Detecting Design.

[exchemist]

We'll see what it is in details and discuss that, before we decide that.

You may. I've already decided, because I've read about it previously. I have no time at all for "Intelligent Design".

But go ahead and I will try to suspend my judgement, at least for the sake of the discussion.

 

[robocop (actually)]

This thread is not going to be about actual design in the universe or earth or biology.

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1). And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

Sorry... my schizophrenia isn't cooperating today... will try to read your message when I can.

 

[Nakosis]

This thread is not going to be about actual design in the universe or earth or biology.

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1). And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

Irreducible complexity seems an impossible concept to me. It's like saying that something exists without cause. It just magically appeared in its current state without any prior cause. By impossible, I mean I don't understand how it could be discussed in practical terms. Complexity is always reducible, well so far. It's asking for something beyond anything we experience.

 

[Link]

I actually see irreducible complexity in computer science and programming. Often, you can just add one function, and it's fine. But sometimes, you need to add one function or many objects at the same time, then run it, or else it won't work.

Mutations work and change works to me by analogy when you can keep adding one part at a time. But if ever a system requires many parts to come to be, and it's impossible, it shifts through one part at a time, then it's impossible to get that type of system state.

I don't know how to map this into something tangible. In programming, usually, you can add just a function and test it. But sometimes, you need to add bunch of functions together or can't test any of them, because they rely on each other.

Let's say consciousness needs some sort of logic gate for analysis. Let's say for sake of argument, it requires memory + decision part + emotions + learning behaviour at the same time.

Let's say you can't get add these without the other. I'm not saying this is the case. I'm just saying suppose it was the case.

Would small steps leading to one help? Or would they all have to be a bunch steps leading to all of them being formed at the same time (which to seems irrational to assume as possible).

So far I'm not talking about anything tangible. I'm what if consciousness was this, and required parts that had those functions.

So we are just dealing with abstract.

It's not that too complex, it's that irreducible at the core. The consciousness could evolve for sure, and have many immense and different forms later, but on the onset as a system, as any version of the system, even the most basic elementary one, is it possible to get there by linear small changes over time.

I'm not talking about actual consciousness and it's nature, I'm saying for the sake of argument, you do need various components and those were among them.

Let's say this is a given fact. Is it irrational if we know that to be true to see design not from complexity, but from irreducible nature of components relying on each other at the same time.

 

[Nimos]

I actually see irreducible complexity in computer science and programming. Often, you can just add one function, and it's fine. But sometimes, you need to add one function or many objects at the same time, then run it, or else it won't work.

I don't think comparing it to a programming language is very useful. Because it has to be irreducible in nature, so we would be able to argue that a designer were behind.

 

[Link]

I don't think comparing it to a programming language is very useful. Because it has to be irreducible in nature, so we would be able to argue that a designer were behind.

We will look at in nature later. We have to first see what the design inference is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Jesus Christ. People can't even think of this concept. Yes, it has potential to refute evolution.

I'm talking about if as abstract concept, is it legit. That's different then saying something is actually irreducible complex in nature or the universe.

People are so dogmatic and brainwashed.

Let's talk about the concept. This thread is not about evolution and Islam.

In order to do that you need to go down to the atomic scale and realize that what we once thought was not splittable or smaller keeps proving people wrong. Even the atom is made of components and I would surmise the same will be true for gluons and quarks. I tend to think of it as being ad infinium, playing key roles permeating the microscopic to the macroscopic universe in diverse and multi-faceted ways which makes irreducible complexity a misnomer of and in itself.

The only problem is there's a horizon to our knowledge and technology or we could just simply cannot divulge any smaller or go any larger.

 

[Nimos]

We will look at in nature later. We have to first see what the design inference is.

What i meant was, that anything that is not natural occurring in nature is designed. Which is why I don't think it makes sense to talk about it outside nature.
But then again might have misunderstood what you meant

 

[sayak83]

This thread is not going to be about actual design in the universe or earth or biology.

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1). And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

No. It's not a rational, logical or scientifically sound means of detecting design. Nothing of scientific worth has been proposed about this concept.
The only sound means of detecting design is by a) observing the design process itself or b) eliminating non-design processes as viable explanations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Irreducible complexity seems an impossible concept to me. It's like saying that something exists without cause. It just magically appeared in its current state without any prior cause. By impossible, I mean I don't understand how it could be discussed in practical terms. Complexity is always reducible, well so far. It's asking for something beyond anything we experience.

It's an irrational concept is what it is. @Link is just trying to sell us a logical fallacy - argument from ignorance - under a different name.

"I can't see how this complexity could have arose naturally, therefore it must not have arose naturally."

 

[Tiberius]

This thread is not going to be about actual design in the universe or earth or biology.

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1). And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

Something is designed if it carries out a specific purpose and all of the parts contribute to carrying out that purpose. The design should also be as efficient as possible.

 

[Tiberius]

As @ChristineM 's video pointed out, irreducible complexity is necessarily a challenge to evolution. I see nothing abstract about it.

Reading this article, I find nothing necessarily incompatible between Islam and evolution. Islamic views on evolution - Wikipedia

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. There has never been an example provided.

