Sunday, November 24, 2013

The Day of the Doctor: An Analysis

WARNING: SPOILERS...like seriously major major spoilers.


Do not read below the following picture:

Okay so some major issues I would like to resolve

               I - The Nature of the Gallifrey-Lock
              II - Where the End of Time fits in
             III - The Timeline
             IV - Misc Plot Issues
                       a. The Memory Wipe
                       b. Who was Rose?
                       c.  Dalek Responses to the time war.
                       d. the ending - deus ex?

Some might question why the timeline is only being discussed near the end, but that is necessary as I and II really have to be determined before a proper timeline can be fitted in.

I- THE NATURE OF THE GALLIFREY-LOCK

The Nature of Time Travel 

Let me first explain several versions of time travel that we see in movies/ tv shows. First we have the 12 Monkeys type of time travel; where everything that has happened, has happened, including any time travel. If you traveled back in time to 1950, the 1950's always had you as a time traveller wondering around. There is no version of 1950 which did not have you in it, and then another version of 1950 which did. There is no time in flux and there is no rewriting of time. Time cannot be rewritten. Primer is another example.
                             
The second type is the Back to the Future type of time travel. This is where when you time travel back into the past you are basically entering a world in an alternate universe. This world is exactly the same until the point at which you land there as a time traveller. The events from that point onwards (in the alternate universe) are open to change. Travelling back to the future is basically travelling back to your original universe from which you came. The problem with this is that basically this isn't really time travel. As pointed out by a philosopher who I can't remember, this is really just universe hopping.

The third type is the Doctor Who time can be rewritten type of time travel. Where there is 1950 where everything is as it should be and then 1950 version 2 where you decide to pop in. This is the type of time travel where originally Al Gore was the president of America, but you went back in time, stepped on a fly and then poof Bush is now president.

Time travel in Day of the Doctor

So with that in mind, the issue is which type of time travel are we dealing with when the Doctors travel back to the moment? We can ignore the second type of time travel, because Doctor Who never views time travel in terms of jumping between universes. What happened differs between the first type of time travel and third type.

12 MONKEY TIME TRAVEL: The galaxy wide time lock never happened. The Doctor only thought it did since he forgot about the whole 13 doctors came in to save Gallifrey incident. What happened instead was that only a Gallifrey time lock occured. The Daleks whom the Doctor meets as 9,10 and 11 didn't escape the timelock rather they just weren't blown up by their own fleet.

TIME CAN BE REWRITTEN TIME TRAVEL: The galaxy wide time lock did happen once, but then now because of some voodoo magic by the Bad Wolf (yes I think she's the Bad Wolf, see Part IV), the  2 doctors came back to help John Hurt and they fixed everything and rewrote time.

I would prefer the the 12 Monkey scenario for four reasons:

(1) It would avoid the whole issue about how Bad Wolf Rose can poke holes in the Time War and let the 2 doctors back in.

(2) From a storytelling perspective that makes sense why Moffat would let wardoctor and no 10 forget everything. So that we can assume that what we thought was a galaxy wide time lock was never one at all and the doctor was similarly mistaken. If it was the time can be rewritten scenario, then basically Moffat is torturing doctors 9 and 10 for no reason eventhough they've just saved Gallifrey.

(3) This would avoid the nagging feeling that the authors of Doctor Who can just rewrite anything whenever they want.

(4) And this is the big big big main reason, "time can be rewritten time travel" is simply not logically possible. This is because among the three versions of time travel, "time can be rewritten time travel" is the only one that cannot avoid grandfather paradoxes (where you go back and kill your grandfather...but then you weren't born to go back and kill him.)

The alternate universe time travel doesn't suffer from grandfather paradox because the grandfather you're killing is not your original grandfather but a grandfather from an alternate universe.

I have written an essay once (not for fun, I actually did this for university...no joke) where I show how the 12 Monkeys type time travel can be defended. Read it here. I did try to dabble in physics a bit, but I'm a total novice so please ignore any physics I tried writing in that essay.

So from a logical perspective the 12 Monkey type of time travel should be preferred anyway. The rest of this analysis continues from view point that the Galaxy wide time lock never happened.

[note: Doctor who relies heavily on the time can be rewritten type time travel. It is definitely more interesting than the 12 Monkey type, but unfortunately as I have argued illogical. This shouldn't take away from the enjoyment of Doctor Who.]

