Is the deduction that codes require "coders" a rational deduction that can be made, or is it simply "religion" masquerading as science?

For something to "signify" something, you must have a recipient or decoder. You could consider it, a mind or a computer. Here, I'll simply consider it a mind.  

In the event that a code is something that registers definitively on a mind, then there must be a mind (someplace) so as to have a code (by definition). That infers a de-coder at any rate.  

It doesn't infer an encoder, in any event not until you characterize the decoder. On the off chance that you characterize the decoder, you need to place it into terms that bode well. That implies that you're disentangling the decoder, thus (by definition) the decoder is likewise encoding.  

Presently, you may feel this essentially demonstrates code infers encoders, however, it doesn't! Sensible frameworks have loads of indistinct builds. For instance, separating by zero is indistinct in arithmetic, yet nothing falls apart.

bru what tyep of qus is dis