physical behavior via general logic-systems is an ID-signature for an intelligent ultimate cause.

N(1) Although, generally, science-communities do not use the PA form for a natural law statement, all cause and effect statements can be expressed this way. For example, using another form of the photoelectric effect, (p, an electron is ejected). The PA statement can be repeated for each photon frequency. Such an extended PA can be adjoined to whatever general logical-system is being used. Such displayed PA forms yield direct evidence that natural laws in either (b) or (a) form are intelligently design on, at least, the human level of intelligence.

N(2) Repeating: the binary relation PA is not the customary way a natural law statement is presented, when propositional (i.e. customary) logic is employed. General logic-systems allow one to write a set of statements, the hypotheses, as separated from the rules of inference. These statements are called premises or hypotheses and correspond to the (b) definition. For the photoelectric effect, such a set can contain the statement "If p, then (a) and (b) and (c) and (d) and (e)." Using one rule of inference for the propositional logic, "modus ponens" (the rule of detachment), yields "(a) and (b) and (c) and (d) and (e)." The logical-axioms used for the propositional logic-system then need to be applied and this yields (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) as individual statements that are now deduced from p. These axioms can be included in a more complex logic-system. Once again the deductions can be specifically written and this form also yields direct evidence for intelligent design. (For the example in N(1), "If p, then an electron is ejected.")

N(3) As mentioned, one can also allow the natural law statement to be stated by five "if" and "then" statements "if p, then (a)" etc. Then from "p" each (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) is deduced and addition aspects of propositional logic need not be applied. These simple results show how distinct general logic-systems yield the same conclusions (consequences).

But, such "laws" do not appear in these forms within nature. These representations for a physical law are used so that humankind can comprehended the law. They "represent" a physical relation between assumed physical entities that we may not be able to comprehend in any other way. This is why GID is called a model. We have been accorded the mental capacity to recognize these relations and represent them rationally.

For the photoelectric effect, the observed results include the movements of mechanical devices. However, as indicated, the above three approaches can be further supplemented with an additional scientific theory and the mechanically obtained values are predicted. The process of hypothesizing unobserved behavior, such as represented by the above three cases, is a major aspect of modern scientific theories. This is a viable approach. In such a case, descriptions and physical process relations are extended to include this approach. Let any of the above approaches be used. Then p and statements (a), (b), (c), (d) yield physical behavior that is only "indirectly" verified. But there is a type of direct evidence that the natural law statement and its results are intelligently designed and the structural and behavioral patterns it produces are intelligently designed for a specific purpose. This type of evidence is the physical display of an actual logic-system. Notice that Quantum Electrodynamics is based upon the acceptance of the "law" (p,light energy (a photon) is absorbed by an electron), where the electron can be replaced by other entities.

N(4) The scientific method allows a natural law statement to be expressed in yet other ways. Induction, as practiced by science-communities, requires the notion of "generalization." Generalization is an accepted deductive process (Cohen and Negal p. 175). To include generalization, an extended general logic-system is employed to generate the natural law operator. For this example, the domain of application can be considered as a large collection of photons represented by their frequencies. Then induction (generalization) demands a different form. For example, consider (1). For each photon frequency x, if (P'(x)) an absorbed photon with frequency x has the energy measure hf , then (Q(x)) an ejected electron with mass m has measured speed v and these values satisfy the equation hf = (1/2)mv^2 + hf_0. Generalization adds the words "For each" to the statement. This is the induction step. This generalized physical behavior is based upon a limited number of such photon experiments. The statement (1) is an accepted natural law statement. Also the generalization process and the customary logic-system includes the process of substituting a constant name for each specific x. In this case, this constant name is taken as the frequency (number) f.

N(5) The following easily defined relation incorporates the notion of generalization for a general rules of inference. Consider an appropriate set of frequencies as numerically represented by f, where f appears in the language being used. Usually such a set is rather large. For a given photoelectric substance, hf_0 is a constant. Then conceptually consider a modified set of 3-tuples R, where R = {((1),(2),(3))}. But, statement (1) is modified to read "If P'(f), then Q(f)," (2) reads P'(f) and (3) reads Q(f) and f varies over the set of selected values. Note that what I have done is to apply my "intelligence" to construct conceptually this portion of the general rules of inference. (This, of course, is not the only general rules of inference that uses the natural law statement in (1) and predicts Q(f).)

