Two sides of the irreducible complexity argument: dhw Pt1 (Introduction)

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 17:35 (5335 days ago) @ David Turell

David:
Okay so I lied, I DO have something to say here.
> > > > The waters get even more cloudy when we add in evolutionary computer sims; in short randomness DOES give rise to ordered structures. (DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying that computer sims provide evidence for or against a creator, only that order can come from chaos without any intervention beyond pressing "play.")
> 
> Perhaps the universal intelligence set it up that way. You math folks have pointed out that simple math and theoretical math seems to have a reality of its own. And points out that math reaches into all sorts of natural geography and biology: fractals for forestry (dendrology); for coastlines; etc.-This is why my friends hate me so much: I'll often sound contradictory.-Though there are truths uncovered by mathematics (precious few) at what point can we say that we have found a truth, vs. simply writing a phenomenon into mathematical language? One view of mathematics (George's I'll bet) states that all of mathematics is simply a human language applied to the outside world as any other language. As I have often said, "What great feat is it to say that the most precise language we have developed describes things precisely?"

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum