Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is complexity an argument against design?
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5749 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 1 of 142 (283432)
02-02-2006 12:48 PM


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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ramoss, posted 02-02-2006 6:15 PM Alasdair has not replied
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 10:21 PM Alasdair has not replied
 Message 7 by smokeyvw, posted 02-02-2006 10:46 PM Alasdair has not replied
 Message 15 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-15-2006 10:06 PM Alasdair has not replied
 Message 22 by Philajnjjj, posted 04-26-2006 3:13 PM Alasdair has not replied
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 07-15-2006 4:50 PM Alasdair has not replied
 Message 36 by 42, posted 12-09-2006 3:07 PM Alasdair has not replied
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 07-18-2008 9:22 PM Alasdair has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 142 (283485)
02-02-2006 4:52 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 3 of 142 (283509)
02-02-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Alasdair
02-02-2006 12:48 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Alasdair, posted 02-02-2006 12:48 PM Alasdair has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 4 of 142 (283555)
02-02-2006 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Alasdair
02-02-2006 12:48 PM


like ramoss said, crystals defy this.
salt crystals actually form perfect cubes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Alasdair, posted 02-02-2006 12:48 PM Alasdair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 10:33 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied
 Message 6 by smokeyvw, posted 02-02-2006 10:36 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 142 (283560)
02-02-2006 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by macaroniandcheese
02-02-2006 10:21 PM


no, salt forms PILLARS. read your bible, silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 10:21 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
smokeyvw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 142 (283562)
02-02-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by macaroniandcheese
02-02-2006 10:21 PM


mandelbrot
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 10:21 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Rob, posted 01-08-2007 9:41 PM smokeyvw has not replied

  
smokeyvw
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 142 (283564)
02-02-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Alasdair
02-02-2006 12:48 PM


signs of (intelligent) life
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Alasdair, posted 02-02-2006 12:48 PM Alasdair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 10:54 PM smokeyvw has not replied
 Message 13 by anglagard, posted 04-15-2006 2:23 PM smokeyvw has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 8 of 142 (283565)
02-02-2006 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by smokeyvw
02-02-2006 10:46 PM


Re: signs of (intelligent) life
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by smokeyvw, posted 02-02-2006 10:46 PM smokeyvw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Omnivorous, posted 02-02-2006 11:31 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 12 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-15-2006 2:42 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 9 of 142 (283566)
02-02-2006 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by arachnophilia
02-02-2006 10:54 PM


Re: signs of (intelligent) life
I think clear signs of failure would be the only irrefutable proof of intelligent design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 10:54 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-15-2006 3:41 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Giristino
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 142 (304263)
04-14-2006 3:42 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ReverendDG, posted 04-14-2006 9:25 PM Giristino has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 11 of 142 (304325)
04-14-2006 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Giristino
04-14-2006 3:42 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Giristino, posted 04-14-2006 3:42 PM Giristino has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 12 of 142 (304375)
04-15-2006 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by arachnophilia
02-02-2006 10:54 PM


Re: signs of (intelligent) life
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 10:54 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by arachnophilia, posted 04-16-2006 11:00 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 13 of 142 (304450)
04-15-2006 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by smokeyvw
02-02-2006 10:46 PM


Re: signs of (intelligent) life
I have been in the desert and picked up a (to all appearances) perfect cube. The cube was pyrite aka fool's gold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by smokeyvw, posted 02-02-2006 10:46 PM smokeyvw has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 14 of 142 (304463)
04-15-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Omnivorous
02-02-2006 11:31 PM


Re: signs of (intelligent) life
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Omnivorous, posted 02-02-2006 11:31 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 15 of 142 (304513)
04-15-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Alasdair
02-02-2006 12:48 PM


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.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Alasdair, posted 02-02-2006 12:48 PM Alasdair has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024