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

[LifeToTheFullest!]

For instance, a stone arch is irreducibly complex. Yet, there has to be a plausible way in which it was constructed, using known laws of physics.

Science attempts to explain "how the stone arch" came to be so.

 

[juvenissun]

Haha, the fact that your reluctant to answer even such a simple question tells me all I wanted to know.

I could rephrase the question to "do you honestly think that the unknown is good evidence for anything" but you'll probably just dodge the question again because you know it will contradict with your belief.

Thank you for playing Juvenissun.

- Ectezus

Blame your question, not my answer.

Unknown is not an evidence. But unknown is a valid argument.

 

[juvenissun]

Which is precisely why it's basically impossible to demonstrate irreducible complexity: to demonstrate irreducible complexity, you not only have to eliminate all plausible explanations that people have come up with as likely, but you also have to eliminate all plausible explanations that people haven't come up with. There always remains the possibility, after all, that we simply weren't creative enough.

This is why negative arguments are such a bad thing. The ID crowd, if they were actually interested in doing something useful, would be pursuing positive arguments, arguments that wouldn't simply be, "Well, evolution can't explain this!"

Just the opposite. To say something is irreducibly complex does not have to eliminate any explanation, but to include all explanations. It turned out that none of them, or all of them together, is not good enough. It is not about to disprove, but is to prove. We know no way to prove something, then that thing is irreducibly complex. So, if you show me a proof, I can show you that it is not good enough. I don't have to seek out all foul proofs. Like you said, it is an unnecessary and an impossible work.

In fact, anything we know is irreducibly complex. That means: we do not know anything.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Just the opposite. To say something is irreducibly complex does not have to eliminate any explanation, but to include all explanations. It turned out that none of them, or all of them together, is not good enough. It is not about to disprove, but is to prove. We know no way to prove something, then that thing is irreducibly complex. So, if you show me a proof, I can show you that it is not good enough. I don't have to seek out all foul proofs. Like you said, it is an unnecessary and an impossible work.

In fact, anything we know is irreducibly complex. That means: we do not know anything.

Huh? This kinda made my brain hurt a little. Care to explain?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Just the opposite. To say something is irreducibly complex does not have to eliminate any explanation, but to include all explanations. It turned out that none of them, or all of them together, is not good enough. It is not about to disprove, but is to prove. We know no way to prove something, then that thing is irreducibly complex. So, if you show me a proof, I can show you that it is not good enough. I don't have to seek out all foul proofs. Like you said, it is an unnecessary and an impossible work.

Silly talk.

Irreducible complexity: For any structure S, it is the case that S did not arise by N, where N is the set of all evolutionary explanations for S.

That is a textbook negative claim. You cannot word-salad your way out of it.

 

[Chalnoth]

Just the opposite. To say something is irreducibly complex does not have to eliminate any explanation, but to include all explanations. It turned out that none of them, or all of them together, is not good enough.

That has never happened, though. Not once. I challenge you to find one case where it was demonstrated that there is no viable explanation for the evolution of a given structure.

In fact, anything we know is irreducibly complex. That means: we do not know anything.

What the!? The ridiculousness of this statement is beyond words.

 

[mpok1519]

Except for leptons, quarks, and bosons .

Not yet that we know of. =P There might even be atoms inside of quarks we cannot measure some scientists speculate.

 

[mpok1519]

Exactly how all the plant and animal came to be from random acts is beyond me. I dont have enough faith to be an atheist!

$3000 a semester easily solves these things...

 

[juvenissun]

Silly talk.

Irreducible complexity: For any structure S, it is the case that S did not arise by N, where N is the set of all evolutionary explanations for S.

That is a textbook negative claim. You cannot word-salad your way out of it.

If we know that for sure (have a proof), than it is reducible.

 

[juvenissun]

That has never happened, though. Not once. I challenge you to find one case where it was demonstrated that there is no viable explanation for the evolution of a given structure.


What the!? The ridiculousness of this statement is beyond words.

You repeated the same argument. A "viable" explanation is the same as a "plausible" explanation. Any argument can be presented in a viable format. But it may not explain the question.

 

[Chalnoth]

You repeated the same argument. A "viable" explanation is the same as a "plausible" explanation. Any argument can be presented in a viable format. But it may not explain the question.

