Irreducible Complexity

Interesting philosophic discussion of irreducible complexity. Is it an argument from personal incredulity or is it reasonable to consider it?-
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/01/05/a-walk-to-the-moon/#more-11181

Post reply

3078 views

David,-At last, some philosophical meat for these hungry bones!-While it is true that the judgment is reasonable "There is no evidence that such-and-such drug has the effects attributed to it," the fact that it is reasonable is why it qualifies as a fallacy when you attribute a judgment to it: "Therefore: the drug is ineffective." -The next section his argument collapses when he attributes the argument of "personal incredulity" to "walking to the moon." The danger here is the same danger in dismissing Carl Sagan's "Invisible Dragon." The danger is in engaging in the intuitional response of dismissing the claim offhand. NASA noting that no moon-targeted spaceflights isn't an offhand dismissal; this is information that is well-known to not just NASA, but to the entire space-faring community. So the person in his hypothetical is making a verifiably false claim. -Irreducible complexity suffers from the opposite issue: You can't verify that something is "irreducibly complex" because the very idea suffers from a subjectivity bar. What is "Too complex to happen by chance" when the very nature of the universe IS chance itself?

--
\"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.\"

Post reply

3039 views

While I should have left this where it was I started rereading this section.-ID theory follows a similar approach. ID advocates claim (with much justification) that the entire scientific community is clueless about the emergence of biological complexity and that the material mechanisms to which the biological community looks provides no clue how these systems might realistically have come about. -
The problem with this statement is that it 
1. (Calls itself a theory, when it is in fact, a hypothesis.) 
2. Essentially only cries foul that science hasn't delivered an answer.
3. There are plenty of ideas about how they "realistically might come about," however, there is no experimental evidence for them yet. This simply means that the question is unresolved, not that mystical solutions suddenly become tenable. -Their claim is that certain features are irreducibly complexâthat they are a single system composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. They consider explanations that these structure arose by natural selection to be equivalent to my walk to the moon. And since they believe the natural parameters rule out the possibility of these complex structures arising solely by natural selection, they are warranted in searching for an alternate explanation.-In this case, NS is possibly being a scapegoat. From the sound of it, biology is beginning to undergo a paradigm shift that will displace NS as a primary mechanism to cause change. (It likely "verifies" which creatures are fit or not in many instances, but works in concert with other physical phenomenon.) But note that the new theories discussing evolution aren't being created by ID "researchers." -Since there has been a gross explanatory failure in accounting for biological complexity I'm not sure why there is such opposition to considering this possibility. Obviously, if you are committed to atheistic materialism then you are less likely to consider evidence for intelligent design (though you should still be open to it). But why should theists be similar constrained? This research program may lead down a false pathâbut so has the current approach. Since biologists are unable to explain any complex biological functions without resorting to the language of teleology and design, you'd think they'd be more open to the possibility that actual teleology or design was involved in the process.-Again, this seems to be more an assertion that "because science can't explain it, then mysticism has to." It is true that mysticism was the first explanation for life; but it isn't the case that if science hasn't provided an answer then we must accept the previous explanation. We accept NO explanation, one because it doesn't actually explain anything, and the other because it is presently insufficient.

Post reply

3045 views

Matt: What is "Too complex to happen by chance" when the very nature of the universe IS chance itself?-Also (under 'Programming the Universe') you say hundreds of thousands of experiments have confirmed that chance "underlines the very fabric of our universe".-Matt: It is true that mysticism was the first explanation for life; but it isn't the case that if science hasn't provided an answer then we must accept the previous explanation. We accept NO explanation, one because it doesn't actually explain anything, and the other because it is presently insufficient.-Once again, I hesitate to join in this discussion because I don't know enough about the universe or about quantum theory. (Chad Orzel's book is not due out over here till the end of the month.) However, I will ask my questions because it may be that I'm not alone in my ignorance, and our object as always is clarification. -Even as I applaud the third statement, I'm struggling to reconcile it with the first two. Are you saying that the laws of physics and chemistry are governed by chance? That Earth's relationship to the sun is governed by chance? Or that these things came about by chance? Without a degree of order in the universe we obviously could not exist or continue to exist, and I can't associate such order with the idea that the nature of the universe actually IS chance itself. So what exactly do you mean here by 'fabric' and 'nature'?-In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I don't have a problem with the idea that chance governs many events within the universe and within our own world. It's only the comprehensiveness of your first statement that puzzles me. And this leads me to the last puzzle for today. Again under 'Programming the Universe', you say Lloyd answers the question "How does complexity arise?" by modifying the paradigm from a "mechanical machine" to "a machine that processes information". Doesn't this answer increase the likelihood of an intelligence within the universe, as opposed to its operating at random?