II - WHERE THE END OF TIME FITS IN

Here's the major problem if the 12 Monkeys type of time travel is adopted. In The End of Time Part 2, Rassilon and his ilk have arrived back on earth and specifically state that they have been stuck in a time lock and hate the Doctor for it. Now if the galaxy wide time lock never happened, then surely this is a contradiction?

One obvious answer would be that Rassilon and the high council thought that the Gallifrey specific time lock that the Doctor put them through was actually galaxy wide. However, didn't the Doctor inform the military (I assume those guys he was talking to were military since he calls one of them General), that he was doing this to save Gallilfrey?

So how come the information from the military didn't pass on to the High Council? A few possibilities emerge,

(1) the High Council didn't believe the military. At the beginning of the End of time Part 2, the High Council knows that the Doctor has the moment. Perhaps it was to them more probable that the moment was used rather than 13 Doctors came swooping in with a time stasis timey wimey thing.

(2) the High Council know about it but are crazy maniacs anyway and still want to get out of the time lock. After all, why should they just hang around waiting for the Doctor to save them? (remember Daleks on Gallifrey itself were probably trapped in the Time Lock too)

(3) for some reason the military did not manage to inform the High Council about the time lock. I can't think of a reason why...ermmm maybe they all died?

Hence there is perhaps some explanation of why Rassilon still referred to the time lock, I'm not altogether sure whether any of the three are very convincing.

III - THE DAY OF THE DOCTOR TIMELINE

Here's the part I'm sure you all have been waiting for. I'm writing from the reference point of the Doctor starting with John Hurt

(1) time war
(2) War doctor steals the moment
(3) War doctor gets transported to England.
(4) War doctor meets 10 and 11.
(5) they escape from the Zygons in the 16th Cent, go forward in time, and get ppl in the basement to negotiate. war doctor then decides to go back and use the moment.
(6) 10 and 11 joins the War Doctor, but Clara stops them from using the moment. They then save Gallifrey.
(7) War Doctor  forgets about it then regenerates.
(8) Enter Christopher Eccleston. He still thinks he time locked the whole Galaxy because Gallifrey is no longer there (despite not remembering anything).
(9) Adventures of no 9
(10) Adventures of no 10.
(11) Somewhere after the horrible ending of Series 4, no 10 goes out adventures solo and then meets 11 and War Doctor.
(12) repeat no. 4-6.  No. 10 then forgets about it and then sometime later we have The End of Time
(13) 10 regenerates into 11, and we have adventures of no. 11.
(14) The Day of the Doctor - events from 11's point of reference.

[note: I'm not too sure where to put The End of Time from Rassilon's point of reference along the time line. The dialogue at the beginning of the End of Time Part 2 states that the Doctor has the moment and that this is the last day of the time war. So we know it's sometime during the last day, we just don't know exactly when]

IV- MISC PLOT ISSUES

These are smaller plot issues, which I think if unresolved still doesn't really hurt the enjoyment of the show.

The Memory Wipe

This is something new... it seems that when multiple doctors meet, all but the latest incarnation will get their memories wiped.

1st issue: Is this special to the Day of the Doctor or is does it apply to every other multi-doctor story? I'm afraid only Moffat knows about this one.

2nd issue: If it applies to every other multi-doctor story then it makes sense as to why the later incarnations of the Doctors never remember how the story ends. This is with one exception : Time Crash. In that episode, no. 10 unequivocally states that he remembers seeing himself do the thing and that's how he knows how to solve the problem. So if the Day of the Doctor applies to all multi-doctor stories, then Time Crash contradicts it.

I would personally prefer it that Time Crash were wrong. The memory wipe in The Day of the Doctor, nicely explains why the later incarnations of the Doctors in multi-doctor episodes have no clue as to what is going on. Also Time Crash is just a 7 minute  for fun episode with no real added value to the canon of Doctor Who (except as a fan wank). I would have to say that perhaps we should just delete it from memory as well.

Who was Rose

There are two explanations, she was either the conscience of the Moment or she really was Bad Wolf Rose.

I think she was Bad Wolf Rose for three reasons:

Firstly, she can created fissures in time and space. this is consistent with an all powerful Goddess who has seen everything in the Doctor's past and future. I think it is more likely that an all powerful Bad wolf could pull 2 Doctors out of their timestreams (and has the motive to do so) rather than some AI of a weapon having that capability.

Secondly, when the War Doctor says " I could kiss you Bad Wolf Girl", she response with "and you will" [ i paraphrase]. this seems to contradict the earlier stance she had that she was merely mimicking Bad Wolf Rose Tyler.

