Irreducible Complexity - If you believe this, what's your main example?

[Chalnoth]

the problem with this post is that you assert that the mere presence of gravity will organize billions of stars, and thousands of galaxies, in an orderly fashion.

Well, not merely gravity. The statistical properties of the initial fluctuations are also important. Inflation sets those statistical properties. See the Millenium Simulation, for example, for how these beautiful structures can be produced from randomized initial conditions (as long as those initial conditions have the right statistical properties).

This simulation, of course, isn't perfect, as it's a dark matter only simulation, but it gets the right large-scale behavior, such as the filamentary structures and clusters of galaxies.

Here's a question: HOW does gravity ORGANIZE trillions of stars into galaxies and galaxy clusters, which are so organized, they move and even rotate in predictable patterns?

All you're doing is saying "pfft, this is all just do to gravity." Well sir, if an undirected force can result in galaxies which move as one through the universe in a predictable speed, that is DUMB LUCK.

Why would you think that the existence of such structures in general would be unexpected?

 

[shinbits]

Why would you think that the existence of such structures in general would be unexpected?

if something is trully undirected---meaning left up to chance, with no intelligence involved at all---then the result shouldn't be a universe full order, laws, and predictable results. just like how throwing marbles against a wall and having it land on the floor, will not result in words formed by the marbles, with the marbles randomly aligning so that each letter has clear, straight edges, or neat loops to form letters that have loops. Nor will that same group of marbles ever randomly line up, and form a clear picture of an animal, complete with neat edges.

Even if I loosen the requirements so that any structure period is randomly formed, where the marbles line up in any clear and straight patterns or neat loops, it will never happen, no matter how many times those marbles are thrown against the wall. The only result will be scattered marbles on the floor.

Likewise, the chance formation of an entire universe, complete with atoms, laws, etc, is infinately more implausable.

 

[Chalnoth]

As far as we know right now, earth is the only place in the universe that supports. Furthermore, earth is the only place in the universe that we know of with water in liquid form. Earth also has the mildest temperature range of any planet or moon that we know of. In other words, earth is the only planet we know of, where life is even possible.

Given that we haven't even gotten to the point that we can detect any planets in the habitable zone (say, between Mars and Venus in orbit and mass), it's more than a little premature to conclude that they aren't out there. With Kepler now having launched, I expect that after a couple of years we should have dozens, if not hundreds of candidate planets where we can start looking for life.

We can assume that life must be out there, somewhere, based solely on the sheer vastness of the universe, and the innumeral amount of stars which can act as a sun. But's that's all we can do. All our knowledge of the universe shows that there's nowhere close to having conditions like earth, so life may be possible. And apart from the lone fact that the universe is so fantastically vast, there currently is no reason to believe that is even is possible anywhere else.

There's also no reason to believe that it isn't. But by the way, if life is only possible here on Earth among all the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the visible universe, well, that would speak pretty strongly against our universe being conducive to life, wouldn't it?

our current knowledge of the universe shows that we are one of a kind. can't get any more special than that.

No. Our current knowledge is that we don't know how common life is, because we haven't even been able to rule out other life within our own solar system, let alone the nearest star systems.

 

[shinbits]

Given that we haven't even gotten to the point that we can detect any planets in the habitable zone (say, between Mars and Venus in orbit and mass), it's more than a little premature to conclude that they aren't out there. With Kepler now having launched, I expect that after a couple of years we should have dozens, if not hundreds of candidate planets where we can start looking for life.

maybe. maybe not. our current knowledge of the universe points to maybe not.

There's also no reason to believe that it isn't. But by the way, if life is only possible here on Earth among all the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the visible universe, well, that would speak pretty strongly against our universe being conducive to life, wouldn't it?

I never made the point that universe was conducive to life. I've said the earth is, I never said the rest of the universe is. If you've been paying attention, I've been disagreeing with the notion that we'll find life anywhere other than earth.

No. Our current knowledge is that we don't know how common life is, because we haven't even been able to rule out other life within our own solar system, let alone the nearest star systems.

what you're doing is using negative logic. this is like saying "since you DON'T know or even have proof that a magical white horse isn't hovering over your bed every night, there's no reason to rule out this is happening."

yeah, we DON'T KNOW how common or uncommon life is, because haven't explored the entire galaxy. we DO KNOW that earth is the only place we know of, that houses life.