Generalization allows R to be replaced with one statement "For each f, if P'(f) then Q(f)." But for this statement to have a "truth" value the "For each" needs to be restricted to a "domain of application." Hence, in this case, "f" varies over all the physically possible frequencies for the collection of photons within our universe. Rule R is equivalent to logical generalization when applied. Usually, there is an axiom for the predicate logic that, via deduction, yields the statement "If P'(c), then Q(c)," where "c" is a language constant, from "For each f, if P'(f) then Q(f)." Then the rules of inference contain a modified R, where each frequency is denoted by a distinct c. Hence, from the hypothesis P'(c), the Q(c) is deduced. When a science-community uses induction and classical logic to intelligently express a natural law statement, this is how one arrives at the prediction Q(c) from each P'(c).

Let a basic natural law statement be represented by any of the forms N(1), . . . , N(5). For various applications, almost all individuals who construct physical theories utilize the classical rules of inference. These theories use appropriate natural law statements and general rules of inference that correspond to that used by a theory constructor. Modus ponens as well as generalization are exceptionally significant when classical logic is applied.

Although what comes next can be separated into distinct steps, usually, the natural law statement relates various physical entities or characteristics. For a given general logic-system and language, a specific theory is all that one can deduce from a specific set of hypotheses taken from the language. A basic definition of a natural law theory uses the natural law statement as a set of hypotheses. The theory may use auxiliary statements as part of the science-communities general logic-system, and the logic-system "predicts" how the natural law statement affects physical behavior where the natural law statement is in hypothesis form X. That is, the theory is obtained when a general logical-system is applied to the natural law statement X. (This is the narrow definition and the one used in mathematical logic.)

A natural law operator is obtained as follows: The natural law statement is either part of the general logic-system as a physical axiom or is in a PA form. Consider W(X) as a set of statements from the language being used to express the natural law statement X and let W contain the physical entities or natural-systems to which the law applies. Consider X as the first coordinate of the natural law operator's binary relation. Let Y be all the members of L that can be deduced from X and using other members of W(X). The rules for deduction state that it is always the case that X is contained in Y. Notice that the language is arbitrary. The set of all such (X,Y) is the operator N, with value N(X) = Y. (An operator is also called a function, among other terms. As described previously, each X yields but one set Y.) This definition is the broadest one used for a scientific theory.)

The next step is application of the "realism process" to each N(X). For the GID-model interpretation, this process is intelligently designed and requires intelligence to applied. It removes the collection W(X) from each N(X). This process yields a "realism operator" R. But, R(X) may still contain many extraneous deductions. From this, an intelligently designed collection of behavior-signatures that predicts a science-community's perceived events is obtained. This eliminates all of the extraneous deductions.

Technically, in mathematical logic, the general rules of inference can have infinitely many members. Trained logicians locate the specific members of a general rules of inference since the rules have explicit forms. This algorithm requires mental activity that is summarized in the file algorithm . This mental activity verifies that the natural law operator is intelligently designed as is the set of behavior-signatures. It is self-evident that within many science-communities a general logic-system includes all of the predicted and perceived measurements. Significantly, the GID-model shows that all physical events that are either the result of statistical models or perturbations are produced by intelligently designed regulations and procedures that follow patterns directed by an interpreted higher-intelligence.

There are hundreds of illustrations that describe how the laboratory "data-to-assumed-natural-law-statement" process requires a general logic-system. We don't observe a force separate from its effects. We can use the effects to measure it, whatever it is. We see a rocket burning fuel. Then we're told that it's burning the fuel at a constant rate. The rocket appears to be "picking up speed" as it rises into the morning sky. This "picking up speed" can be measured. We're told that the term for this is that the rocket is accelerating. In terms of the measures, the "force is equal to the rocket's mass, at the moment of observation, (times) its acceleration." But, we do not observe the "force" as an actual physical object, only its effects. Note that if you were to computer-animate this rocket's behavior, you would need to translate the F = ma, as m varies, into what would actually be observed. This would be the last "intelligently designed" step in applying a natural law statement to a specific situation. These computer descriptions represent observed effects. Of course, in a laboratory setting, the observed effects may only be the data being displayed.

The above method used to describe a natural law operator that governs the photoelectric effect can be applied to every accepted natural law statement. From the GID-model interpretation, this yields (II)a. The original box-law data illustrates the (II)b.

