How do you plan to measure complexity?

[Dan123]

Maybe for unbelievers, but for Christians, they have vastly different meanings.

That seems fair, but I guess one might ask how you determine it. If someone is sickly ill, someone walks into a closet and closes the door, you hear them recite something but through the door you have no idea if it’s a prayer or incantation, but soon after emerging it becomes clear the ill person is recovering.

Do we praise this person as one of God’s healing miracle workers or shun them as a heretic for toying with the occult? Do we conclude that we like the outcome (a sick person being ill) that is was a ‘good’ act and therefore likely to have a divine connection? At any point do we given consideration to coincidence?

 

[Vonsalza]

Ok, I’ll play!

“What is this attribute, we call ‘complexity’?”

Leaning on Oxford as I like to do, I have;
The state or quality of being intricate or complicated.

Tailored to biology, a wiki reasonably gives me;
the actual level of complexity is very hard to define or measure accurately in biology, with properties such as gene content, the number of cell types or morphology all proposed as possible metrics.

Is it an objective, intrinsic attribute, or a subjective, extrinsic one?

It presently seems a judgement. Now this tilts us toward extrinsic per your device. But if a commonly accepted measure were to come about (like how a “mile” eventually became standardized… somewhat…), like gene count, then it would tilt toward intrinsic. But for now, it seems the former holds sway.

“How do we measure the complexity of an object?”

Interested parties would need to form a consensus. Off-the-cuff, I presently vote gene count.

“is there a reason to assume that complex objects require an outside designer / creator ?”

Hard, maybe somewhat loaded question. If I can add “any more than less complex objects?”, I’d say “no”. But I don’t invoke complexity as a requisite for divine involvement. “The creator creates all things”. Something like that is more akin to my belief. And not necessarily by divine poof. I’m not opposed to a progressive creation like evolution.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Interested parties would need to form a consensus. Off-the-cuff, I presently vote gene count.

So… I’m comparing the complexity of the international Space Space Station (gene-count: 0) and a salt crystal (gene-count: 0). Yup. Both the same…

 

[Sophia]

Ok, I’ll play!

Thank you. I appreciate it.

The state or quality of being intricate or complicated.

Of course this is a tautology. (What is beautiful? The state or quality of having beauty. Not helpful. As the saying goes: “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”.) Complexity is in the eyes of the beholder. Let’s look at “heaviness” as another example. “Weight” is an objective attribute, measurable on a scale. “Heaviness” is a subjective assessment of something. The same object is “heavy” for one person, and “light” for someone else. Imagine yourself as a contender on Jeopardy playing against IBM’s Watson. For us, even including the best players (Ken Jennings) the questions are much more difficult than for Watson.

the actual level of complexity is very hard to define or measure accurately in biology, with properties such as gene content, the number of cell types or morphology all proposed as possible metrics.

Yes, very hard to measure… since there is no objective definition of what is complexity. Now, I was looking for a generic concept, which could be applied to biology, as a special case.

It presently seems a judgement. Now this tilts us toward extrinsic per your device. But if a commonly accepted measure were to come about (like how a “mile” eventually became standardized… somewhat…), like gene count, then it would tilt toward intrinsic. But for now, it seems the former holds sway.

Right on. This is my view, too.

Hard, maybe somewhat loaded question. If I can add “any more than less complex objects?”, I’d say “no”. But I don’t invoke complexity as a requisite for divine involvement. “The creator creates all things”. Something like that is more akin to my belief. And not necessarily by divine poof. I’m not opposed to a progressive creation like evolution.

Nor do I. As I said in the OP, the main target audience was the proponents of “intelligent design”. Well, this was a pretty satisfactory exchange of ideas, as far as I am concerned. Thank you for your time and effort.

 

[Bradskii]

In passing, if we (eventually) get a method of determining complexity, is there then a line which delineates that which has occured naturally versus that which was designed?

Or does low complexity mean that God only had to make a few minor adjustments and high complexity meant that He had to work the weekend?

 

[Vonsalza]

In passing, if we (eventually) get a method of determining complexity, is there then a line which delineates that which has occured naturally versus that which was designed?

I’m not entirely convinced that the number of people who require this line in the sand is sufficiently large enough to trouble ourselves with it. Most of them live near me and are decidedly not Catholic.

Or does low complexity mean that God only had to make a few minor adjustments and high complexity meant that He had to work the weekend?

From the book, it all seems to have happened pretty quickly. Few days. With design phase being outside time, or something like that.

 

[o_mlly]

Premise: an effect cannot have a property not present in one or more of its causes actually or potentially.