 

[Chalnoth]

if something is trully undirected---meaning left up to chance, with no intelligence involved at all---then the result shouldn't be a universe full order, laws, and predictable results.

Why not? People have done investigations into this, by the way, by investigating the properties of random Hamiltonians. Turns out that they tend to produce orderly natural laws!

Even if I loosen the requirements so that any structure period is randomly formed, where the marbles line up in any clear and straight patterns or neat loops, it will never happen, no matter how many times those marbles are thrown against the wall. The only result will be scattered marbles on the floor.

Well, those marbles don't have any significant attractive forces between them. And you've also implicitly assumed a flat floor: if the floor happens to not be flat, then the marbles will preferentially line up in certain structures given by the unevenness of the floor. For example, if the floor is a hard dirt floor, then there are almost guaranteed to be hills and valleys, and the marbles will obviously collect in the valleys, each and every time you throw them.

Likewise, the chance formation of an entire universe, complete with atoms, laws, etc, is infinately more implausable.

It's easy to say that without investigating it in detail. But upon investigation, we find that orderly natural laws are the norm, not the exception.

 

[Chalnoth]

maybe. maybe not. our current knowledge of the universe points to maybe not.

Er, what? How can you possibly conclude that when we haven't even looked?

what you're doing is using negative logic. this is like saying "since you DON'T know or even have proof that a magical white horse isn't hovering over your bed every night, there's no reason to rule out this is happening."

The difference between a magical white horse and other life is that we do have one definitive example of life: here on Earth.

yeah, we DON'T KNOW how common or uncommon life is, because haven't explored the entire galaxy. we DO KNOW that earth is the only place we know of, that houses life.

But we haven't looked elsewhere!

 

[shinbits]

Er, what? How can you possibly conclude that when we haven't even looked?

are you serious? scientists having been looking for signs of life elsewhere for decades. still no sign of life anywhere else.

and I didn't "conclude" anything. I've merely been stating that we have no reason THUS FAR to assume we'll find life outside of earth.

The difference between a magical white horse and other life is that we do have one definitive example of life: here on Earth.

but nowhere else.

But we haven't looked elsewhere!

wrong.

 

[shinbits]

Why not? People have done investigations into this, by the way, by investigating the properties of random Hamiltonians. Turns out that they tend to produce orderly natural laws!

such as?

Well, those marbles don't have any significant attractive forces between them. And you've also implicitly assumed a flat floor:

um, no. I didn't.

if the floor happens to not be flat, then the marbles will preferentially line up in certain structures given by the unevenness of the floor. For example, if the floor is a hard dirt floor, then there are almost guaranteed to be hills and valleys, and the marbles will obviously collect in the valleys, each and every time you throw them.

pick anytype of floor you want. the result will still be the same.

It's easy to say that without investigating it in detail. But upon investigation, we find that orderly natural laws are the norm, not the exception.

duh. but if the universe was trully just random chance, ORDERLY natural laws would the exception, not the norm.

 

[Chalnoth]

are you serious? scientists having been looking for signs of life elsewhere for decades. still no sign of life anywhere else.

That would be because until now (with Kepler) we haven't had the instrumental sensitivity to detect Earth-like planets. And even with Kepler, we won't be able to determine whether or not those planets have life on them. That will take further work.

and I didn't "conclude" anything. I've merely been stating that we have no reason THUS FAR to assume we'll find life outside of earth.

Sure we do! We have information about how life formed on Earth. Granted, this information is currently tentative and incomplete, but it so far seems to indicate that once the conditions are right, the formation of life is inevitable. Thus nearly all scientists today strongly suspect that microbial life is abundant in the universe. What is less certain is complex life, which different scientists put wildly different priors on.

 

[Chalnoth]

such as?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4452

Sorry that I couldn't find a public article.

um, no. I didn't.

A flat floor is the only way in which the marbles will be strongly disordered.

pick anytype of floor you want. the result will still be the same.

You do realize that marbles roll downhill, right?

duh. but if the universe was trully just random chance, ORDERLY natural laws would the exception, not the norm.

See the link above.