***Although natural law behavior-signatures are evidence for GID, it is the use of such additional notions as "energy, force, mass, virtual process, virtual particles" and others that do not correspond to actual observable objects that imply that constructed natural law operators may be but modeling "something" else going on within our natural environment that preserves the properties of intelligent design.***

General logic-systems are more fundamental than the generated operators since general logic-systems give the details of how natural law statements affect a natural-system's behavior. Thus, the actual natural law statements require intelligence to determine and express. An H operator models this, in general, within the GID-model interpretation. What this demonstrates, is that, when (II)(a) and (III)(a) are taken together, the production of or alternations in natural-system behavior, or production of or alterations in a natural-system's characteristics produced by accepted physical regulations occurs because "something" has produced regulations through procedures that, at the least, model human general logic-systems. From this viewpoint, this verifies the deBroglie conjecture that "Our material universe has something in common with the workings of the human mind." In particular, it has a rational structure as modeled by the GID-model and intelligent agency. Significantly, all of the different operators discussed here have *-extensions as do the (A) - (E) steps . Hence, intelligent actions applied by a biological entity can be interpreted as a restrictions of those actions applied by an higher-intelligence.

***In summary, the different types of operators and general rules of inference are used to construct the GGU-model. These are intelligently designed and represent definable aspects of human activity. The higher-intelligence forms ane then predicted. In restricted form, this "higher-intelligence" is directly displayable via specific logic-systems and the deduction algorithm. For physical regulations, mental processes are used to obtain a natural law statement. Applications of customary logic yield the natural law operator. Next, a defined and simple one step realism process yields a realism operator. This operator yields a collection of behavior-signatures. The natural law via deduction takes each collection of observed entities and produces an observed collection. This is the physical process operator. It is rationally definable from a set of behavior-signatures. It is this physical process operator (relation) that duplicates observed entities and the assumed observed effects due to the assumed but not displayed natural laws.***

Generally, the physical process operator does not satisfy all consequence operator axioms. However, it is obtained from logic-systems and this yields the physical process operator's ID-signature. This interpreted signature indicates that each application of the physical process operator is an intelligent action. And, the patterns produced are intelligently designed. These conclusions yield strong evidence for the GID-model interpretation. They are not RID conclusions.

What all this means for the GID-model interpretation, since all of the mental steps can be described, is that (I) is direct evidence for intelligent design. Further, (II)(a) coupled with (III)(a) is direct evidence for intelligent designed. Type (III)(a) evidence is not RID evidence. Type (III)(b) may satisfy RID. And, (I), (II)(a), (III)(a) and (b) also indirectly verify the higher-intelligence hypothesis.***

(B) Scientific Theories. For this article, a scientific theory is considered in the broadest sense. It can use more than one natural law as hypotheses or other working hypotheses, where the working hypotheses need not be considered as uncontested natural laws. It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the science-community conditions an hypothesis needs to satisfy before it is declared a natural law. It is self-evident that a scientific theory is intelligently designed by those who construct the theory since a science-community's logical-system is employed and portions are displayed.

For the GID-model, the notion of what constitutes a scientific theory is broad in character. A scientific theory has all the same properties as a natural law operator, where the term "scientific" requires that a specific logic-system be stated. With few exception, this refers to portions of classical logic. The GGU-model is an interpreted mathematical theory that uses this form of deduction. The standard GGU-model operators that correspond to deductive thought display classical deduction. Scientific theory operators SN as they appear in some of my older publications do not use the PA form but employ natural law statements in hypothesis form. For a specific purpose, the SN are used to define the operator SNV. This operator appears in Herrmann (2002) and elsewhere. However, it still generates extraneous results.

In the above (linked) technical paper, the procedures used to describe behavior-signatures and the physical process operator are independent from the number of natural laws or hypothesized laws used. Hence, all of the previous material in (A) applies with this additional understanding. As with a single natural law, the natural law statements, working hypotheses or additional complexities employed to construct the scientific theory are no longer part of the predicted results displayed by a physical process operator. Of course, this is how "nature" appears to do it.

As demonstrated in this article, in modern scientific discourse, what is defined as a natural law or a physical theory need not be related to how these notions are defined by philosophers of science. What is a working hypothesis today, may be declared as a natural law tomorrow. When Newton first stated it, it was called the "Law of Gravity." But, we now have the Hilbert-Einstein theory of gravity. I suppose that most physicists consider it as a, not very simple, but inviolate natural law although stating that gravity is caused by the curvature of space has little physical meaning unless the term space is defined using a physical rather than geometric language. Do we still call the Kepler statements "laws" although they are predicted from the theory of gravity?