Post reply

3098 views

dhw,
I will separate these into manageable chunks.-> Even as I applaud the third statement, I'm struggling to reconcile it with the first two. -1. Are you saying that the laws of physics and chemistry are governed by chance? -2. That Earth's relationship to the sun is governed by chance? Or that these things came about by chance? -3. Without a degree of order in the universe we obviously could not exist or continue to exist, and I can't associate such order with the idea that the nature of the universe actually IS chance itself. -4. So what exactly do you mean here by 'fabric' and 'nature'?
> -It will be easiest to tackle 4 first as it will frame all the rest of my responses. The fabric of the cosmos is the fabric at the quantum level, and at the quantum level, particles exist in a superposition of states. There's 3 states a particle can be in (this relates to spin), and it is 0, 1, and 0 + 1. At the beginning of the expansion, the state of *everything* in the universe was 0 + 1 (the superposition). What this literally means, is that all states in the universe were happening at the same time. In musical terms, all instruments were the same, and they were playing all notes simultaneously. As for what "nature" is, it is synonymous with the universe. -Play the equation forward a little bit further and you have particles hitting each other. As I will describe below, these collisions create areas where some particles are 0, some are 1. In this sense, we can talk about energy: particles with more energy have 1, less, 0. Those that have more energy than average are 1's, those with less are 0's. Lower energy particles that hit each other clump together and form areas of cool atoms that eventually coalesce into galaxies, stars, etc. It is this last part where the perspective of the Universe as a quantum computer delivers an insight that hasn't existed previously; while I have been neglecting to discuss how the quantity called information acts in the universe, it is the clumping that it describes that provides a quantum explanation for gravity. This is the new part of the perspective that allows us to explain quantum gravity without needing to resort to the intellectual black hole that is String Theory. And--Lloyd's idea is directly testable and within about ten years we'll be able to do so on quantum computers. Because the universe itself is a quantum computer, any other quantum computer can replicate its interactions. -Answers to individual questions:-1. The answer here is complex; Quantum mechanics plays a heavy role within chemistry however, and all chemical phenomenon are quantum in nature; so the real answer here is "depends." Physical laws amplify quantum interactions. This part of quantum theory is extremely well documented. -2. What you're really asking is a solution to "How do we resolve quantum mechanics with classical mechanics." Because solving this problem is the current goal of physics--and has been for 70 years, I cannot provide an answer outside of what Lloyd has already covered. Though his explanation of the interplay under a quantum computational model of the universe only requires three big experiments to be conducted, and they can be attempted in our lifetime. (Well, at least MY lifetime, I do not know your age.) -3. Restated, "How does order arise from disorder?" This is the central study of chaos theory and complexity theory. It's "the butterfly effect" all over again; quantum fluctuations during the early universe; physical laws amplify these fluctuations over time until they appear grossly exaggerated and overly complex. How did life arise? We all know that question's open. That IS a question that will be aided greatly by quantum computing, as well as the emerging science of complexity. That said, quantum mechanics has been experimentally verified again and again, and since its nature IS probabilistic, then all order arose by chance. Literally. Final question in Pt 2.

