Detecting Design.

[Link]

I know what "abstract" means. What I don't know is what concept you're trying to describe when you say "purely abstract irreducible complexity."

Irreducible complexity as a concept, generic wise, that can apply to many things possibly or it maybe irrational and unable to detect design.

We are trying to conceive of the abstract concept of it. This is the point of the thread.

Complexity that can't be reduced further as a system. Is this rational to conceive of?

We are looking at traits so far I marked 3 aspects of it. The question is suppose those 3 things are true of it, is designed proven and detected if the case?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Irreducible complexity as a concept, generic wise, that can apply to many things possibly or it maybe irrational and unable to detect design.

You just told me nothing.

We are trying to conceive of the abstract concept of it. This is the point of the thread.

The abstract concept of what? I still have no idea what you mean by "irreducible complexity."

This thread is mostly people saying something about the normal understanding of the term and you replying with "no, that's not what I'm talking about."

Complexity that can't be reduced further as a system. Is this rational to conceive of?

Depends what you mean by "reduced" and "system."

We are looking at traits so far I marked 3 aspects of it. The question is suppose those 3 things are true of it, is designed proven and detected if the case?

Are you talking about this?

So we have 3 components of it:

1) The components rely on each other (or some of them do).
2) Of the components that rely on each, those components has no usage outside the system.
3) It's binary and not transitional, the system can't come from a different system similar to it.

Seems like kind of a mess, frankly.

 

[Link]

We aren't talking about whether nature has it or not. We are talking about it as an abstract concept.

There is 3 scenarios with respect to design:

1. It proves design and we find things in nature with that.
2. It proves design and we don't find things in nature with that.
3. It doesn't prove design.

We can't look for things in nature with it if we don't understand the concept.

Therefore I laid it out 3 features we are looking for. We may have to look for more features then this, but, so far it's looking to me if those 3 features are true and proven, that design is proven. I maybe wrong.

 

[Link]

Seems like kind of a mess, frankly.

Why is that a mess?

 

[Link]

To be clear, the first aspect shows there is complexity.
The second aspect shows parts don't have individual purpose outside the system (alternative purpose).

This might like look it suffices, but what are Morpheus of one system to another, until you get to a whole different system. This allows x component to have relationship with x component of a previous system for a different reason that was linked to a system that morphed into that system.

So this why I introduced 3. It has to be a system that itself is so different then any potential system, that there is no transition face where it keeps morphing to morphing.

The eye fails 3 as far I'm aware of. That's why it doesn't work. But what if something fundamentally is so different that there is nothing similar to it as a system nor just by it's binary nature, can you trace footprint of possible change of one system to the next.

In the case of the eye, it starts with this small detecting thing that is so abstract, and you eventually get to the eye.

It was literally the worse example to come up with.

I am thinking of an example, I guess, I will get into detail why I think there is one thing in nature as a system that is like this.

But I'm trying to see if people acknowledge these 3 facts formed together prove it.

3 is hard to imagine, because there is of course infinite possible design of the system, and it can vary, and out of all those possibilities, there can't be anything like it to transition to it and so I can only think of one example at the moment of this.

And I will get into It in detail.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is that a mess?

I hope the terms your using - like "similar system" - make sense to you. Their meaning isn't apparent.

 

[Link]

I hope the terms your using - like "similar system" - make sense to you. Their meaning isn't apparent.

In case of an eye, there is something similar to it, then something similar to that, then something similar to that, so you get a transition. It's not binary, it's by nature, something you can transition to. So it has many similar systems in transition going to a very simple thing in nature in beginning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To be clear, the first aspect shows there is complexity.
The second aspect shows parts don't have individual purpose outside the system (alternative purpose).

However you divide things into "components" and "systems," and how you decide whether something has a "purpose" are necessarily arbitrary, value-laden, and not based on anything objective.

 

[Link]

However you divide things into "components" and "systems," and how you decide whether something has a "purpose" are necessarily arbitrary, value-laden, and not based on anything objective.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to discuss that. You already know this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In case of an eye, there is something similar to it, then something similar to that, then something similar to that, so you get a transition. It's not binary, it's by nature, something you can transition to. So it has many similar systems in transition going to a very simple thing in nature in beginning.

I thought you weren't talking about evolution.

 

[Link]

I thought you weren't talking about evolution.

Yeah I tried to keep it abstract, but had to give an example, because you keep insisting I'm vague.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to discuss that. You already know this.

No, I didn't. This is one of those things - like "purely abstract irreducible complexity" - that you aren't articulating to the rest of us.

 

[Link]

No, I didn't. This is one of those things - like "purely abstract irreducible complexity" - that you aren't articulating to the rest of us.

Go use a dictionary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah I tried to keep it abstract, but had to give an example, because you keep insisting I'm vague.

No, I never said you were vague.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Go use a dictionary.

If I was relying on dictionary definitions, we'd be done: irreducible complexity is irrational nonsense.

The only benefit of the doubt I can give you is that you might be expressing a valid idea badly, but I'm not going to know what that idea might be unless you tell me.

 

[Link]

Then I will go straight to the example. I will make a new thread about the example I believe can't be but designed by God.

 

[Bear Wild]

Go use a dictionary.

I found definitions and your argument is flawed from the very beginning. You cannot equate irreducible complexity with design. It is an inaccurate argument with not basis.

 

[Bear Wild]

Then I will go straight to the example. I will make a new thread about the example I believe can't be but designed by God.

So this whole link is what I mentioned but you wouldn't say. It was all a teleological argument about the existence of a god/intelligent designer. It cannot justify design and therefore will do no better to justify a god which ever of the thousands of gods you choose from.

 

[Tiberius]

You are right about this. So we can conclude with addition to the components all required to be there, there can be no rational pathway possible to at least one of the essential components unless there is the other parts. If this can't be proven, then irreducible complexity cannot be proven.

So we see it takes this form:

1. Many components rely on each other.
2. There no pathway to the individual component(s) or at least one of them unless the other parts are there because individually they are useless and evolution makes no usage of getting there.

This maybe impossible to prove or it maybe possible, we'll have to see.

So you are agreeing with me that irreducible complexity should play no part in this discussion about the identification of design?

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's useful, because, in programming, you can almost all the time, add a function itself, test by itself. But sometimes for somethings, you need multiple functions at the same time working together, before some of those functions individually can have a use. This happens rarely in programming from my limited experience. So usually a function is testable and good in itself.

This is just to show the concept.

We will talk biology later. This is just seeing abstract concept.

In analogy to biology, it would be saying some parts of the system can be individually added and have purpose individually. But some systems require parts that can't have any usage in themselves. Whether such things actually exist in biology, we have to see.

We are purely talking abstract. See if the abstract concepts allows detection of design. Then we get look for it in the actual world.

I use inorganic examples myself in a metaphorical way. Reason why I commented was I immediately thought of the watchmaker argument.