 

[MoonLancer]

um, yes it is.

no its not. Look the word up if you don't believe me. something may suggest (a synonym of imply) intelligent design, but many things may suggest one thing but in reality be another.

if a corpse was found by police in house, and everything around was smashed and thrown on the floor, it could imply a struggle took place, and be evidence of foul play.

what is implied and what actually happened, are two different things. Its not sufficient to go on what things simply imply. but one has to closely look at the evidence. Its quite possible this person had a tantrum, threw stuff around, then died of a heart attack. the evidence will show which is true, not through what something implys. Fact, YOU have no evidence for ID. Fact, ID is an extension of creationistum (see wedge document for details)

Complexity structure alone doesn't imply design. But a complex SYSTEM does.

I don't see how it does. You need evidence, not simply what something may seem to be. That's sloppy.

I could say that only complex systems are NOT designed, they have simply always existed. Humans try to mimic these complex systems through design but it is still emulation of complex systems. chaos and random events seem to imply complex relationships.

I have presented as much evidence as you have for your point. I have made a statement but not in a form of a testable hypothesis.

Now its your turn. Present a testable hypothisis for ID. behe did it, but all his examples flumped.

 

[shinbits]

no its not. Look the word up if you don't believe me. something may suggest (a synonym of imply) intelligent design, but many things may suggest one thing but in reality be another.

fine. I'll use SUGGEST from now.

but its not at first glance, but one has to closely look at the evidence. Its quite possible this person had a tantrim, threw stuff around, then died of a heart attack. the evidence will show which is true, not through what something implys.

a struggled can still be SUGGESTED from the scene. something doesn't necessarily have to the case in order to SUGGEST something.

I dont see how it does. You need evidence, not simply what something may seem to be. Thats sloppy.

see my post about evidence for design in water on page ten. Everytime I say something suggests design, I always provide logical reasons for why that's so.

 

[shinbits]

That would be because until now (with Kepler) we haven't had the instrumental sensitivity to detect Earth-like planets. And even with Kepler, we won't be able to determine whether or not those planets have life on them. That will take further work.

okay. but as far as we know right now, there's no life anywhere else but earth.

Sure we do! We have information about how life formed on Earth. Granted, this information is currently tentative and incomplete, but it so far seems to indicate that once the conditions are right, the formation of life is inevitable. Thus nearly all scientists today strongly suspect that microbial life is abundant in the universe. What is less certain is complex life, which different scientists put wildly different priors on.

I made a mistake. I meant "THUS FAR, earth we don't know of life anywhere outside of earth."

which is true. maybe we'll find it. so far, we haven't found anything. that's all I'm saying.

 

[Chalnoth]

see my post about evidence for design in water on page ten. Everytime I say something suggests design, I always provide logical reasons for why that's so.

And your "evidence" is poor and unreasoned. The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it is post-hoc reasoning.

If I take, say, a die, and roll it a few times. Let's say I roll it 10 times and get:

3 3 6 1 4 4 3 2 1 6

The probability that that specific series of rolls occurred is 1/6^10, or about one in 60 million. How incredibly unlikely! There's no way that could have happened by chance!

For another example, imagine a sentient puddle of water. This sentient puddle, sitting snuggly in its depression in the dirt, thinks to itself, "Wow, look how well this depression perfectly fits me! It must have been designed that way!"

Hopefully you can see why this sort of reasoning in absurd. You can't simply look at the current state of things and state that it's too unlikely to happen by chance. That's just being sloppy.

When considering things like this, you have to take into account the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle states that observers such as ourselves can only ever observe things in such a way that it is possible for the observers to exist. In other words, it is no surprise that we don't observe ourselves as living on the surface of Mercury or Venus, because we can't live there. Like the puddle, it is unreasonable, therefore, to conclude anything at all about the fact that we find ourselves in an environment that is conducive to our own survival. There is no other possible way that things can be.

 

[shinbits]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4452

Sorry that I couldn't find a public article.

you said that Hamiltonians produce laws. I wanted to know such as what. this article doesn't mention what laws are produced.

A flat floor is the only way in which the marbles will be strongly disordered.

so what? weren't you complaining that a flat floor limits what you'd be able to with marbles? now you're saying that only a flat floor is usable, after I said "use whatever floor you want." you are now wasting time.