Post reply

3007 views

Again I'm indebted to Matt for a detailed explanation of the principles underlying the statements I had queried.-As I indicated at the start of my earlier post, I'm in no position to discuss quantum theory with you, and I can only break down the arguments to their general implications. I'd asked what you meant by the fabric/nature of the universe, and you've explained that you meant the cosmos at the quantum level. Following through the different stages of your argument, we come to your conclusion, which is: "quantum mechanics has been experimentally verified again and again, and since its nature IS probabilistic, then all order arose by chance. Literally." And yet a moment before (and throughout our discussions) you have acknowledged that the question of how life arose remains open. But life requires a huge amount of order. If you argue that all the essential factors literally arose by chance, why does the origin of life remain a problem? Admittedly, we haven't found the relevant combinations, but nor do we know exactly what combinations of what hold the universe together (dark matter/energy). The fact that life, like the universe, exists tells us that the necessary order was accomplished, so if your thesis applies to the universe, why not to life? On the other hand, if you're still waiting for missing information, how can you state at this point in time that ALL order is the result of chance?-With regard to your answers under 'Programming the Universe' (for which once more many thanks), again I can't argue on your level, which must be very frustrating for you. I can only use terms in their conventional sense, and this is such a problem that perhaps I shouldn't have broached the subject in the first place. You say machines etc. are not complex because they are all the result of 1's and 0's. In the everyday world, the suggestion that a computer is not complex would be laughed at. All complex things can be broken down into individual units, and indeed one definition of complex is 'having many interrelated parts'. According to your logic, then, is ANYTHING complex? Should we jettison the word? If not, how would you define it?
 
For me the burning question is how the parts are combined. You write: "In our universe, chance is a tautology, and the underlying physical laws are axioms; self-evident truths that must be true for our universe to be as it is." Since our knowledge of the physical laws is derived from our observation of the universe "as it is", the second statement is obviously true, although of course we have to revise our understanding of these laws if and when new phenomena come to our attention. In our human world, the greater the number of parts, the more intelligence is needed to do the combining, but you say of the universe and its laws: "there is no setup required ... they simply exist". This seems like saying the world is here, so we know it assembled itself by chance. Of course that would be a colossal leap of logic, but what else might you mean by "chance is a tautology"? Perhaps your reasoning will become clearer to me if you explain why you still can't bring the origin of life into this overall pattern. -Once again, my apologies if I've misunderstood your arguments. I know that we are talking on different levels, but somewhere along the line there has to be a logic acceptable on all levels, and that's what I'm hoping, with your assistance, to find. Perhaps others with a greater understanding than mine can also help to clarify the issues.

Post reply

3044 views

dhw;-I appreciate your indebtedness--I still must stress that I'm not an expert, but I have just enough mathematical background to be dangerous. To be complete, to have a full understanding I need more exposure to differential equations and Vector calculus. That said, I can see how most of the physical theories are derived.-> ...The fact that life, like the universe, exists tells us that the necessary order was accomplished, so if your thesis applies to the universe, why not to life? On the other hand, if you're still waiting for missing information, how can you state at this point in time that ALL order is the result of chance?
> -You could argue that atheists DO accept this outright; and they wouldn't be incorrect, but they also have an incomplete and in my mind--complacent picture. Depending on your level of skepticism; you can go either way. -The reason we can state that all order arose from chance--and do so with certainty--is because all of the matter that makes up our universe was created by those chance quantum fluctuations. We actually *know* this. We can't get any more fundamental than these quantum particles. To say we can't know that life arose by chance in this light means that we have to question the chance nature of quantum physics--but the chance nature of quantum physics has been extensively verified. So the only thing we have left here pertaining this question is to remove "chance" as an alternative. Or stated another way, since chance exists at the most fundamental nature, state, and time of our universe, chance can never be excluded from any explanation. Chance interactions built the small (4%) amount of matter that we're made of. As things get more and more localized--a word that in the world of quantum physics means "we know the position," then the more "classical" systems behave. So in a very condensed version, chance interactions lead to the construction of larger and larger forms of matter; and the more localized they became the more deterministic they behave. -To criticize this model, the only way I can see you can do it is to assert that it isn't the right explanation though its methods and results are correct. Which is a pretty tall order. -> ...You say machines etc. are not complex because they are all the result of 1's and 0's. In the everyday world, the suggestion that a computer is not complex would be laughed at. All complex things can be broken down into individual units, and indeed one definition of complex is 'having many interrelated parts'. According to your logic, then, is ANYTHING complex? Should we jettison the word? If not, how would you define it?
> -This is actually an interesting question; How do we currently define complex? In my field, it generally refers to "many interconnected parts." If you have a bunch of small parts that make up something greater, there is still complexity. A symphony provides a complex expression of music from many individual instruments. The difference(s) here ultimately would rely on "how much of this complexity can be broken down? -Complex is a relative word in my view. To someone who understands computers well, it is with great amazement that all things we see are the result of "on and off." Even the most complex program is the result of this simple concept. Without it, computing wouldn't exist. I think that most people think computers are complex because knowledge of how they work isn't necessary to use them. -Think of it this way, mathematics itself consists of operators: +, -, *, and /-From these four operations, we can model virtually anything. Even the subject of calculus doesn't add anything outside of a new perspective of dealing with mathematical systems. The degree of complexity of any system is ultimately reliant upon the observer's ability to understand that system. ->... This seems like saying the world is here, so we know it assembled itself by chance. Of course that would be a colossal leap of logic, but what else might you mean by "chance is a tautology"? Perhaps your reasoning will become clearer to me if you explain why you still can't bring the origin of life into this overall pattern. 
>-I think--my above response deals with much of this. If not, let me know. -You assert that the more pieces for something, the more intelligence is needed. I disagree with that; Having worked with brilliant minds I think that it's never an issue of intelligence. Sticking with Kuhn, it's an issue of perspective. It's looking at it from a different angle. Evolution itself is a testament to using what's available to create new parts over time--and evolution is something that I know you don't have a problem with. The scientists of today are no more intelligent than the scientists of 200 years ago; they just have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of those that came before them. -For chance being a tautology, we know for a fact that matter was created by chance, and life is made of matter, how could life NOT be made by chance, as it requires matter? How could we exclude chance? However complex the chemistry is to go from nonlife to life, all things that exist came from that big bang where the randomness of quantum fluctuations predominate. We may not know the mechanism, but it seems--difficult to make such a claim.

