Irreducible Complexity (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 09, 2010, 20:40 (5431 days ago) @ dhw

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.

--
\"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.\"