 

[Link]

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. There has never been an example provided.

Maybe because Scientists are so doctrinal and controlled by Satan, can't listen or reason properly about this.

 

[Tiberius]

Maybe because Scientists are so doctrinal and controlled by Satan, can't listen or reason properly about this.

How do you expect me to take you seriously when you make claims like this? You don't even bother to support your claim!

You are blinded by your preconceived ideas and since you want to believe that your own beliefs are true, you must find a way to dismiss anything that disagrees with them. Hence you make outrageous statements like this.

 

[Link]

It's not just science that is corrupted, it's everything, something in the water.

Shiism has been corrupted through and through. Quranic translations are evil through and through in so many key places.

Experts and how authority is built, is theory. In theory, Shiism is suppose to refer hadiths back to Quran. It doesn't happen in reality.

The same is true of peer review with respect to science and scientists. It's a theory, but so much power bullying going on there, it's been compromised.

 

[Tiberius]

It's not just science that is corrupted, it's everything, something in the water.

Shiism has been corrupted through and through. Quranic translations are evil through and through in so many key places.

Experts and how authority is built, is theory. In theory, Shiism is suppose to refer hadiths back to Quran. It doesn't happen in reality.

The same is true of peer review with respect to science and scientists. It's a theory, but so much power bullying going on there, it's been compromised.

Yeah, okay.

You're gonna need to do A LOT more than say, "Scientists are controlled by Satan!" before I'm gonna believe you.

 

[Etritonakin]

This thread is not going to be about actual design in the universe or earth or biology.

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1). And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

Anything that exists is OF a design -whether it required a self-aware, creative designER or not.

That which is both OF a design AND required a self-aware, creative designer is PURPOSEFULLY complex and indicative of the designer -more correctly, the needs and desires of the designer.
(bird builds a nest, man builds a house, God builds a universe)

We may have discovered irreducible complexity already (math and logic are the basic languages of reality) -which is the basis of VIRTUAL reality.
...as that which is BINARY is the most simple set of states which we can imagine. 1 or 0 -yes or no -is or is not, etc...
Virtual reality is based on one or another state -but is also DYNAMIC -as if anything is to happen those states must become arranged in various ways.

Everything which is complex must be composed of exactly the same least complex things -in differing arrangement.

All things must be preceded by that which generally -then specifically -makes them possible.

An extremely-purposefully-complex creation must be preceded by a "creator"....

However.. A complex creator must be preceded by the most simple -yet dynamic -possible states.

I AM THAT AM

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

 

[Samael_Khan]

This thread is not going to be about actual design in the universe or earth or biology.

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1). And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

I am a graphic design by profession, designing abstract things is my job.

IMO, irreducible complexity doesn't necessarily indicate design because simple irreducible things can come together to make something so complex, that those reducible designs start relying on each other to function to make the design work, thus making the design irreducible, as taking one of the formerly reducible design out of the complex design would render the formally reducible design destroyed.

I like using economics as an example which is sort of abstract.

One country centuries ago would have been economically sound on its own and self sustaining as it relied on its own efforts to gather resources. What happens to other countries economically doesn't affect it.

When it became a part of a world wide economy it eventually started getting cheaper resources from other countries as well as its own, and the economy then depended on its economic relations to other countries to sustain itself.

In a crisis happens in other countries that that country relies on, then it will not survive because it is no longer self reliant, therefore its economy will collapse because it has an economically symbiotic relationship with the other countries that it never had centuries ago when it was self reliant.

The world economy became irreducibly complex when countries joined and formed a symbiotic relationship with each other.

So irreducible complexity only takes refers to the current structure referred to as irreducibly complex, but that doesn't mean that those things that make up the structure were irreduscibly complex at one point.

This doesn't address the concept of whether something was designed or not, but it shows that irreducible complexity is irrelevent to the issue.

 

[viole]

Maybe because Scientists are so doctrinal and controlled by Satan, can't listen or reason properly about this.

Once Satan is on the loose, you cannot really say who is controlled and who is not. What is corrupted and what not. Could be the sacred scriptures you believe in, if any, are just one of his works of deceit. You cannot possibly know, without begging the question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1).

It doesn't, as it completely ignores the option of repurposing of parts.

Function X might require 3 parts. If you remove one of them, function X no longer works.
But the system of just 2 parts, might be able to serve another function.

"irreducibly complex" features naturally come about all the time in such fashion.

And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

In actual design, such is present everywhere. Take a computer. It is loaded with "irreducibly complex" systems. You can't remove the ram chips without the PC no longer working or at least losing function. You can't remove the CPU. You can't remove the hard drive. You can't remove the motherboard. You can't remove the databus that feeds the CPU with data coming from RAM. You can't remove the datalines through which this data is send. Etc.

What is important here though.... is that the presence of IC in such systems, like computers, is NOT the way by which we determine that PC's are designed / manufactured.

So IC as a concept certain exists left and right in designed systems. But it's not a hallmark of design.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

I can tell you in advance that that exercise will fail.
The whole premise of that IC is and what can be concluded from it, is flawed.