Complex property --a property, attribute or faculty observed in the descendant that does not exist in its progenitors. If the property observed is complex then a “creator” or third party, if you like, was involved in causing the existence of the descendant.

My general point is that chemical compounds often have properties that are not found in any of their constituent elements.

The important point is that science cannot explain the cause of novel properties.

Under the principle of sufficient reason (a thing cannot give what it does not already possess), all effects must have causes. The principle stands right up there with non-contradiction.

That science cannot explain the cause does not mean that the cause does not exist. Labeling the unknown as “emergent” and then shrugging the shoulders, as if simply naming it explains it, just will not do.

Your attempt to conflate emergent properties with complexity and hence design is incorrect.

“Emergent” and “complex,” in this context, describe the identical property. The honest scientist, in the presence of a such a property, admits his ignorance, “I do not know how (causation) that property came into existence.” The honest scientist then must leave the field. Philosophy to the front, please.

 

[Gorgias]

Right now, you’re making your opponents’ case for them.

Nah, not really. I’m just reminding folks of something they (should?) already know: secular scholars of the history of religion (e.g., Eliade) make the case that some of the gods of the ancients were made up as a way to explain natural phenomena (lightning, thunder, earthquakes, volcanoes). From a secular perspective, that really does work as an argument… but it doesn’t work in explaining the Abrahamic God.

Now, for us as Christians, we have two choices: we can dig our heads in the sand and pretend that these theories aren’t out there… or we can admit their presence, while nevertheless contending that they don’t hold for God.

That’s not “proving the other side’s case” – it’s just recognizing one of the arguments our interlocutors might use.

 

[Gorgias]

Exactly. The theologian starts with an assumption, not with knowledge.

The scientist starts with the assumption: “we don’t know”. If, and only if, there is sufficient evidence to move away from that initial assumption will science make a statement.

Actually, I disagree. Both theologians and scientists start with the same assumption: that it is possible to know. They then take the tools of their trade, and work out their search for knowledge. A Christian theologian will assert that his knowledge comes from sifting through the self-revelation of God in history, and will build a case based on that font of knowledge. A scientist, on the other hand, will assert that his knowledge comes from sifting through data gained by empirical observation, and will build a case based on that font of knowledge. There is an art and a science to both disciplines – they just work from different types of sources. One is not, by definition, less rigorous a scholar than the other…

They’re less dissimilar than you might think, @Rossum…

 

[Sophia]

Under the principle of sufficient reason (a thing cannot give what it does not already possess), all effects must have causes. The principle stands right up there with non-contradiction.

Actually, it does not. The PSR is limited. If one would consider it to be general, it would lead to an infinite regress of explanations. There would be no “brute facts”. And yet, uncaused events are dime a dozen. Every time a new piece of music, literature, piece of art or a new artifact is produced - due to exercising our free will - it is an uncaused action. You cannot have a “caused, free action” - that would be an oxymoron.

Not that this has anything to do with “complexity” or the measurement of it.

 

[o_mlly]

Actually, it does not. The PSR is limited. If one would consider it to be general, it would lead to an infinite regress of explanations. There would be no “brute facts”. And yet, uncaused events are dime a dozen. Every time a new piece of music, literature, piece of art or a new artifact is produced - due to exercising our free will - it is an uncaused action. You cannot have a “caused, free action” - that would be an oxymoron.

Not that this has anything to do with “complexity” or the measurement of it.

I see the same “science shuffle” here. That one does not know something does not mean that something is unknowable.

As to free will acts being un-caused:

Murderer to the judge:
Yes, your honor, I murdered the whole family but I didn’t cause it.
Judge to the murderer:
What? Did you not freely with premeditation kill those innocent people.
Murderer to the judge:
Ture enough, but I didn’t cause it. Them bodies is just artifacts of what I done. You know, tis one of those “brute facts”, your honor, we’ll never know what caused those people to die.

 

[Gorgias]

Every time a new piece of music, literature, piece of art or a new artifact is produced - due to exercising our free will - it is an uncaused action. You cannot have a “caused, free action” - that would be an oxymoron.

I get it that this is your opinion. It’s one of the opinions out there on how to understand free will.

Please realize, however, that not everyone agrees with this perspective, however. And, if someone disagrees with this – the grounds of your argument – you shouldn’t be surprised if they cannot accept the conclusions that you reach which are, in part, based on this idea. @o_mlly points out one of the problems of your perspective on free will.

 

[rossum]

The important point is that science cannot explain the cause of novel properties.

Again, you are in error. Science can explain the cause of many emergent properties. Not all, but many can be explained.

Under the principle of sufficient reason (a thing cannot give what it does not already possess), all effects must have causes. The principle stands right up there with non-contradiction.

