How do you plan to measure complexity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sophia

Guest
The title says it all. The question is directed toward those who believe that beyond a certain level of complexity it is justified to assume that a “creator” was involved. They might assert that “simple” things do not require the assumption of a creator, but “complex” things do.

This basic assumption requires a “complexity-meter”, and a dividing line, which separates the “simple” objects from the “complex” ones. So where is this “complexity” meter, which is supposed to measure the “intrinsic complexity” of an object?
 
I think there is a catalog of expensive inventions, Hammacher Schlemmer. I think they have a complexity meter for sale.
 
Sophia said:
The title says it all. The question is directed toward those who believe that beyond a certain level of complexity it is justified to assume that a “creator” was involved. They might assert that “simple” things do not require the assumption of a creator, but “complex” things do.

This basic assumption requires a “complexity-meter”, and a dividing line, which separates the “simple” objects from the “complex” ones. So where is this “complexity” meter, which is supposed to measure the “intrinsic complexity” of an object?
Click to expand...
A good question that gets to the heart of the matter.

We hear so much about the ID crowd pointing out that certain, very specific, minor facets of existence must have been designed (flagellums, bombadier beetles etc). But the rest? Is that all ‘natural’ or not ID? Where do we draw the line?

If a flagellum is designed and an eye isn’t then why in heavens name did God need to butt in to fix one aspecf of creafion yet leave tbe rest to develop naturally? Isn’t the guy capable of letting it ALL develop naturally. Under the laws of nature the He presumably set up? Couldn’t He set them up correctly? Isn’t he omniscient? Is it the case that we have: ‘Oops, need to make a few ‘unnatural’ corrections here’.
 
Last edited:
Functional Complex Specified Information. FCSI. Invented, I believe, by William Dempski, in an attempt to make Intelligent Design “scientific”. I have looked all over the place, including Dempski’s own words, to find a definition of this FCSI, but failed. Does anyone know what it is?

But before all good Creationists rush in to answer; take care! I have read in detail, what FCSI does and how it can be used, and seen many examples of it. But none of these make any real sense without a definition. Is there anyone among our Creationist colleagues who can provide a definition? Buffalo is a prominent user of the term; perhaps he can help.
 
No, God gives us a brain and we’re supposed to use it.
We should be striving to learn everything we can about this world.
I don’t know what religion you come from, but the Catholic intellectual tradition supports scientific inquiry.
If you’re afraid science will find the final-irrefutable-smoking-gun-proof that God doesn’t exist, you may put that fear to rest.
Science and religion have nothing to fear from each other 🙂

Be at peace 🕊️❤️
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
Functional Complex Specified Information. FCSI. Invented, I believe, by William Dempski, in an attempt to make Intelligent Design “scientific”. I have looked all over the place, including Dempski’s own words, to find a definition of this FCSI, but failed. Does anyone know what it is?
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware, Dr. Dembski defined Complex Specified Information (CSI) as a measure. See Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information. I am not aware of who added the “Functional” part, or how it changes any calculations. I suspect it was an attempt to move away from the standard scientific definitions of information, where meaning/function is irrelevant.

rossum
 
Sophia said:
The question is directed toward those who believe that beyond a certain level of complexity it is justified to assume that a “creator” was involved.
Click to expand...
To my mind, it is also necessary to measure the complexity of the proposed designer/creator in order to determine whether or not a creator creator is needed. There is obviously potential for an infinite regress of creators here.

Intelligent Design proponents are proposing that intelligence (an Intelligent Designer has to possess intelligence) can arise without design. If intelligence can appear without being designed, then something far simpler, such as a flagellum, should also be able to appear without being designed.

rossum
 
Creation and intelligent design are often invoked in order to explain that which we as humans do not understand or cannot replicate. That could be a working definition of complexity.

