How do you plan to measure complexity?

[o_mlly]

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

The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

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.

I have followed this thread quite carefully, but cannot find that this is at all true. Some complexities are well understood and not emergent, such as the International Space Station. Some very simple things are emergent but not complex, like wetness. Something that can be observed but cannot be explained may be neither, either or both. The kind of complexity of which Sophia enquired in the OP has not been satisfactorily defined even by those who use it as a foundation of their beliefs, so it is difficult for a scientist to get to grips with it. The famous bacterial flagellum is quite a complex organelle, but does not ‘emerge’ in the sense that we are using the term. Intelligence (without which Intelligent Design is meaningless) may well be ‘emergent’, but whether the discovery that it is or isn’t will make it ‘explainable’ is impossible to predict.

The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

It is. We scientists do not argue from ignorance. Creationists often do, among numerous other logical fallacies.

 

[Gorgias]

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

it does equal 2, in all base systems, except binary (and unary).

In any case, @Dan123 is correct. Both “1+1=2” and “1+1=10” express the same truth, as does “| + | = ||”.

 

[Sophia]

Oh, OK.

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

As soon as the murderer can PROVE that the devil “made” him to do it, the case WILL be dismissed and rightfully so. But I don’t think that you will find a judge who would be that gullible to accept the defendant’s claim on his word alone. Maybe you would… I cannot know that. But most people demand proof, not just empty claims.

No matter how hard you try, the “free actions” are uncaused, and as such they refute the generality of PSR. Of course for the majority of the events, the PSR holds, but that is not what you tried to establish.

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).

One of these days you could enlighten those posters, who assert that “let there be light” is an “explanation” for the world pop into existence (giving us the understanding of the causal chain - not just “stipulating” that there is a causal chain).

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.

No, they are not the same. And the emergent properties CAN be explained, they just cannot be reduced to the “lower” level of existence.

 

[Gorgias]

One of these days you could enlighten those posters, who assert that “let there be light” is an “explanation” for the world pop into existence

It’s called a “performative speech act.” Standard part of linguistic theory.

 

[rossum]

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

Certainly. Valency is a property of atoms. It is not a property of the constituent parts of atoms: protons, neutrons and electrons. Valency is explained by the arrangement of the electrons in the outer shell of the atom.

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.

You appear to be using “being” here as a reified ideal. I reject all reification. Real imperfect humans have diseases, and those diseases are properties of that human being. Especially cancer, which is caused by changed in the human’s DNA in some cells. Are you saying that DNA does not count as a ‘property’ of a human being?

As to disease not being a property of a being, what about beings like the bacteria Yersinia pestis (Plague) or Vibrio cholerae (Cholera)? They cause diseases, and hence, by your own argument, contain the potential for those diseases.

What does “emergent” mean in a math context?

It means not present in the (name removed by moderator)uts, but present in the outputs.

rossum

 

[rossum]

it does equal 2, in all base systems, except binary (and unary).

It is a fun mathematical exercise to see how many different results can go on the RHS of “1 + 1 = …”

1 + 1 = 2 (base 3+)
1 + 1 = 10 (base 2)
1 + 1 = 11 (base 1)
1 + 1 = 0 (mod 2)
1 + 1 = 1 (logic)

Mathematics is highly dependent on the applicable context.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

it does equal 2, in all base systems, except binary (and unary).

In any case, @Dan123 is correct. Both “1+1=2” and “1+1=10” express the same truth, as does “| + | = ||”.

It is a fun mathematical exercise to see how many different results can go on the RHS of “1 + 1 = …”

1 + 1 = 2 (base 3+)
1 + 1 = 10 (base 2)
1 + 1 = 11 (base 1)
1 + 1 = 0 (mod 2)
1 + 1 = 1 (logic)

The point made, I hope, that given an understanding of math as an abstraction with precise rules, one can always predict in base 10 that 1 + 1 = 2. Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy.

Also note that 2 is not greater than 1 + 1, that is, not greater than the sum of its predicate parts. Therefore, 2 does not “emerge” as we use the term here as an unpredictable property which is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Sophia]

It’s called a “performative speech act.” Standard part of linguistic theory.

For the “new age” type of thinkers there is an expression: “you create with your mouth”, and they mean that “good” words have a beneficial effect on the health of the body, while “bad words” have a detrimental effect on the health of person who utters them. They might even have the conviction that a person has cancer, because she did not “love” herself. (I actually heard some new-agers to say this.) Of course doctors do not agree that “having bad thoughts” is an explanation for cancer.

I was not aware that this kind of nonsense is now a “standard part” of Catholicism. I hope it is not. My priest would never utter such weird proposition.

 

[o_mlly]

No matter how hard you try, the “free actions” are uncaused, and as such they refute the generality of PSR. Of course for the majority of the events, the PSR holds, but that is not what you tried to establish.

And no matter how hard you try, the human being is still an agent. But we don’t have to hammer that issue out in this thread. To move ahead, we agree PSR applies to inanimate beings. Back to you.

 

[o_mlly]

One of these days you could enlighten those posters, who assert that “let there be light” is an “explanation” for the world pop into existence (giving us the understanding of the causal chain - not just “ stipulating ” that there is a causal chain).

Start a new thread.

 

[Sophia]

And no matter how hard you try, the human being is still an agent.

What of it? Humans can be forced to do things they would not do, if they had the opportunity to act “freely” or “un-coerced”.

But we don’t have to hammer that issue out in this thread. To move ahead, we agree PSR applies to inanimate beings. Back to you.

Well, that is different. Not that I agree, since there is no reason to assume that the physical world is fully deterministic. But that does not really belong here. The question of complexity would have been the topic, if it would not have been clobbered to death by the derail attempts - the question of PSR is being one of them.