Again, you are wrong. A carcinogenic chemical can cause cancer, yet that chemical is not itself infected with cancer. A mutagenic chemical can result in a new DNA sequence yet that chemical does not itself have any DNA sequence.

Given that 1 + 1 = 2, then “2” is an emergent, which is not present in either the first or the second “1”. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the number 1 contains a hidden 2 inside itself? If so then why do we not see 1 + 1 = 4? With two 1s present, we have two hidden 2s, and 2 + 2 = 4.

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

“Emergent” and “complex,” in this context, describe the identical property. The honest scientist, in the presence of a such a property, admits his ignorance, “I do not know how (causation) that property came into existence.” The honest scientist then must leave the field. Philosophy to the front, please.

I’m afraid I disagree with all of this. I’m not even sure what it means. I’m thinking you are taking “intelligence” as a property of some animal life, and “emergent” and “complex” as descriptions of this property. Although I think that intelligence is indeed both complex and emergent, I don’t think the two are synonymous, and I don’t think that the scientist need admit ignorance. If we agree that intelligence is an emergent property, then we know exactly how it came into existence. As with most emergent properties, its basis is very simple - in this case a multiplication of neuronal contacts within a brain. Of course, the nature of the totality of intelligence is still much discussed, but aspects of it, such as memory, recognition, problem-solving and decision-making, can be reduced to a simple plethora of feed-back mechanisms. This is the basis of Artificial Intelligence.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I see the same “science shuffle” here. That one does not know something does not mean that something is unknowable.

Do you agree or disagree with this? I can’t tell.

 

[Sophia]

One is not, by definition, less rigorous a scholar than the other…
They’re less dissimilar than you might think, @Rossum…

Formally, they are equivalent, certainly. Of course there is a “minor”, almost “insignificant” difference between the two of them. Just like there is an itty-bitty difference between the logically valid and logically sound syllogisms.

Every elephant can play the piano.
Jumbo is an elephant.
Therefore Jumbo can play the piano.

Formally, this is a perfectly “fine” syllogism. Realistically, not so much. The starting point of the scientist is verifiable by anyone, it does not have be accepted based upon faith. That is not an insignificant difference.

As to free will acts being un-caused:

You are mistaken. The death IS caused by the action. If the will to commit the act would be caused by some external force, it would not be “free”. And no judge would deliver a guilty verdict, if the killer would be forced to commit the act.

 

[o_mlly]

Again, you are in error. Science can explain the cause of many emergent properties. Not all, but many can be explained.

Really? Do you have examples of the “many” emergent properties that science has explained? What scientific method was employed to tease out those causes?

Remember, an explanation tells us how a property came to be (its causal chain) and is different than simply telling us what the novel property is (its content).

Again, you are wrong. A carcinogenic chemical can cause cancer, yet that chemical is not itself infected with cancer. A mutagenic chemical can result in a new DNA sequence yet that chemical does not itself have any DNA sequence.

Try again. Cancer, or any other disease, is not a property of a being. At most, illness or lack of illness, is an accidental, transient condition much like hunger. For example, my dog is hungry before I fed him and after being fed is sated. Feeding the dog does not change the properties that determine its “dogginess.” Uncontrolled disease or hunger can kill a living being but that in itself does not make disease or hunger a property of that being.

Given that 1 + 1 = 2, then “2” is an emergent, which is not present in either the first or the second “1”. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the number 1 contains a hidden 2 inside itself? If so then why do we not see 1 + 1 = 4? With two 1s present, we have two hidden 2s, and 2 + 2 = 4.

Abstractions are mental constructs. I presume you are in number base 10. If not, then 1 + 1 does not equal 2. What does “emergent” mean in a math context? Math, an exact science, seems able to explain its properties quite well.

 

[o_mlly]

You are mistaken. The death IS caused by the action. If the will to commit the act would be caused by some external force, it would not be “free”. And no judge would deliver a guilty verdict, if the killer would be forced to commit the act.

Oh, OK.

Murderer:
Your honor, the devil made me do it!
Judge:
Case dismissed.

 

[Dan123]

Abstractions are mental constructs. I presume you are in number base 10. If not, then 1 + 1 does not equal 2.

It does, the way we write the number isn’t the same as the number. You knew what he meant.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m afraid I disagree with all of this. I’m not even sure what it means. I’m thinking you are taking “intelligence” as a property of some animal life, and “emergent” and “complex” as descriptions of this property.

We need not go so far as the property of intelligence. Let’s let scientist defines his own terms.

In examining the scientists’ responses so far, it appears “complex” and “emergent” mean the same: any property that is observed but its existence cannot be explained.