It’s the god of the gaps, and the philosophical difficulty is that our understanding and technology tend to make that gap smaller as time goes by. If one is looking for proof of God, one must look elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
To my mind, it is also necessary to measure the complexity of the proposed designer/creator in order to determine whether or not a creator creator is needed. There is obviously potential for an infinite regress of creators here.
Click to expand...
This is premature, until there is an objective method to measure “complexity”. In my opinion there is no “intrinsic” complexity. The same object (or “thing”) would be simple for someone who is educated in the subject, and complex for someone else. In other words, the “question of complexity” is a measurement of the level of knowledge (or education) of the enquirer. It is sheer IDiocy to try to reach the existence of a “designer” by observing the reality and declaring that it could not have happened on its own.

And, of course, there is the question of infinite regress, as you mentioned.
 
If I show my grandson a simple trick with a coin, he considers it to be magic. Just because he cannot understand how it could happen any other way. As he gets older and gains knowledge, he will understand that it is really rather a simple thing to do.

Some IDers never get any older. It’s still all a magic trick to them.
 
The meter, itself, once completed, will be the proof you desire. ,
 
Sophia said:
The question is directed toward those who believe that beyond a certain level of complexity it is justified to assume that a “creator” was involved. They might assert that “simple” things do not require the assumption of a creator, but “complex” things do.
Click to expand...
No, I think you’re misunderstanding the argument. (I’m not defending it, mind you, just playing devil’s advocate to your position.)

I think that this particular thought experiment isn’t meant as a scientific, empirically-driven proposal for an actual measurement. After all, its proponents would not assert what you say that they do: namely, that “‘simple’ things do not require a creator”. Rather, I think, they’re asking you what your personal threshold is. In other words, it’s an argument in the direction of the illative sense. It’s asking you, “as we look at complexities in the universe, can we reach a threshold at which even you agree that a particular thing is complex enough that you cannot in good conscience deny the existence of a creator?”
 
Sophia said:
All I can do is go by their expressed words, which clearly indicate that they believe that certain, unspecified level of complexity logically infers the existence of a creator - and an “intelligent” creator at that.
Click to expand...
No… they believe that, aside from complexity, creation itself infers the existence of a creator.

The appeal to “complexity” is, as far as I can tell, merely a means to induce unbelievers to assent. It’s almost Zeno’s paradox in the way that it works: if we go half the remaining distance, is that “close enough” to allow you to admit that you’ve reached the destination, or will you always claim “nope… not there yet”?
Sophia said:
And that is why I present the question: “where is the level of complexity, which logically separates the designed (‘artifact’) from the naturally occurring (things)”? The question is meant to rub their noses into their excrement.
Click to expand...
You seem to fail to recognize that this is the precise question they’re asking you. So, simply parroting the question doesn’t accomplish anything. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Buffalo? Hey Buffalo? Hello? Are you there?

We need you, buddy. Your expertise is required. We need the fine filter of your ID knowledge to clear the muddy waters of confusion and grant us the crystal clarity of knowledge!

We need something like the bat signal which tells the caped crusader that he’s needed. Except in this case it will be a silhouette of a buffalo.

Over to you, Commisioner Gordon.
 
This seems like an odd assumption that doesn’t fit into a Thomistic tradition
 
Last edited:
lisaandlena said:
ID proposes that at some point in the past, the process of change by natural selection that we see all around us, is inadequate to explain the existence of species. Therefore requiring a cause other than natural selection
Click to expand...
I always took Intelligent Design to simply propose that God started creation?
Because I consider myself to hold to ID.
I’m not a young-Earth creationist.
But I’ve never fussed over the details.
But reading this thread maybe ID is a more complicated theory?

The Church holds that intelligence (i.e. Humanity) came about by a specific act of God.

Well anyway this thread is an interesting read.
 
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
The Church holds that intelligence (i.e. Humanity) came about by a specific act of God.
Click to expand...
If God is intelligent, then intelligence existed a long time before the first human.

I thought it was a soul, rather than intelligence, which was the mark of a human being. A two-day-old embryo does not have intelligence, yet the Church considers it to be human.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top