Post reply

3038 views


> For chance being a tautology, we know for a fact that matter was created by chance, and life is made of matter, how could life NOT be made by chance, as it requires matter? How could we exclude chance? However complex the chemistry is to go from nonlife to life, all things that exist came from that big bang where the randomness of quantum fluctuations predominate. We may not know the mechanism, but it seems--difficult to make such a claim.-This seems like reasoning by regression. The quantum particles follow symmetry and probably supersymmetry. There are certain rules it seems, which result in quarks reaching certain combinations. And then when we get to considering the formation of living matter, we must deal with the available inorganic and simple organic molecules that are present at the time to combine, somehow, and create life. That is the proper level to look at 'chance' for life. This universe is perhaps a 'chance', but only if one considers a multiverse. Otherwise it looks quite special to me.

Post reply

3033 views


> > For chance being a tautology, we know for a fact that matter was created by chance, and life is made of matter, how could life NOT be made by chance, as it requires matter? How could we exclude chance? However complex the chemistry is to go from nonlife to life, all things that exist came from that big bang where the randomness of quantum fluctuations predominate. We may not know the mechanism, but it seems--difficult to make such a claim.
> 
> This seems like reasoning by regression. The quantum particles follow symmetry and probably supersymmetry. There are certain rules it seems, which result in quarks reaching certain combinations. And then when we get to considering the formation of living matter, we must deal with the available inorganic and simple organic molecules that are present at the time to combine, somehow, and create life. That is the proper level to look at 'chance' for life. This universe is perhaps a 'chance', but only if one considers a multiverse. Otherwise it looks quite special to me.-Why would chance be any less special? I am always amazed when people seem to suggest that the universe can only be special if there's a teleology...-Off topic but Lloyd talks a bit about a multiverse, and the reasoning behind it seems vacuous. -And my argument could be by regression... I don't know yet. It's still too fresh in my own head. The devil will be in the details; but I don't see a hole in it. If the nature of the most basic parts of the universe is probabalistic this has nothing but ramifications all the way up the chain. The science of chemistry sits firmly on a quantum model.-For the rest of it, I still have alot of work cut out for me on the physics sections--right now I simply have an educated overview.

