Irreducible Complexity (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, January 11, 2010, 23:44 (5429 days ago) @ David Turell


> > 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.

--
\"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.\"