Thirdly, why choose Bad Wolf Rose instead of Rose Tyler, if the moment was scanning to choose someone from the Doctor's life?

Now, it could be possible that if this weapon could time lock an entire galaxy, then it's AI can pull 2 doctors from their time  streams as well. However, I personally think Bad Wolf Rose is more likely for the reasons stated above.

Dalek Responses to the Time Lock

Wait a minute, didn't the Doctor meet several Dalek's before? How come they don't know the Galaxy wide time lock never happened?

Remember in the 12 Monkeys time travel type scenario, only the Gallifrey specific timelock happened. The Daleks exterminated themselves through the cross fire. But of course, some would escape (it seems a bit ridiculous to think that an entire race could kill itself through a cross fire)

Let's examine the previous episodes to see if there is a problem. Took the following transcripts from here.

Dalek -series 1ep 6.


DOCTOR: What does that mean?
DALEK: I am a soldier. I was bred to receive orders.
DOCTOR: Well you're never going to get any. Not ever.
DALEK: I demand orders!
DOCTOR: They're never going to come! Your race is dead! You all burnt, all of you. Ten million ships on fire. The entire Dalek race wiped out in one second.
DALEK: You lie!
DOCTOR: I watched it happen. I made it happen.
DALEK: You destroyed us?
DOCTOR: I had no choice.
DALEK: And what of the Time Lords?
DOCTOR: Dead. They burnt with you. The end of the last great Time War. Everyone lost.
DALEK: And the coward survived.


I think this speaks for itself, also I'm not a big fan of no 9 but this episode was definitely showed some brilliant acting from Christopher Eccleston.

The Parting of Ways - series 1 ep 13

DOCTOR: Do you know what they call me in the ancient legends of the Dalek Homeworld? The Oncoming Storm. You might've removed all your emotions but I reckon right down deep in your DNA, there's one little spark left, and that's fear. Doesn't it just burn when you face me? So tell me. How did you survive the Time War?
EMPEROR [OC]: They survived through me.
(The lights come up to reveal a large apparatus, which on closer inspection is an exploded giant Dalek casing, and a blue-skinned one-eyed mutant is happy for everyone to see it sitting there as if on its throne..)
DOCTOR: Rose, Captain, this is the Emperor of the Daleks.
EMPEROR: You destroyed us, Doctor. The Dalek race died in your inferno, but my ship survived, falling through time, crippled but alive.


So it seems, that the Emperor doesn't expressly mention any timelock. He simply says that they were destroyed by the Doctor.

This raises an issue though, all the Doctor did was let the billions of Dalek ships attack each other through the crossfire, how come the Emperor says their entire race was burnt? As i've stated above, doesn't seem realistic that attackign each other through a crossfire would do that much damage.

Doomsday - series 2 ep 13

BLACK DALEK: How did you survive the Time War?
DOCTOR: By fighting. On the front line. I was there at the fall of Arcadia. Someday I might even come to terms with that. But you lot ran away!
BLACK DALEK: We had to survive.
DOCTOR: The last four Daleks in existence. So what's so special about you?


Seems like the Daleks from Doomsday ran away before the whole final battle so they wouldn't have been in the know anyway.

Evolution of the Daleks - series 3 ep 5

DOCTOR: Well, then. A new form of Dalek. Fascinating and very clever.
SEC: The Cult of Skaro escaped your slaughter.
DOCTOR: How did you end up in 1930?
SEC: Emergency temporal shift. 


Again the Daleks don't actually mention that the Doctor didn't use the moment, neither do they talk about Gallifrey disappearing. Can be put down to another piece of miscommunication.

Journey's End - series 4 ep13


DOCTOR: But you were destroyed. In the very first year of the Time War, at the Gates of Elysium.

[Vault]

DOCTOR [on screen]: I saw your command ship fly into the jaws of the Nightmare Child.

[Tardis]

DOCTOR: I tried to save you.
DAVROS [on screen]: But it took one stronger than you.

[Vault]

DAVROS: Dalek Caan himself.
CAAN: I flew into the wild and fire. I danced and died a thousand times.
DAVROS: Emergency Temporal Shift took him back into the Time War itself.

[Tardis]

DOCTOR: But that's impossible. The entire War is timelocked.

[Vault]

DAVROS: And yet he succeeded.