Post reply

3084 views

MATT: Since chance exists at the most fundamental nature, state, and time of our universe, chance can never be excluded from any explanation.-MATT: We know for a fact that matter was created by chance, and life is made of matter, how could life NOT be made by chance, as it requires matter? How could we exclude chance? -As an agnostic, of course I'm not excluding chance, but that is a long, long, long way from the statement that "all order arose by chance. Literally." In the first part of the second quote above, it seems to me that there's a wide gap in the reasoning. Even if it's true that matter was created by chance, it doesn't mean that what's created out of matter is made by chance. If you saw a wine glass in the middle of the desert, you would immediately assume it had been made by a human, and not put together by wind, sand, sun etc. The ingredients may be chance-made, but the combination is not. In the context of life, again it comes back to complexity (see below), and if you accept the definition 'many interconnected parts', there's no escaping the complexity involved in the process of reproduction/ heredity/evolution. The same argument could be applied to the universe. If chance-made matter is in order, that doesn't automatically mean that chance is responsible for the order.-You have actually acknowledged this: 'However complex the chemistry is to go from nonlife to life, all things that exist came from that big bang where the randomness of quantum fluctuations predominate. We may not know the mechanism...' Isn't that the whole point? An atheist believes that chance is the mechanism, a theist believes the mechanism is too complex to have arisen by chance, and an agnostic doesn't know what to believe. It's the mechanism that creates the order, and if we don't know what it is, how can you say that all order literally arose by chance? -Complexity is so important to this whole argument that I'd like to clarify my badly phrased remark: "the greater the number of parts, the more intelligence is needed to do the combining". You've quite rightly pointed out that "the scientists of today are no more intelligent than the scientists of 200 years ago; they just have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of those that came before them." What I was trying to say was: the greater the complexity, the greater the need for intelligence. A theistic analogy to human progress, then, would be God's progress as he learns from his experiments. -Once again, my thanks for your Herculean efforts to make these complex (again!) arguments comprehensible.

Post reply

3024 views

MATT: Since chance exists at the most fundamental nature, state, and time of our universe, chance can never be excluded from any explanation.
> 
> MATT: We know for a fact that matter was created by chance, and life is made of matter, how could life NOT be made by chance, as it requires matter? How could we exclude chance? 
> 
> As an agnostic, of course I'm not excluding chance, but that is a long, long, long way from the statement that "all order arose by chance. Literally." In the first part of the second quote above, it seems to me that there's a wide gap in the reasoning. Even if it's true that matter was created by chance, it doesn't mean that what's created out of matter is made by chance. 
> -Let me try and clarify my position... this is delicate stuff and I'd rather put this in a form that we can agree to whether or not my reasoning is sound or not.-Lets take the number 120; to get it lets say we multiply 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5-For the sake of my argument, the beginning of the universe is 1, and the chance random fluctuations that created matter is 2. 3 is the formation of our planet, and 4 is life, 5 is consciousness. -My argument in this analogy, is that in order to say something ISN'T by chance, we have to be able to exclude chance from the explanation. But since all of these events are irrevocably linked, removing any single factor destroys the result we're trying to find. -In the sequence that gives us 120, removing any part means we have something less than 120. In this instance, by removing chance random fluctuations, we can't say that anything beyond that point in time happened, because it is absolutely vital to all things that come after it. -But in order to exclude chance as a cause, you have to demonstrate that 4 or 5 happened by the result of some will. Which--I believe is systematically impossible. --
> You have actually acknowledged this: 'However complex the chemistry is to go from nonlife to life, all things that exist came from that big bang where the randomness of quantum fluctuations predominate. We may not know the mechanism...' Isn't that the whole point? An atheist believes that chance is the mechanism, a theist believes the mechanism is too complex to have arisen by chance, and an agnostic doesn't know what to believe. It's the mechanism that creates the order, and if we don't know what it is, how can you say that all order literally arose by chance? 
> -I feel that to answer this I'll just be repeating myself... but I'll try again.-The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, literally means that *nothing* is deterministic at the most fundamental scale of our universe. There is no way to deny this--it is fact. -Maybe this will work better: Chance is the consciousness of the universe; just as you or I wouldn't be humans w/o a consciousness, neither can the universe be the universe without chance. -> Complexity is so important to this whole argument that I'd like to clarify my badly phrased remark: "the greater the number of parts, the more intelligence is needed to do the combining". You've quite rightly pointed out that "the scientists of today are no more intelligent than the scientists of 200 years ago; they just have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of those that came before them." What I was trying to say was: the greater the complexity, the greater the need for intelligence. A theistic analogy to human progress, then, would be God's progress as he learns from his experiments. 
> -The problem here, is that complex interactions always arise with many moving parts. If, I grab 100 chemicals and toss them into a pot, is what I did complex or not? Is it more complex if I individually string these reactions together? Or less? What if the result is the same either way?-And to borrow a page from your own book, how do we know that these things require more intelligence to build--when we only have a paradigm of human intelligence to follow, and life obviously doesn't use our design methodologies? -> Once again, my thanks for your Herculean efforts to make these complex (again!) arguments comprehensible.-What I need to do, is find a way to learn more about chemistry at the quantum level. After I do everything else here, like read the 2 books that David has on my plate, heh.