***Portions of how a physical process operator is obtained from a scientific theory need to be slightly detailed and are worth repeating. From the scientific theory operator SN, the realism relation is applied. From this, the behavior-signatures are rationally obtained. From behavior-signatures, the physical process operator is rationally definable. Depending upon what one accepts as observable, a great deal more can be eliminated such as so-called virtual objects. These intelligently designed processes reveal an ID-signature that characterizes intelligent actions. In general, for any theory that predicts probabilistic behavior, the GID-model displays a second ID-signature. This second intelligent action signature is represented by an intelligently designed pure ultralogic. This ultralogic guides the physical behavior being depicted in that it satisfies a probabilistic cause and effect statement. It does this is such a manner that the probabilistic character of an event's occurrence is preserved. (See this URL for the stored version of the paper that establishes this.)

These scientific theory ID-signatures indicate that when the operators are applied they reveal intelligent actions. Hence, whatever patterns are produced are intelligently designed. This is strong evidence for the GID-model interpretation, which is not RID evidence.***

I point out that if there is neither a production of nor an alteration in a natural-system, then the behavior-signature indicates this. Mathematically, in the case that operator SN is utilized, the set of all natural law statements in our general language L, when viewed from the "higher" language *L, contains "ultranatural" law *statements. Only a very few of these *statements have content that is comprehensible by any biological entity within our universe. Moreover, when the set of all events are viewed from *L, ultranatural events are obtained, which behave like a physical events, but cannot be described entirely by members of L. However, some descriptions for ultranatural events have comprehensible content.

The actual rules of logic used by individuals to construct scientific theories may not be explicitly mentioned although, for scientific theories, classical logic is the usually approach. Such logical rules need not be explicitly stated as long as the "arguments" are accepted by a science-community. In general, the conclusions can come from either inductive processes through observation and generalization, or from pure general deduction. This can yield informal scientific theories that are intelligently designed by trained individuals. However, when challenged to specify the deductions used for the arguments, a general rules of inference must be constructed. It is shown in the articles listed in the Special References that the processes that yield a physical universe are the result of applications of (ultra) logic-systems. Hence, the specific physical processes that correspond to each informal scientific theory also correspond to intelligent actions produced by intelligently designed logic-systems. I point out that such logic-systems are not based upon the notion of logical "values" such as two-valued models for "True or False" or any other valuation notation.

(C) General Applications of Natural Law Statements and Scientific Theories. There are, at the least, two ways to show that such applications are, for the GID-model, intelligently designed, at least, from the viewpoint of human intelligence. One is my published method to obtain the best possible operator or equivalent general logic-system unification for any set of operators or equivalent general logic-systems, respectively. This result shows that any application, finite or infinite, of natural law statements and scientific theories is equivalent to a single unifying operator or equivalent general logic-system. For the GID-model, this unification is intelligently designed, at least, on the level of human forms of intelligence. (See Herrmann, R. A., "General Logic-Systems and Finite Consequence Operators," Logica Universalis, 1(2006):201-208 or General Logic-Systems . . . and Herrmann, R. A., "The best possible unification for any collection of physical theories," Internet. J. Math. and Math. Sci., 17(2004):861-721 Corollary 2.11 p. 864, or Best Possible . . . and Theorem 2.2. Then there is the example discussed in the chance.pdf file in Statements that describe emergent properties are also included within this unification. (Physical entities using informational ultrafast propertons with correlating ultranatural events are compelled to display this properties.)

There may be those who reject any natural law statement or scientific theory that postulates the existence of any unobserved object. This rejection will not eliminate the statement that our universe is intelligently designed.

A second approach is a rather trivial fact. Consider the language L used to represent descriptions. If one accepts that the description X in F(k) either produces description Y in F(k + 1) or is altered to yield the description Y in F(k + 1), then by using a single symbol not in L, say |, and attaching it to each X, say X|, then there exists the entire set of ordered pairs {(X|,Y)}. This general logic-system will generate each Y from the specific X|. Considered as an operator, the realism operator is applied. This yields an operator P| that is applied at each X|. Substituting X for X| yields a physical process operator P. The operator P is a type of universal physical process operator. Relative to restricted intelligent design, RID, upon restricting the event sequence to a specific natural-system M, the intelligently designed physical process operator P(M) can yield physical events that correspond to RID physical events.

(D) More about Evidence. It is fact that (A) statements (I), and (II)(a) coupled with (III)(a) and (b), (B) scientific theories as applied to the production of or alterations in natural-systems and (C) any finite combination of these, as well as (IV) imply that our universe is intelligently designed. Direct evidence for this is that, technically, the actual general rules of inference that produce such statements as (A), without III (b), (B), (C), and (IV) can be displayed using a language L. For (B), there are exceptions. Certain perturbations not predicted by a physical theory and individual event behavior that follows a probabilistic model are exceptions. Perturbations and probabilistic behavior are intelligently designed, but intelligent agency is only implied indirectly. [See Probability Models.]