Here we get very close to a contradiction, the Doctor states the entire time war is timelocked and Davros agrees. But remember! Dalek Caan took Davros out before the fall of Arcadia. Dalek Caan is of course now a bit crazy so we can't tell if he really agrees that the entire time war is timelocked.

So, Moffat defenders can say it's consistent, but I would say it's starting to unravel.

Victory of the Daleks -series5 ep 3

DOCTOR: Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah. No scans. No nothing. One move and I'll destroy us all, you got that? Tardis bang bang, Daleks boom! Good boy. This ship's pretty beaten up. Running on empty, I'd say, like you. When we last met, you were at the end of your rope. Finished.
DALEK 2: One ship survived.
DOCTOR: And you fell back through time, yes. Crippled, dying.


No mention of any timelock.

Asylum of the Daleks  - series7 ep1

No mention of the Time War.

CONCLUSION ABOUT DALEKS:

While there is no express denial of the galaxy-wide timelock, it comes very close to it in Journey's End. Also, to deny contradictions between what the Daleks say and the fact there was no widespread timelock, would mean interpreting comments about the entire Dalek race being destroyed as resulting from the cross fire incident (the Doctor making Gallifrey disappear and thus allowing the Dalek ships to shoot at each other). This seems highly implausible which leads us to our next issue.

The Ending - Deus Ex? 

Some people have complained that the ending was just a deus ex machina. The definition of a deus ex, from Professor Lynch, is "where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance"

Now I would be cautious in saying that this is a Deus Ex, because the solution was sort of hinted at since the beginning. We already had the time stasis paintings from the beginning and the idea that the Doctor can start calculation programs in his equipment to run over several hundreds of years. Yes the endng wasn't something that we could have guessed would happen, but then again this is sci fi, and not even hard sci fi (the science isn't real!), so you can't really expect more than this.

What the ending does suffer from however is the following situation :

Either (1) the cross fire did injure a few dalek ships, but reasonably you would think at least half of the ships survived. Thus all the Daleks in nuWho that say the Doctor wiped out their race were lying - which doesn't seem like something they would do.

(2) the cross fire wiped out billions of warships. This sounds highly improbable (thus slightly meeting the deus ex requirement). I mean, seriously, maybe a few million warships are taken out give or take, but surely the Daleks will realise that the ENTIRE planet has disappeared and then stop firing at each other. [In that hypothetical we are left with a few other million Dalek warships, who can return out of the TimeWar claiming that they won! Which didn't happen.]


END COMMENTS

Yes I think the ending was a major plot hole, but you know what, I still loved the 50th Anniversary, and my hair stood a bit at the end when all 13 Doctors arrived. So I am not disappointed in the least (if I was, I wouldn't waste my time writing this very long blogpost). 



Thursday, November 21, 2013

50th Anniversary

In light of a certain something special happening this saturday, I present to you the seminal paper in the philosophy of time travel.

David Lewis' The Paradoxes of Time Travel.

#savetheday

Monday, November 18, 2013

Legislating Morality

Recently I've been writing on I don't have enough faith to be an atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek....and lo I've found out that they've been trying to play legal philosopher as well (as someone who is sort of trained in this field, I have to say they are trying badly). Read this article by Turek here. They also have the book, which you can see here.

So basically, his argument is this:

Morality is about right and wrong, and that’s what laws put into legal form. Can you think of one law which doesn’t declare one behavior right and its opposite wrong? The truth is all laws legislate morality (even speed limits imply a moral right to life). And everyone in politics — conservatives, libertarians and liberals — is trying to legislate morality. The only question is: “Whose morality should be legislated?”
Firstly, just because something tells you what you "ought to do" and the "right thing to do" does not mean that it is a moral statement. It is the right thing to move a rook horizontally or vertically on the chess piece. It is the wrong thing to move the rook diagonally. That is a claim about right and wrong which is not a moral claim.

There are many types of things that are legislated which do not have to do with moral claims. For example, the Australian Constitution gives the power to the commonwealth government to make laws regarding lighthouses (google the lighthouse power). I would like to see Turek draw some sort of linkage between morality and making laws about lighthouses. The Acts Interpretation Act dictates that a court should, when analysing statute, look at the ordinary meaning of the words first. Does this also somehow link to morality? The government could decide tonight to pass a law forcing all people to wear blue coloured shirts, how does this link to morality?