 

[o_mlly]

The question of complexity would have been the topic, if it would not have been clobbered to death by the derail attempts - the question of PSR is being one of them.

Not getting the answer one hoped for does not mean a thread was derailed. Good try though.

PSR applies to the thread’s question. First, an answer must define “complexity” in some numeric fashion. To do so, one may count all the the resultant’s properties (x) and count all the constituents’ properties . When x > y the resultant appears “complex.”

PSR tells us that y - x = 0. PSR tells us that the resultant only appears “complex” because we did not account for some property or some other constituent. Reality is singular and independent of our knowledge (or ignorance) about it. Back to you.

 

[rossum]

The point made, I hope, that given an understanding of math as an abstraction with precise rules, one can always predict in base 10 that 1 + 1 = 2. Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy.

You need to extend your rules further. In Chinese characters, ‘-’ is roughly equivalent to 1, ‘=’ is roughly equivalent to 2 and ‘+’ is roughly equivalent to 4. There are usually a great many unstated assumptions in any logical statement. Is “elf” the number 11, as in German, or is it a mythological humanoid, as in English?

Also note that 2 is not greater than 1 + 1, that is, not greater than the sum of its predicate parts. Therefore, 2 does not “emerge” as we use the term here as an unpredictable property which is greater than the sum of its parts.

It might be, depending on the surrounding terms and conditions. The bare statement “1 + 1 = 2” is undecidable, unless certain other conditions are included. 1 + 1 = 0, (mod 2) and 0 is less than 2 (base 8).

Currently ID’s proposed measures of complexity are in much the same state as a bare statement, without all the required definitions to give it an exact meaning. For example, both “Specified” and “Functional” have very imprecise definitions, which render any attempt to calculate FCSI basically useless.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

The point made, I hope, that given an understanding of math as an abstraction with precise rules, one can always predict in base 10 that 1 + 1 = 2. Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy.

“… given an understanding of math as an abstraction with precise rules.” Without knowing the precise rules, anything is possible but my premise does not allow unknown or hidden rules.

Currently ID’s proposed measures of complexity are in much the same state as a bare statement, without all the required definitions to give it an exact meaning. For example, both “Specified” and “Functional” have very imprecise definitions, which render any attempt to calculate FCSI basically useless.

That may well be true but I have not referred my argument to any ID proposed definitions.

 

[Gorgias]

For the “new age” type of thinkers there is an expression: “you create with your mouth”, and they mean that “good” words have a beneficial effect on the health of the body, while “bad words” have a detrimental effect on the health of person who utters them.

No. That is not what I’m referring to, here. Look up “linguistics performative speech act.” Google is your friend.

I was not aware that this kind of nonsense is now a “standard part” of Catholicism. I hope it is not. My priest would never utter such weird proposition.

It is not. However, we believe that God did create by simply willing it to be. In a narrative, that kind of “willing into being” is portrayed by a performative speech act. Your priest would stand behind this proposition…

 

[Sophia]

No. That is not what I’m referring to, here. Look up “linguistics performative speech act.” friend.

SSDD. If you what that means.

It is not. However, we believe that God did create by simply willing it to be. In a narrative, that kind of “willing into being” is portrayed by a performative speech act. Your priest would stand behind this proposition…

That is not the question. It is NOT an explanation. Whether you wish to call it a miracle or magic, it does not impart any NEW information that can be used in any sense. It is exactly the same thing as calling “bad thoughts as an explanation for cancer”.

 

[Sophia]

Not getting the answer one hoped for does not mean a thread was derailed.

No, it would not. I will give you another example to ponder. Look up the Mandelbrot set. It is infinitely complex, when you look at the computer generated picture. It would take infinitely many iteration to see the exact representation of it. On the other hand, if you know that it is the result of the iteration z = z^2 + a (where a is complex number) then it is a very simple quadratic function. Whether something is complex or simple is the result of the person’s knowledge contemplating it.

 

[o_mlly]

Whether something is complex or simple is the result of the person’s knowledge contemplating it.

I think not. Reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind. The statement above would not only turn that truth on its head but make the earth flat for anyone who has thought or continues to think it so.

(Thanks for the referral. The images are spectacular. Reminds one of the baroque glass in medieval stained glass.)

As the thinking mind changes with new or improved observations so does our knowledge of reality. Reality, though, does not change.

 

[Sophia]

I think not. Reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind. The statement above would not only turn that truth on its head but make the earth flat for anyone who has thought or continues to think it so.

Of course reality is independent of our thoughts. However, reality has many facets.

Let’s just look one thing, a physical object. Its “mass” is the same here on Earth, or on the Moon, or on the surface of the Sun, or in outer space. (You can measure the ‘mass’ objectively.) However, the “weight” is not the same. (In depends both on the ‘mass’ and the gravitational field where the object resides.) And the “heaviness” is definitely different, even on the same location. (It is continent on the mass, the gravitational field and the strength of the person who attempts to lift it.) Now comes the question: "is the complexity like the ‘mass’, or the ‘weight’ or the ‘heaviness’? You seem like to assert that it is like the ‘mass’, fully objective - though there is no objective mathematical value you can assign to it. I say that it is like ‘heaviness’, which has an objective part, and also the subjective assessment of it.

(Thanks for the referral. The images are spectacular. Reminds one of the baroque glass in medieval stained glass.)

You are most welcome. I wrote many programs to display it, pretty much in every computer language I ever learned. (About a dozen or more… ) A wonderful object, and very much fun to display it. But the question is still the same: is the Mandelbrot set ‘simple’ or ‘complicated’?

As the thinking mind changes with new or improved observations so does our knowledge of reality. Reality, though, does not change.

Sure. The question is still what I wrote in the first paragraph on this post.