How do you plan to measure complexity?

[Bradskii]

I have been gone for a week. Scanning the posts does not show much progress in how to measure complexity.

What is the consensus so far? or the sticky point?

If you check your icon on the top right, it will indicate how many responses you have had to any post you have made. You might see a couple from me asking you how we are to measure complexity.

We’re all keen to be enlightened. You have the floor.

 

[Gorgias]

This is so “generic” that it is useless.

I’m sorry you feel that way.

What about the ones who were born before Christ?

I’ve already addressed this. The souls of the righteous dead, who lived before Christ’s Incarnation, awaited him in what is known as “the Bosom of Abraham”. After Christ’s death, He went to them, and took them with Him to heaven.

You now say that “ believing in Christ, adhering to his teachings and following his church ” WILL “ earn ” you salvation. Which means that none of the unbaptized will “earn” salvation. None of the people who were born before Christ will “earn” salvation. None of those who are not actually “catholics” will “earn” salvation.

No, on two counts:

• First of all, no one ‘earns’ salvation. It is a gift (a ‘grace’, if you will) from God.
• Second, you’re cherry-picking my answer for Catholics as if it’s the only answer the Church provides. It isn’t.

In any case, we’re just going around in circles now. I keep telling you what the Church teaches, and you keep claiming that the teaching is different from what it is.

 

[o_mlly]

In any case, we’re just going around in circles now. I keep telling you what the Church teaches, and you keep claiming that the teaching is different from what it is.

Catholics in this forum, from time to time, endure posts from non-Catholics whose depth in our faith is about the same as a bird bath. And yet, they try to teach us what they have not yet learned. Pray for them, brother.

 

[Gorgias]

Catholics in this forum, from time to time, endure posts from non-Catholics whose depth in our faith is about the same as a bird bath. And yet, they try to teach us what they have not yet learned. Pray for them, brother.

Very true. And yet, in @Sophia’s profile, he claims he’s a Catholic, and has spoken, from time to time, about his “priest”. Not very skilled in troll-craft, perhaps?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I have been gone for a week. Scanning the posts does not show much progress in how to measure complexity.

What is the consensus so far? or the sticky point?

Hi Buffalo! Thank goodness you’re back. There has been some quite persistent and sincere inquiry into what complexity is, how you measure it, and how you distinguish one kind of complexity from another, but not a single Creationist has been able to answer. Most of those commenting here have denied that they are sensible questions in the first place, one got as far as “you know it when you see it”, and one said you could count a thing’s genes, making a pocket-watch (zero genes) as complex as a salt crystal (also zero genes).

So you’re one your own! How do you measure complexity?

 

[Vonsalza]

@Gorgias and @Sophia,

I think you guys may want to consider hanging it up. I think you’ve been rhetorically circling for quite a while and my personal rule is to quit when that occurs.

 

[Sophia]

I think you guys may want to consider hanging it up. I think you’ve been rhetorically circling for quite a while and my personal rule is to quit when that occurs.

Good idea. It is getting rather boring. And it has nothing to do with the topic, anyhow.

 

[buffalo]

How do you measure complexity.

1. We know it when we see it, we recognize design, since it was cognized.

When digging in the ground we come across buried ancient pottery. We know it was designed. How? Because we have seen a modern comparative object that we know is designed. We do not measure in this case, we infer the design.

1. SETI measures design by comparing background noise with a measured emergent signal of some persistence.

In a prior post someone asked if all Creation is designed how do we measure it in the case of the naturally formed rocks vs the faces carved in Mt Rushford.

So I will put on my engineering hat. Let’s call the naturally formed rocks as designed background noise, (similar to a designed carrier signal so to speak)… Emerging from the designed background noise is a signal, (the faces) that are information packed. An analogy would be an FM broadcast signal. The carrier signal is designed and so is the information content riding on it. We tune the stationa and hear a talk program or music. This is measured and amplified and we hear the broadcast which is far richer in information content than the carrier signal is. They are both designed and we can measure the amplitude differences. We have automated this design detection.

Automatic signal finders are another example, They scan the sky for measurable differences and then orient themselves to the strongest measured signal.

Emerging from the naturally designed rocks at Mt Rushmore is information that translated are the faces of 4 presidents. We can measure the features of the faces and conclude design.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Yes. I gather that when we see a patch of rock that looks like some presidents, we conclude design. Presumably this is based on us knowing what the presidents look like, although we could also say that a patch of rock looking like any group of people would appear equally designed. The point is that we need to have something with which to refer the patch of rock to. Is it possible to infer design without anything to use as a reference point? Can we only conclude that an elephant is designed because it looks like an elephant, or is there a more objective way of assessing the information.

Could an alien from a distant galaxy who had never seen a human recognise design from Mount Rushmore, and if so, how?

 

[Bradskii]

That’s detection of apparent design, Buffalo. Not measurement.

ID claims that complexity implies design. So how do we measure it and at what point does it move from something entirely natural and complex to something designed and complex. How do we differentiate between the two?

 

[rossum]

How do you measure complexity.

1. We know it when we see it, we recognize design, since it was cognized.

When digging in the ground we come across buried ancient pottery. We know it was designed. How? Because we have seen a modern comparative object that we know is designed. We do not measure in this case, we infer the design.

Is an octopus designed? We have no agreed designed object to compare with an octopus. Some people will say, “It looks designed to me,” and others will say, “It evolved and was not designed.” This method only works when there is an agreed equivalent to the modern designed pottery.

It is not a way to measure complexity, as the thread title asks.

SETI measures design by comparing background noise with a measured emergent signal of some persistence.

Again, we know that most background noise is natural, not designed. However, not all non-background signals are designed. When the first pulsar was discovered, one of the hypotheses considered was the LGM hypothesis: Little Green Men. In effect a design hypothesis. Despite not being part of the background noise, the pulsar signal was determined to be of natural origin and a satisfactory non-design explanation found: a rotating neutron star.

This example also fails to provide a measure of complexity. It is a valid way to pick out any interesting signals from the background, but it is not of any use in proceeding beyond that to determine whether or not the unusual signal is designed or not.

It is also worth pointing out that in some cases, often in cryptography or secure communications, signals are designed to appear as random background noise – steganography for instance. Some background noise is designed, just as some non-background signals are not designed.

We are still awaiting a way to measure complexity.

rossum

PS: s/Rushford/Rushmore

 

[buffalo]

An alien may have to work a little is he had no reference.

Information is a measure. Comparison between the natural rock formation and the chiseled faces would tell the alien something is different here and worthy of investigation. The faces have specifications, and high amounts of FSCI.

The aliens could test it by throwing rocks in the air and see if they self assemble the faces. They could try other tests that mimic natural forces.

In the Star Trek movie a probe was sent up with a plaque and record. Amongst the sparseness of space and background the aliens inferred a designed object was in their midst.