Secondly, let's say that his claim is true, that all legal obligations are moral obligations (which would be a natural law position), it does not mean that all moral obligations are legal obligations. Not everything which we think is a moral rule necessarily should be legislated on. For example a Christian may believe going to church every week is the moral thing to do, but even an extremely conservative Christian would think twice before then stating that we should legislate to force everyone to go to Church. What then is the line? What types of morality should the government legislate on? Perhaps, it should legislate on morals which directly harm people as suggested by Mill, and we see that natural law comes to meet legal positivists halfway.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist: Part 2

I love logic, so at p28 I was pretty excited to see this set of arguments by Frank Turek. I shall examine what is called the "validity" of this argument. Validity means, assuming all the premises are true, does the conclusion (9), follow from the premises. Let's begin.

(1) God exists
(2) If god exists then miracles are possible.
(3) Miracles can confirm a message from god

(4) The New Testament is historically reliable.
(5) The NT says Jesus claimed to be God

(6) Therefore Jesus is God,
(7) whatever Jesus teaches is true,

(8) Jesus taught that the bible is the word of god,
(9) Therefore the bible is the word of God.


First of all, let's get rid of premise (2) and (3), they are not necessary to get to (9). In fact they are sitting there rather redundantly (Turek and Geisler probably just want to prove that miracles are possible). So we are left with this which I show as two different argumetns:

(1) God exists
(2) The New Testament is historically reliable.
(3) The NT says Jesus claimed to be God
(C1) Therefore Jesus is God,


(4) Whatever Jesus/God teaches is true,
(5) Jesus taught that the bible is the word of god,
(C2) Therefore the bible is the word of God.


(4)- (5) is valid, but the truth of (5) is dependant on (C1). Argument (1)-(3) however is not valid and does not lead to C1.

If the NT is historically reliable, and Jesus claimed to be God, that only means you can be historically certain that Jesus claimed to be God. You can't actually say therefore Jesus is God.

The argument is not valid.



I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist: Part 1

I've recently picked up this:



And yes if that video makes you cringe, the prose of the  book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" is written in entirely the same style - like some second hand car salesmen trying to sell their goods.

I've only read one chapter (what did you expect anything more? I'm not a proper reviewer, what are you doing on this blog that no one reads anyway?) which I can truly say is really really pretentious. So I'm going to take this book down! Well not really, I'm just going to find really ridiculous parts and put them here.

Well the first part I will attack is Chapter 2 Page 58.... which has to do with Norman Geisler's criticism of logical empiricism. Surprise surprise I'm not actuallly saying his criticism is invalid.

BUT, and a very very big BUT... Norman Geisler does it in such an appallingly pretentious way that I'm ashamed to say he has a PhD in philosophy. So basically he proudly declares that as a student he had been given a presentation topic on the idea of verificationism ( I will explain later) and is given 20 minutes to speak on it. He then gets up and talks for about a minute and sits down. He then says that the entire classroom is stunned and that the professor when he went on to lecture "suppressed the truth, hemmed and hawed".

Yes our dear friend believed that he was so clever as to defeat Ayer, Carnap, Frank and others in one line. If a philosopher is famous there is a reason why- he's usually smart. Showing such a dismissive attitude to the greats as a student is understandable. Still being proud of it in now is deplorable.

Okay now with that being said, let me explain why Norman Geisler should have failed that presentation:

Verificationism

My amazing research coming from here

The argument is for any statement that contains empirical content- observations of the world- it can only be meaningful if it is verifiable. There are many definitions of verifiable, Geisler doesn't even define what it is, but for the purposes here let it be that verification means the statement must imply or assert some observation or capability to observe.

So what is all this mumbo jumbo I"m saying? Basically if you say "There is a cat in my house", that statement is meaningless unless you are implying that you observe the cat in the house or if you go to the house you can observe it.

Here is Geisler's argument (well not his, it's pretty well known), that this argument is undercutting. There are two types of statements in the world - those true by definition and those by observation (empirical). Since verificationism is not true by definition then it must be empirical. However, according to verificationism if it is empirical then it must be verified and you can't verify by observation the concept of verificationism. So verificationism is meaningless by its own terms.

Up to this point that's good. Yes great philosophical work, but then Geisler sits down. He believes he has defeated logical empiricism. He does not even consider that Ayer and his gang have actually written replies to such logic. (I'm not saying they are successful replies, I'm just saying that you being so proud of yourself for entirely not dealing with them is pure ignorance). Here are two.