You do realize that marbles roll downhill, right?

so?

See the link above.

as already mentioned, there's nothing in it that adds to your point one bit.

 

[MoonLancer]

fine. I'll use SUGGEST from now.

1 aobsolete : to seek to influence : seduce b: to call forth : evoke c: to mention or imply as a possibility <suggested that he might bring his family> d: to propose as desirable or fitting <suggest a stroll> e: to offer for consideration or as a hypothesis <suggest a solution to a problem>

a struggled can still be SUGGESTED from the scene. something doesn't necessarily have to the case in order to SUGGEST something.

its the evidence that separates a something that's implied or suggests from what actually is. What evidence do you have of ID. do you have anything more then "complex interconnected systems imply/suggest..."

see my post about evidence for design in water on page ten. Everytime I say something suggests design, I always provide logical reasons for why that's so.

oh i diden't say you diden't have logical reasons. but i find that both sides can seem logical, but only one side can be true. Its the side with the the facts and evidence that is triumphant.

I know of no evidence for ID. Its not scientific, or falsifiable.

 

[Chalnoth]

okay. but as far as we know right now, there's no life anywhere else but earth.

While true, this claim is meaningless because we haven't looked anywhere else! Well, we've looked a little bit at Mars, but not enough to yet rule out the possibility of life there.

I made a mistake. I meant "THUS FAR, earth we don't know of life anywhere outside of earth."

which is true. maybe we'll find it. so far, we haven't found anything. that's all I'm saying.

And all I'm saying is that it's silly of you to make that point.

I strongly suspect that among Population I (metal-rich) stars, a significant fraction, perhaps in the range of 50% or so, will have at least one planet in the range from venus to mars in terms of distance from the star and mass. Among these, my guess would be that a significant fraction of those, perhaps 5%-10%, will hold microbial life (and I think I'm being rather conservative here). I have no idea how many of those that have microbial life will turn out to hold complex life.

 

[shinbits]

I could say that only complex systems are NOT designed, they have simply always existed. Humans try to mimic these complex systems through design but it is still emulation of complex systems.

if you believe natural systems have always existed, you're no different than a creationist.

I have presented as much evidence as you have for your point. I have made a statement but not in a form of a testable hypothesis.

Now its your turn. Present a testable hypothisis for ID. behe did it, but all his examples flumped.

you admit that you have not turned in any testable evidence, yet demand that I do so? double standard much?

either way, it doesn't matter. on the first page of this thread, I already mentioned that it's impossible to give physical, testable evidence, because ID is not scientific. It apeals to reason, not physical tests. Furthermore, concepts like "complexity" and "design" are subjective, unless we know specifically who the designer of something is.

 

[shinbits]

its the evidence that separates a something that's implied or suggests from what actually is. What evidence do you have of ID. do you have anything more then "complex interconnected systems imply/suggest..."

there's a lot about science that we hold to be true, yet have no evidence for. the Big Bang is one. There's no way to show this to be true, and no evidence for it.

oh i diden't say you diden't have logical reasons. but i find that both sides can seem logical, but only one side can be true. Its the side with the the facts and evidence that is triumphant.

well duh. but there things in nature that there's just no evidence for. like you believe that life exists outside of earth, even though there's no evidence that it does. sure, there's evidence to SUGGEST that life MIGHT live elsewhere; but no evidence that it actually does. It doesn't mean your wrong just because no evidence of life in space exists, does it? Of course not. Likewise with ID.

I know of no evidence for ID. Its not scientific, or falsifiable.

see above.

 

[MoonLancer]

if you believe natural systems have always existed, you're no different than a creationist.

explain

you admit that you have not turned in any testable evidence, yet demand that I do so? double standard much?

Im not a scientist, nor am i the one making the claim. was simply mimicking your claim to show that you have not provided evidence. simply that my claim holds as much sway as yours, and i just thought it up on the spot.


Their IS evidence that the universe and life arose naturally. So if you cannot provide evidence, and behe cannot provide evidence, why should anyone believe what you say?

It appeals to reason, not physical tests. Furthermore, concepts like "complexity" and "design" are subjective, unless we know specifically who the designer of something is.

well in that, agree with you. however ID is born from Creationism, and it has an agenda and is at war with science, so you will forgive me if i question your motives.