Does all of this imply that there is "something" within "nature" itself that corresponds to intelligent agency? Does this notion of intelligent design model the behavior of an actual object? This is similar to quantum theory or early history cosmologies where physical objects or processes are accepted based only upon deduction and indirect evidence. But, for the GID-model interpretation, designed ultranatural laws that yield ultranatural theories predict perturbations. These correspond to "pure" ultralogic operators. Further, pure ultralogic operators satisfy the individual probabilistically described events. The ID-signatures for these pure ultralogic operators is that of an higher-intelligence and only an higher-intelligence. Thus, by similar rational choice, one can accept, via indirect evidence, that an higher-intelligence produces and controls all there was, all there is and all there ever will be.

(E) Illusion. Rationally predicting that behavior is that of an higher-intelligence does not imply that such an higher-intelligence exists. As with the accepted existence of entities within quantum physics, the existence of an higher-intelligence is accepted based upon a vast amount of indirect evidence. One can accept this hypothesis based only upon this rationally obtained fact. Within particle physics, the hypothesis of photon absorption is accepted for the exact same reasons. There are philosophic attempts to dissuade individuals from accepting this higher-intelligence hypothesis. The argument is that evidence implies only an apparent design; it is an illusion, which is not objectively real. Of course, the same can be said for many quantum physics entities. Although this claim that an higher-intelligence exists cannot be scientifically verified and, hence, it can simply be ignored, there are strong counter arguments to the illusion claim.

In Herrmann (2002), I discuss, beginning on page 178, the notion of apparent design or illusion as stemming from a basic evolutionary explanation, where the claim is that the human brain evolved and displays an "evolution of conscientious." This presupposes that the natural-system behavior comes first. One then argues via the notion of the evolution of human consciousness and corresponding brain development, that human observations and the brain evolved in such a manner that the behavior patterns we observe within nature developed the mental machinery we now term as rational thinking. However, I show that this evolutionary argument fails for the notion of mathematical and other forms of abstraction and, hence, fails for the GID-model interpretation of the GGU-model. Whether the maximum or minimum scenarios are employed, the GGU-model is based entirely upon mathematical abstractions and abstract concepts.

Besides (I) and those mentioned in the referenced book, there are additional arguments that this interpretation is not illusion. For example, the logical generation of models that represent natural law statements and scientific theories that predict behavior is a recent development. The creative ability of the human brain to perform this activity is not restricted to specific regions or social environments. Indeed, there have been and there are today many individuals who engage in this creative activity. Individuals observe, and then describe or model physical regulations. Some of these are used to produce technical advancements.

Certain technical advancements are used to describe or model additional physical regulations. Some of these regulations are used for technical advancements and so on. It is self-evident that such a human aptitude is required prior to this process. This ability appears to be rather widespread in character and often a manifestation requires one "to be in the right place and at the right time." This ability is not attributable to a single source and this talent has been displayed over a rather historically short time period. A simple and rational explanation is that this mental ability is a pre-designed aspect of brain activity that displays itself in concert with technical advancements.

The actual indirect evidence for the higher-intelligence that probabilistically "produces" a natural-system or natural-system activities does not correspond exactly to any form of human intelligence. It cannot come from any form of material brain activity that predicts the observed natural-system patterns. This fact comes from the proof of the main theorem in the above-mentioned "Probability Models" paper. This higher-intelligence is NOT an "hyper-extension" of any form of modeled human intelligence. No biological object within our universe can apply this general logic-system and obtain any of the stated results.

As pointed out in the first paragraph of my comparison article, all claimed direct or indirect RID evidence is also GID evidence. Finally, what follows is a detailed discussion of a remarkable fact - a fact that gives further evidence that the GID-model notion of intelligent design is not illusion.

Consider a known and well established set of physical laws, where each set is denote by N(j), and, for each fixed j, and i such that i ≠ j, N(i) ≠ N(j). Physical laws are described by ordinary languages, which can include diagrams. "Nature" neither displays such regulations in these forms nor states the physical characteristics that are needed to predict behavior. The N(j) are expressed in a language L(j). Let each N(j) be applied to an observed set of hypotheses X. Then for each j, using the human brain and a general logic-system, a science-community obtains the set of predictions Y(j). These predictions can be intuitively considered as contained in a "book." Of course, you will not find a logic-system explicitly displayed by "nature." Consider those members of Y(j) that are directly observable. It is a remarkable fact that, when properly restricted to behavior that appears only to be caused by the laws constituents, the observable predictions Y(j) can be verified. Such verification is a recent development. It first seems to begin with Galileo. Moreover, when the members of each Y(j) are compared, there are no contradictory statements. The vast majority of humanity use science-community predictions and they do not produce them via a logic-system. They "trust" the science-communities, which need only contain a single individual, where the community adheres to a scientific method and via deduction produce the predictions.