Post reply

3098 views


> And to borrow a page from your own book, how do we know that these things require more intelligence to build--when we only have a paradigm of human intelligence to follow, and life obviously doesn't use our design methodologies? -
And what is really happening is that we are using nanotechnology, which means that what we are often copying to use is already designed in nature for us to copy. Whether designed by chance or by a universal intelligence is a side issue. I think your philosophic approach to chance is a real stretch. The best theories simplify, not confuse. Chance can be confined to the odds for chance at each level of organization. To build living matter from inorganic chemicals is a separate chance issue than studying the quantum flux in the plasma of the post-Planck universe.

Post reply

3119 views


> > And to borrow a page from your own book, how do we know that these things require more intelligence to build--when we only have a paradigm of human intelligence to follow, and life obviously doesn't use our design methodologies? 
> 
> 
> And what is really happening is that we are using nanotechnology, which means that what we are often copying to use is already designed in nature for us to copy. Whether designed by chance or by a universal intelligence is a side issue. I think your philosophic approach to chance is a real stretch. The best theories simplify, not confuse. Chance can be confined to the odds for chance at each level of organization. To build living matter from inorganic chemicals is a separate chance issue than studying the quantum flux in the plasma of the post-Planck universe.-But the chance nature of quantum physics is still intrinsic to chemistry; it doesn't disappear. I know you're saying that we can't apply the high energy states during the big bang; plasma isn't life. But the quantum nature of physics still permeates life today. Electrons in substances are still in superpositions... even if they're more restricted superpositions than they were previously. Especially when viewed in a quantum computational model... I think you should check out Lloyd's book. -Also, reading up on symmetry/super-symmetry; these phenomena are presently untested hypotheses and therefore can be excluded from this discussion.

Post reply

3002 views


> Chance can be confined to the odds for chance at each level of organization. .-Sorry. I still don't buy the approach. Chance can be measured at each level of organization without worrying what the quanta within molecules are doing. I think you have worked your theory into a corner.

Post reply

3044 views


> > Chance can be confined to the odds for chance at each level of organization. .
> 
> Sorry. I still don't buy the approach. Chance can be measured at each level of organization without worrying what the quanta within molecules are doing. I think you have worked your theory into a corner.-When one spins around in circles, one must eventually fall.

