I would have questions as to how the abstractions of math can be accurately applied to physical objects, and how accurately intelligence can be assessed through the algorhythmic calculations engaged. For example, if these calculations, or this definition of intelligence, can be applied to an object that is known to be the product of human intelligence, how much does it tell us, and how accurate is the telling? Has anyone tried it?
Feel free to come up with an example of a physical object that the abstractions of math do not apply to. I'm sure physicists will be very interested in your reply.
For example, if these calculations, or this definition of intelligence, can be applied to an object that is known to be the product of human intelligence, how much does it tell us, and how accurate is the telling?
You are either being intentionally dense or you have a really difficult time with reading comprehension.
One more time: There is no more intelligence implied by the existence of a physical object than the intelligence of the physical object itself. Period. End of story. In other words, the existence of a rock implies no more intelligence than exists in that rock, no matter what its form. The existence of a statue does not imply an "intelligent sculptor", though at least we are pretty sure sculptors exist. The existence of a human implies no more intelligence in the universe than is intrinsic to that human -- not very much in other words.
This is really an elementary notion that you are very resistant to even though a little thought should make it obvious that this must be the case. The fact remains: there is no construct in the universe that requires intelligence to have been formed. Just because you wish it was not so does not change this fact.