|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Is complexity an argument against design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
Hi everybody. This is stolen from an article I read sometime ago, no clue what the name is.
When you come across a pile of rocks, and pick one of them up, you can quickly see how complex it is. The probability of that rock having formed in that exact shape is astronomically small. It'll be such a complex shape, and would take so many parameters to fully describe it. On the other hand, you could come across a perfect cube in the rock pile, and infer that it is designed - because it's so simple. You could just use one parameter to describe it (length or width or depth). Doesn't simplicity infer design rather than complexity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Can we see how complex it is?
How do you meaure complexity? And why should simplicity have to do with design. Crystals can be quite simple, yet no design went into them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
like ramoss said, crystals defy this.
salt crystals actually form perfect cubes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
no, salt forms PILLARS. read your bible, silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
smokeyvw Inactive Member |
I find it amazing that some very simple equations and a high speed computer can produce incredibly complex looking, intricate images.
I think Mandelbrot was one of the first people to bring this to everyone's attention, although someone else had an inkling of it too, and far earlier (maybe Poincare?) So are these images truly complex or not? Just asking... I've never quite settled on an answer for myself on this. This message has been edited by smokeyvw, 02-02-2006 10:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
smokeyvw Inactive Member |
OK, I'll bite. If I were out in a desert somewhere and found an artifact like the cube you describe, I would assume some intelligent being made it.
I might be wrong to assume that, but it's a pretty good guess given the way the natural world seems. Stuff like rocks are everywhere. A perfect cube would be very unusual.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
it has been formally suggest before that the an appropriate message signifying intelligent origin is an equilateral triangle. something about the unity of mathematical beauty, and the fact that it does not occur in any precise form in nature. i'm not sure that latter bit is true, but the argument wasn't made by me.
probably not coincidentally, one of the original planned shapes for the iconic monoliths of 2001: a space odyssey was a tetrahedron (a perfect equilateral triangular solid). in the end, they went with a 1:4:9 rectangular sold -- the proportions representing the first three perfect squares. i'm not sure either is definitive proof of intelligent origin, but it's certainly better than anything id has to offer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
I think clear signs of failure would be the only irrefutable proof of intelligent design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Giristino Inactive Member |
The only reason normally shaped rocks seem usual is because that is reality, the way they were Created. We're used to how things actually are, so they seem normal, ordinary, and unintelligently designed, because that's all we know.
nire Aitarren naiz.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
The only reason normally shaped rocks seem usual is because that is reality, the way they were Created. We're used to how things actually are, so they seem normal, ordinary, and unintelligently designed, because that's all we know.
sorry but that line of thought is basicly wrong,what about things we create? we can even design objects that look natural (hard thing but possible) there are objects that look designed but arn't, how can you tell the difference anyway
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4754 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: it has been formally suggest before that the an appropriate message signifying intelligent origin is an equilateral triangle. something about the unity of mathematical beauty, and the fact that it does not occur in any precise form in nature. i'm not sure that latter bit is true, but the argument wasn't made by me. If I remember correctly, there's something about Lagrange points that forms an equilateral triangle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
I have been in the desert and picked up a (to all appearances) perfect cube. The cube was pyrite aka fool's gold.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6022 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I think clear signs of failure would be the only irrefutable proof of intelligent design. Like extinction? I think that's happened once or twice...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4754 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Alasdair writes: Doesn't simplicity infer design rather than complexity? No it doesn't imply design; as the rationale to value simplicity over complexity, and thus to assign simplicity as a secondary goal, isn't necessarily present. For example, something simple is easy for us to understand. However, take a hypothetical entity of infinite intelligence: To this entity, everything is equally easy to understand -- infinitely easy. So, the goal of, "making it easy to understand," would be equally met by something simple or insanely complex. (In fact, that goal would be meaningless.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024