Ayer's response: Verification is true by definition. Verification is basically the definition of meaning of empirical sentences. Basically verification is "meaning". Of course a sentence that has observational content needs to assert an observational statement. It would make no sense to say "there is a cat in my house" if you don't at the same time assert "I observe the cat in my house" or "if i go to my house i can observe a cat"

Carnap's response: He accepts that no arguments can show verification to be true or false, but there are good practical reasons for it. There's no use arguing over whether there can be an invisible fairy that no one can ever see or touch or observe. If we're making observational statements, we should be able to verify them.

Conclusion

So this is why I would fail Dr. Geisler...he was given a task to research a topic and present on it for 20 minutes. Instead he gave a 1 minute answer and ignored all the available literature. I also fail him for being a prick in general.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Don't trust me

If you want to read a blog that does some actual philosophy of religion. Check out the Prosblogion.

Also here's an open access philosophy of religion journal.


Thursday, November 7, 2013

Induction and Theism

So I came across this:


And at first I thought that's a rather strange argument but at least it's novel. Then I did a little bit more research and found out that it's something presuppositionalist apologists use and they're goddamn proud of it. Waving the argument around saying "Oh look here Atheist, you think you're so smart, well you can't be smart without believing in God! nyeh nyeh!" Like a three year old showing off the painting he just drew. *Maybe there are more sophisticated versions of this lying around somewhere, but if that's the case the apologists I've listened to do it no justice*.

The argument is basically this:

                (1) There is a problem called the problem of induction, which make reasoning problematic (I will                         explain this)
                (2) The only solution to the problem of induction is God.
                (c) The only way to solve the problems with reasoning is to have God.


The Problem of Induction

People familiar with Hume would know about this problem. A lot of our reasoning is based on induction . Now what is induction? Take the argument that the sun will rise again tomorrow. How do you know that the sun will rise again tomorrow? Well it has risen every morning since time immemorial. Basically you have predicted a future event (the sun rising tomorrow) based on past events (the sun rising every morning in previous days). This in general is inductive reasoning.

Here's the problem, how do you prove that inductive reasoning works? How do you prove that because the sun has always risen in the morning therefore it will rise again tomorrow? There are two ways: either (1) deductively or (2) inductively.

Deduction is where a conclusion follows from certain premises. E.g. (1) All dogs are animals, (2) Bobo is a dog, therefore (3) Bobo is an animal. You can't prove inductive reasoning from deduction. There are no premises that would lead you to that conclusion.

The only other option is inductive reasoning. But this would obviously be begging the question. You prove inductive reasoning by inductive reasoning, but that means you already assume that inductive reasoning is valid.

Thus there is no way to prove inductive reasoning works, which is rather problematic since a lot of our reasoning is based on induction - e.g. knowing the sun will rise.

The Answer is GOD!!!

So this is the crucial step in the apologist's solution. Whatever the solution to the problem of induction, it must allow for uniformity in nature. By definition, inductive reasoning requires that events will be similar in the future as it is in the past. God, is the only foundation for which we can have uniformity in nature.

Now this is the part I don't really get. How is the existence of God necessary for there to have uniformity in nature? I will list a few possible arguments the apologist can make, and show why they're a bit well dodgy...

(1) If God made the world, then he would have not make it utterly chaotic.

Why not? What's preventing God from creating a world where there is no causation and everything that happens is pure coincidence? Now the argument might be that God would not deceive us. So to create a world where it looks like inductive reasoning works but it really doesn't is deceptive. Well again, is it necessary that God would not deceive us?

Also I don't think it follows that  because something appears a certain way to us, therefore it means deception. For example, in the old days people thought the earth was flat. It appeared to be that way. Does that mean that God set out to deceive them then? No, it was just that our knowledge did not develop to realise the world is round. Same for inductive reasoning, maybe it appears that way, but now after listening to Hume's argument we have enough knowledge to just realise there is no logic in the world and it is all coincidence.

(2) A perfect being entails uniformity

Maybe a perfect being cannot create a world that is not uniform. Perfection cannot result in imperfection. Well I"m not sure that I understand what perfection is in the first place to understand what a perfect being can do. Secondly, I'm not sure why the lack of uniformity in nature would be something that means that the world is imperfect. Thirdly, if we accept that perfect beings cannot make imperfect things, then we have rejected the existence of the Christian God. After all, he created our fallen world.

(3) God said in the Bible that there is design in nature.

No, just no.

Conclusion

I really couldn't think of any other reasons why God would entail uniformity in nature. Also, just because God might be the explanation for uniformity, doesn't mean it is the most probably explanation. The theist still has to reject all other solutions to the problem of induction.