Post reply

3023 views

MATT: In order to say something ISN'T by chance, we have to be able to exclude chance from the explanation [...] But in order to exclude chance as a cause, you have to demonstrate that 4 or 5 happened by the result of some will. Which I believe is systematically impossible.-We may have gone as far as we can go on this thread, but there are still a few bones I'm gnawing at, just in case there's a bit of marrow left. You seem to be concentrating now on explaining why we cannot exclude chance, but I have never disputed this. What I dispute is your insistence that ALL order literally arose by chance (see later). Even if 1, 2 and 3 were the indispensable chance forerunners to 4 and 5, that doesn't exclude design at levels 4 and 5. And so while I agree with your reasoning above, it also works inversely: "In order to exclude design as a cause, you have to demonstrate that 4 or 5 [life and consciousness] happened by the result of chance. Which I believe is systematically impossible." Again and again, the argument boils down to what we as individuals regard as credible, or as David says: "the odds for chance at each level of organization". -You say: "Chance is the consciousness of the universe; just as you or I wouldn't be human w/o a consciousness, neither can the universe be the universe without chance." True, but even if a theist accepts the big bang and the formation of matter as chance events (I'd better leave out our planet), it needn't stop him from saying the universe wouldn't be the universe without design. -On the subject of complexity, you give the example of tossing 100 chemicals into a pot. Chemistry is not my subject, and as you are a literary man as well as a scientist, let me change the example. If we put 500 letters in a hat, drew them out one by one and laid them side by side, I would say the resultant gibberish was not complex. But if they formed a Shakespeare sonnet, I'd say the result was complex. The gibberish has no interconnected parts. The sonnet has. Perhaps, though, in our definition, we should add the rider that the interconnected parts must form a meaningful whole.-Hence I argue that the greater the complexity, the greater the need for intelligence. You have "borrowed a page" from me to argue against intelligence because we only have the paradigm of human intelligence to follow, and life doesn't use our design methodologies. This, however, is precisely the argument I have used to counter the absurd claim of people like Rosenhouse, Christina and others that life and evolution are exactly what we would expect of a chance creation. They can't possibly know that. Once again, the argument cuts both ways. All these arguments cut both ways. And that's why I don't believe in a designer, but equally I don't believe in the inventive genius of chance, and I don't believe we can say that all order arose by chance. I wonder, though, in the light of your reservations concerning life and consciousness, whether you might consider a slight adaptation. Your premise is that the universe, matter and our planet were formed by chance, so how about "all order arose out of chance" instead of "arose by chance"? That would at least leave some options open for you.

Post reply

3087 views

dhw,
Poignant and thorough as usual: 
> On the subject of complexity, you give the example of tossing 100 chemicals into a pot. Chemistry is not my subject, and as you are a literary man as well as a scientist, let me change the example. If we put 500 letters in a hat, drew them out one by one and laid them side by side, I would say the resultant gibberish was not complex. But if they formed a Shakespeare sonnet, I'd say the result was complex. The gibberish has no interconnected parts. The sonnet has. Perhaps, though, in our definition, we should add the rider that the interconnected parts must form a meaningful whole.
> -Whilst I may be just playing the devil here, the fact that a judgment must be made that shakespeare is complex and random letters is not, doesn't this mean that an interpretation must be made, and that therefore there will be some bias as to what is "intelligent" and what "isn't?" If we're talking about an unknown intelligence, what if randomness IS its design methodology? -> Hence I argue that the greater the complexity, the greater the need for intelligence. You have "borrowed a page" from me to argue against intelligence because we only have the paradigm of human intelligence to follow, and life doesn't use our design methodologies. This, however, is precisely the argument I have used to counter the absurd claim of people like Rosenhouse, Christina and others that life and evolution are exactly what we would expect of a chance creation. They can't possibly know that. Once again, the argument cuts both ways. All these arguments cut both ways. And that's why I don't believe in a designer, but equally I don't believe in the inventive genius of chance, and I don't believe we can say that all order arose by chance. I wonder, though, in the light of your reservations concerning life and consciousness, whether you might consider a slight adaptation. Your premise is that the universe, matter and our planet were formed by chance, so how about "all order arose out of chance" instead of "arose by chance"? That would at least leave some options open for you.-In the end, I'm still left where I was standing before. I hope some of this exercise was useful to either yourself or David. I'm certainly not sure of anything.

Post reply

2998 views


> In the end, I'm still left where I was standing before. I hope some of this exercise was useful to either yourself or David. I'm certainly not sure of anything.-Yours is the best position. Uncertainty will be a great guide to thinking and exploring.

