Irreducible Complexity (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, January 09, 2010, 17:08 (5228 days ago) @ xeno6696

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.