The sets of physical laws can be combined. They can be taken two at a time, three at a time, and so forth, and again predictions can be made. The same consistency should be maintained. This is not, however, the way it is done in practice.

(A') Usually, to obtain detailed descriptions for natural-system behavior based upon X, the entire combined collection of predictions {Y(j)} for X, as j varies, is considered. A collection of books is consulted and the predictions applied to the specific cases where the language corresponds.
Methods (A') and (A'') below are not only the usual approaches but are the exact way science-community results are combined when many individuals construct portions of our man-made universe or discuss physical predictions. Does the (A') approach follow the rules for logical deduction?

(B') NO, in general. Although each member of a set Y(j), can be considered as produced by a general logic-system and each separately yields rational predictions, the combined set {Y(i)} of the predictions need not be rationally produced. There are infinitely-many examples of this.

The fact is that it is not typical for the (A') or (A'') below to correspond to predictions that are rationally observed. There is a new significant result, in terms of general logic-systems, that substantiates the significance of (B') relative to intelligent design.

It has been established that, in general, to obtain rational combinations of all of deduced predictions {Y(j)} an immense amount of knowledge is required. [See General Logic-Systems Theorem 2.2.]

***(C') An individual would need to combine ALL the languages and all of the general rules of inference used by each science-community into one general rules of inference and apply the combined general logic-system to X, as well as all the other possible hypotheses, just to get a rational combined-theory and not simply apply the (A') method.***

Moreover, the (C') method yields the appropriate unification U for the logic-systems used by the science-communities to obtain each set Y(j). Even if each of the science-communities uses the same general rules of inference, say classical logic, then this does not mean that the (A') method is equivalent to the (C') method. Since much natural-system behavior comes about by application of numerous physical laws, then merely using members of Y(j) would not be sufficient to predict accurately much physical behavior. Hence, application of U is the appropriate approach. But, there is such a vast amount of knowledge required to do so, I know of no individual that can accomplish this task.

On page 73 of Herrmann (2002) is an example where the (A') method does not yield the same result as does the unification of the logic-systems. It is easy to describe the worst-case scenario where the (A') approach is not equivalent to the unification of all of the physical theories. Consider a language L and assume that two science-communities use classical logic. The first science-community uses its cosmology X(1) and predicts that our universe will continue to expand forever. The second science-community uses its cosmology X(2) and predicts that our universe will cease to expand at a future moment in observer time. Each science community shows that its cosmology is consistent by demonstrating that there are members from L that cannot be deduced from its cosmology. However, even though they both use classical logic when the (C') combination is considered, the combined cosmology {X(1), X(2)} will predict each member of L. This is what occurs when two theories yield contradictory statements. That is, the combination is logically inconsistent and cannot differentiate between fact or fiction.

(A'') In physical practice, the unification is not employed. A few Y(i) are selected based upon the assumed processes that appear to affect the behavior of a natural-system. These recognized combinations of physical laws are used to predict physical-behavior that is verified. This yields the actual Y' used by humankind. If these mental processes yield inconsistencies, then there is no meaningful correspondence between observations and a descriptive language. That is, no description could be trusted as specifying a physical fact since the negation of the description can also be rationally obtained.

Since for (A') or (A'') the unification is not employed and inconsistencies have not appeared, then this implies that the logic-systems that yield the Y(i) are a rather special. One can conclude that "nature" or "something" has produced physical behavior in such a way that our formalizable modes of rational thought can describe laws that predict such behavior. And, significantly, this "something" has done so in such a manner that a unification of these laws is consistent and does not alter the predicted results. We are actually employing a small portion of this unification. And, it appears, as yet, no human being has obtained the necessary physical ability to apply the unified logic-system and deduce each member of Y(j) and other possible conclusions. The fact is that the combined sets of natural laws {N(i)} and predictions {Y(i)} we use for experiments, accepted observations and even our everyday activities has not led to inconsistent natural-system behavior. This is rather unusual.

Do our actual mental abilities correspond to our sensory experiences?

We have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sensory experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf - logically unbridgeable - which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions (Einstein, 1944, p. 287).