Post reply

3017 views

MATT: The fact that a judgment must be made that Shakespeare is complex and random letters is not, doesn't this mean that an interpretation must be made, and that therefore there will be some bias as to what is "intelligent" and what "isn't"? If we're talking about an unknown intelligence, what if randomness IS its design methodology?-My answer to your first question would be yes, but as usual there has to be a consensus. I don't think anyone on this website would disagree that a Shakespeare sonnet requires more intelligence to assemble than a jumble of higgledy-piggledy letters. We would all agree that a machine which works suggests design. We have to make these commonsense judgements in order to hold a rational discussion. -Your second question has rich potential! We would need to know what degree of randomness we're talking about. If it's total (= atheism), we needn't bother with the concept of intelligence. A designer has no part to play. But if some sort of "mind" has set up a mechanism that entails a DEGREE of randomness ... e.g. a form of life capable of random variations ... then it's a force to be reckoned with. If it sometimes interferes with the way the mechanism functions ... e.g. experimenting with new organs ... then I'd like to know a bit more about it. If it takes an ongoing, active interest in the random results of its experiments (e.g. how humans cope with randomness), I'd like to know a lot more about it! But as far as deciding WHETHER there is such an intelligence at work, we can only go back to the subjective judgement you summarize in your first question. Do we or don't we consider the mechanism for life/reproduction/evolution to be so complex that it must be the product of a conscious intelligence? My answer is the same as yours. You say:-In the end, I'm still left where I was standing before. [...] I'm certainly not sure of anything. -Nor am I. You hope, though that "some of this exercise was useful either to yourself or David". Yes indeed. And I hope you find the discussions useful too. You always bring lots of fresh angles to our attention, and it's thanks to you, David, George, BBella and various others who have contributed at different times to this forum that (here comes a nice oxymoron for you) I feel I'm gradually becoming a more knowledgeable ignoramus! Perhaps that's the best any of us can hope for.

Post reply

3042 views

In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I don't have a problem with the idea that chance governs many events within the universe and within our own world. It's only the comprehensiveness of your first statement that puzzles me. And this leads me to the last puzzle for today. Again under 'Programming the Universe', you say Lloyd answers the question "How does complexity arise?" by modifying the paradigm from a "mechanical machine" to "a machine that processes information". Doesn't this answer increase the likelihood of an intelligence within the universe, as opposed to its operating at random?-We need to keep separate the idea of "physical information" and what we're used to seeing for information. In my area--information science--information is described as what we extract from data. When I build a function to describe the months sales data, I'm extracting all the information from the collected transactions. In order to extract data, there must be judgment about what is "good" and "bad" data. I have to gloss over some mathematical details, but in short, quantum systems actually *create information!* And yes, I do mean "created." When they talk about quantum mechanics being unintuitive, this is exactly what causes the mental implosion for many people. Quantum particles are your "monkeys," except instead of being at a typewriter they're behind a computer screen--writing a program. (A detail for later.) So in short, no decision needs to be made concerning data or to extract information, the laws of physics are deterministic in this regard as they amplify quantum processes to a visible level.-The next question here might be, what exactly is "information processing?" This answer is simple: When two particles collide, they have data; direction, velocity, energy, etc. When they collide, they exchange this data and information is created. (processed) -The final answer here, is that the universe viewed as a machine that processes information requires no more or less intelligence than any other physical view that has come before.

Post reply

3045 views

The more the machinations of cellular molecules are discovered the more irreducible complexity is apparent. In this study a molecular switch is demonstrated in exact detail as to hows it turns itself on and off so as to control or not control a process in the cell. And more 'junk' goes by the wayside. Most genome junk has a purpose. It is a shame that scientists in the past, had to have so much ego, as know-it-alls,that if they hadn't or couldn't figure out a function for a section of protein or of DNA, it had to be 'junk'.-http://www.fccc.edu/news/2009/2009-05-26-roder.html

Post reply

3017 views

The more the machinations of cellular molecules are discovered the more irreducible complexity is apparent. In this study a molecular switch is demonstrated in exact detail as to hows it turns itself on and off so as to control or not control a process in the cell. And more 'junk' goes by the wayside. Most genome junk has a purpose. It is a shame that scientists in the past, had to have so much ego, as know-it-alls,that if they hadn't or couldn't figure out a function for a section of protein or of DNA, it had to be 'junk'.
> 
> http://www.fccc.edu/news/2009/2009-05-26-roder.html-To be fair, they also lacked alot of the modern computational tools developed over the past ten years that actually allow for complex analyses. -And then there's the obvious one, probably more salient than arrogance: Laziness.

Post reply

3041 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Irreducible Complexity (Introduction)