But my point is that it does not matter. If there exists a viable explanation that has not yet been disproven, then you cannot say that there is no explanation. And since we can't actually know all potential explanations for a given phenomenon, we can never say that there is no explanation.

 

[juvenissun]

But my point is that it does not matter. If there exists a viable explanation that has not yet been disproven, then you cannot say that there is no explanation. And since we can't actually know all potential explanations for a given phenomenon, we can never say that there is no explanation.

What I said is that an undisproved explanation does not necessary give answerto the question. The question is still irreducibly complex.

Example: there is not enough water to flood the land today (can not be disproved) does not prove there was not enough water to flood the land before (the argument does not address the question).

 

[Ectezus]

Unknown is not an evidence. But unknown is a valid argument.

Ah finally, now we're getting somewhere!

1) So you think that the unknown can be a valid argument to support certain idea's.
2) You also say the unknown is not an evidence.

So you admit your argument is not based on evidence. Great! You know we have a name for these type of arguments in the english language, it's called: Speculation.

Speculate whatever you want Juvenissun, as long as you realize the speculation itself has no foundation of proof or evidence.

With your two sentences specifically made to dodge my question you've just answered it anyway, even better than I hoped.

- Ectezus

 

[TeddyKGB]

If we know that for sure (have a proof), than it is reducible.

No.

 

[Chalnoth]

What I said is that an undisproved explanation does not necessary give answerto the question.

Of course it doesn't. But this isn't the claim of irreducible complexity. The claim of irreducible complexity is not that we don't yet know the answer (which for many claimed irreducibly complex systems we actually do), but rather that there is no answer. And the claim that there is no answer can be trivially disproved by merely finding a plausible answer that fits with all current evidence. It is not necessary that the answer be correct. Merely that it be consistent with all current evidence.

Example: there is not enough water to flood the land today (can not be disproved) does not prove there was not enough water to flood the land before (the argument does not address the question).

Ah, but that's never going to have been possible because there is no way for that much water to be locked away and released in such a short time.

 

[Nathan45]

As Einstein said (paraphrasing here) "god does not play dice with the universe." Not that Einstein was a theist by any means, what he meant was the randomness did not lie at the heart of natural causes.

and it's generally agreed now that Einstein was wrong about that, as quantum physics is probabilistic. . But it still works out, as if you perform the same microscopic action with a random result 1,000,000,000 times it's all going to average out to something that is for all practical purposes deterministic.

 

[Chalnoth]

and it's generally agreed now that Einstein was wrong about that, as quantum physics is probabilistic. . But it still works out, as if you perform the same microscopic action with a random result 1,000,000,000 times it's all going to average out to something that is for all practical purposes deterministic.

Well, quantum mechanics certainly gives the appearance of pure randomness, but the wave function dynamics are purely deterministic.

 

[shinbits]

Infinite knowledge is not necessary, however. Knowledge enough to intentionally create is enough to make a creator massively complex.

ants create complex nests, and incredibly complex methods of communication, so they can hunt as one, and able to organize hundreds of thousands of themselves to do specific tasks. are ants "massively" complex?

Then why do you think it holds any merit whatsoever as a means to determine the nature of reality?

because questioning how such a massively complex universe can be created by pure chance is a logical and valid question.

And I've shown why your logic is faulty.

with a link showing purely speculative material? um, no.

at least with my argument, we can observe similarities with things we know living beings have designed, to nature. OBSERVATIONS are made. A CONCLUSION is then drawn from those observation.

YOUR link....had NO conclusions that can be made, because it's ENTIRELY speculative.

 

[shinbits]

Ah finally, now we're getting somewhere!

1) So you think that the unknown can be a valid argument to support certain idea's.
2) You also say the unknown is not an evidence.

So you admit your argument is not based on evidence. Great! You know we have a name for these type of arguments in the english language, it's called: Speculation.

Speculate whatever you want Juvenissun, as long as you realize the speculation itself has no foundation of proof or evidence.

With your two sentences specifically made to dodge my question you've just answered it anyway, even better than I hoped.

- Ectezus

The Big Bang is pure speculation as well. Does that mean we should disregard it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The Big Bang is pure speculation as well. Does that mean we should disregard it?

No, because it's not. As Ectezus said, arguments not based on evidence are pure speculation. Since the Big Bang is based on evidence, it isn't speculation: it's a theory.

Keep up.