As noted above, one of the most significant concepts that does not come from sensory experiences is the ability to "abstract." That is, to find a common bases for a collection of mental or physical events. This ability is required when many physical laws and theories are obtained. It is strongly required when combinations of physical laws, theories or properties are considered. Although distinct physical laws, theories or properties tend to use distinct languages this is not why there exists a unification U of any such distinct collection. It is only through abstraction that any such unification exists. Further, the (abstract) concepts utilized are not defined material entities and they also are not related, in any manner, to sensory experience.

Physical laws are not "stated by nature." They are human constructs that remarkably predict observed physical-behavior. Importantly, it is the consistency of U that yields the consistency of the Y' and not conversely. The languages we use to describe these laws do not appear as natural entities, but they are constructed by mankind. It is well after their construction that they are used to describe physical-behavior. I know of no adequate evolutionary mechanism that can explain this correlation between created language and its future application to predict logically observed physical-behavior.

Hence, due to special (A'') and the U properties, I cannot argue, using any proposed evolutionary mechanism, that the special design represented by the (A'') method and the unification U is illusion. The (A'') method serves a specific purpose shared only by one collection of known creatures. The purpose is that rather ordinary human beings can apply the predicted (A'') statements, correlate these to physical entities and build our man-made universe. It appears that our universe and human beings are designed in a special manner that maintains this correspondence between language, mental abilities and natural-system behavior. There is no other known biological entity that has, on its own, established this remarkable correspondence.

What has been presented here is the major piece of a vast mosaic that indirectly establishes that a "higher-intelligence" has purposefully designed "all there was, all there is and all there ever will be." Although these results satisfy all the physical science rules for indirect evidence and the conclusions cannot be eliminated, they can be ignored.

Most scientifically described cosmologies and the GGU-model cosmogony are not constructed from explicit or hidden theological assumptions. The fact is, however, that they can usually be theologically interpreted after their construction. One such interpretation for the GID-model rationally satisfies many Biblical statements. We observe the results of one of His "invisible attributes," His higher-intelligence and His creationary "power" (Romans 1:20). Since we are "made in His image," our mental abilities are but an infinitesimal portion of His. He has given these to us for a specific purpose. We are to have "dominion over . . . the earth" (Genesis 1:26) and are to "subdue it" (Genesis 1:28). This corresponds to statement (I) for both natural laws and scientific theories.

(F) Direct or Indirect Evidence.

Recall that "direct" means that the entities and relevant measures can be directly observed by human or recordable machine sensors, respectively. However, in general, there are various degrees as to what "direct" means. It first means "indirect" in that one can, but need not actually, make an observation. Relative to direct evidence not produced by a reliable machine, there are the usual problems that occur when only human observation is or was employed and the observation cannot be made again. This latter problem occurs with historical events or those "one-time" physical events that cannot or have not, as yet, been duplicated within a laboratory setting. The "first-reports" are the most reliable.

Documentary evidence has many degrees of reliability. The most significant first-reports are those attested to by the individual who has communicated the observations. The individual verifies that the statements are, indeed, those communicated. When such reports cannot be so verified they are, in general, less significant. In such cases, other verification methods may be acceptable. If an event being described cannot be repeated in a highly similar manner, then presuppositions are necessary. The most significant being that the communicated observation presents a factual description. Of course, there are numerous many reasons why an individual may not consider this a presupposition. On the other hand, other individuals do consider the belief in the factualness of a description as a presupposition.

Then there are many who find rational reasons to reject this type of presupposition. One of the most significant collections of documents that fall into this category are the books of the Bible. The Bible also describes events that are not observable via human sensors. There are rather well know reasons why individuals have decided that these documents do describe events accurately.

Relative to documentary evidence one needs to have confidence in an individual's truthfulness and the actual unbiased ability to make a correct report of the events. Obviously, these traits do not guarantee that a report is accurate. The more first-reports of the same event that satisfy observer criteria yield additional strength to the observation being described as an observed "fact." First-reports are descriptions and the accuracy of such a report depends on applying a "language" that clearly conveys the observation to others. If not exactly duplicable by a machine, then the transmission of a report via translation into another language or, over long periods of time, and having it duplicated or restated by others can be rather problematic. In such cases, considerable documentary analysis may be necessary.

It has been shown that every natural law statement can be replaced by a general logic-system. But, in general usage, this representation is not necessary. What the replacement does, however, is to show that each physical regulation can be consider as intelligently designed.

Consider an hypothesis stated in a "scientific" language. If everything within the hypothesis is actually observable, then direct verification may be possible. Consider Galileo's law of fall, where Galileo specifically stated that his result contradicts Aristotle's. Indeed, Galileo gives one of the first, if not the first, description as to how his law can be (approximately) verified.

Taking his law of fall and using mathematical reasoning based upon a portion of the informal classical logic (i.e. ICL) the speed of a "falling" object and the distance it falls is predicted. The portion of ICL used can be replaced by a general logic-system, which yields the same prediction using his law. (Note that before and at this historical time such predictions were deduced by geometric means.) The prediction is verified by comparing observed results with the predicted results. Then one states that "the prediction holds" or is "verified." But, is there something else of significance being verified?

Basically, a general logic-system is being verified. It's the general logic-system that yields a prediction. The prediction is "rationally" obtained. For the GID-model, the prediction is intelligently designed. After trillions and trillions and . . . of applications, the ICL does directly verify predictions for natural law statements. (However, recall that there are infinitely many general rules of inference that produce the same results as those obtained via ICL.) Some scientists consider ICL as a "universal" logic-system although certain behavior within quantum measure theory does not directly correspond to some basic ICL rules. But, ICL is used to produce the underlying theory itself. Hence, even if some behavior is not following ICL patterns, the behavior is being controlled, in a certain manner, by ICL. This is the same type of control exhibited by the GGU-model and all known scientific cosmologies. In the GGU-model, the general logic-system being used by H to produce all GGU-model results is ICL.

Consider the photoelectric effect. Neither human nor machine sensors can observe the first four PA predictions. Hence, these PA conclusions cannot be verified directly. Any possible verification resulting from the natural law statement only indirectly verifies these predictions. Science-communities use additional hypotheses and, usually, portions of ICL to predict statements that are directly verified by human or machine sensors. This gives predicted and observable "evidence" that "indirectly verifies" the hypotheses. In this case, the claim is that photons behave in the described sense.

The GID-model evidence discussed above is not dependent upon one specific type of general logic-system. A logic-system such as PA can be included in the ICL logic-system. Moreover, any intelligent action associated with any general logic-system can, but need not, be interpreted as a restriction of an action that carries an higher-intelligence signature. Of course, for a specific physical hypothesis the assumption about ICL may not be correct in all cases. For two reasons, the hypotheses or even the logic employed need not be the correct. (A'') Other hypotheses, and ICL, may lead to the same predictions. (B'') Or, other or the same hypotheses, and a different general logic-system can lead to the same predictions.

There can be no absolute "scientific" knowledge that hypotheses, which cannot be observed, actually depict reality. This is especially due to (A'') since many of the modern natural law statements are only indirectly verifiable. (A'') forms the basis of many alternate theories. Importantly, for the GID-model interpretation, (B'') is rather significant. Although natural law statements and almost all scientific theories are based upon ICL, for a most perplexing aspect of physical-science, probabilistic behavior, the GID-model interpretation shows that an intelligent action, which is not characterized by ICL, guides and sustains the behavior. This intelligent action is a "higher" form of intelligence that cannot be "exactly" replicated by human actions.

(G) The Fundamental Universe-Generating Processes. For the general GGU-model mechanisms that indirectly imply that an higher-intelligence uses intelligently design processes to generate ANY universe, please see the article Fundamental Universe-Generating Processes.

Special References.

All of the mathematical "proofs" and modeling results needed to justify the above remarks are contained in various books, published journal articles or they are stored at the or archives. They appear in the following stored versions and the references listed in each paper. Paper 1, Paper 2, Paper 3, Paper 4, Paper 5, Paper 6. These papers may also appear in the zip file, bookmath. The entire foundations for the mathematics is contained Herrmann, R. A. 1993 as listed below. It's best that you not concern yourself with the basic mathematics itself, due to its difficulty, until you grasp the intuitive basis for general intelligent design theory.

This e-mail address is for significant questions or comments only. E-mail is deleted based upon the subject heading. E-mail that has the subject heading GID and nothing more is the only e-mail considered. I. M. P. will determine whether an e-mail question or comment is significant enough to warrant an answer.


Einstein, A., 1944, Remarks on Russell's theory of knowledge, in, P. A. Schlipp (ed.) "The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell," Tudor, New York: 277-291.

Herrmann, Robert A., 2002. "Science Declares Our Universe IS Intelligently Designed," Xulon Press, Fairfax, VA.

Herrmann, Robert A., 1993, "The Theory of Ultralogics," book 3. (This book contains the last improvements and updates.) Or, math/9903081 and math/9903082

Herrmann, Robert A., 1986. D-world evidence, C. R. S. Quarterly 22(2):47-53

Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.