Good video on creationist use of "information theory"

[Malintent]

I agree, Underseer. Infinite regression.

I'd like to hear K's resonse, but I suspect there cannot be a rational reason to assert an intelligent designer into every chain of events.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I agree, Underseer. Infinite regression.

I'd like to hear K's resonse, but I suspect there cannot be a rational reason to assert an intelligent designer into every chain of events.

Or, assuming one jimmies up a rational pretext for one designer, why stop? It seems even more arbitrary to go to the effort of insisting that more than a certain amount of complexity requires a designer, then stop with a monodesignist universe.

 

[RandomCoolzip]

Or, assuming one jimmies up a rational pretext for one designer, why stop? It seems even more arbitrary to go to the effort of insisting that more than a certain amount of complexity requires a designer, then stop with a monodesignist universe.

There are parts of the universe, especially living things, that sometimes look more like they were designed by a committee.

 

[Kharakov]

This was the last on-topic post, prior to the derailment on poster's intentions and such.

Hey, you got your intent in my post! You got your post in my intent! Peace's pieces.

The question remains (posed by Kharakov), if a system that is simple, but elegant, MUST be thoughtfully planned for and designed ("designed" implies intelligent work invoving planning). I say it does not (implication being that a designer of the universe is not necessary to explain "complexity"). Kharakov says that they all do.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say all simple elegant systems must be thoughtfully prepared for and designed. I was actually taking a slightly different path (although that idea does sound interesting, I just haven't really considered it).

I took the much simpler path of "great care has gone into what we have today". Just an illustration of the care that goes into creating something complex, that is simple to use (such as the computers we are using right now), or something simple, such as a paperclip (don't want to insult the Microsoft help guy, but perhaps computers are a bit more complex than a paperclip...).

And Underseer says something that helps me understand my thoughts on the matter a bit more clearly (which I'll get to momentarily).

Specific examples were given for simple things that were elegant and did not require complexity. Kharakov says that all things require a "first thing" to make it so, and therefore nothing can be "simple yet elegent".

I didn't say that, as far as I can tell, but perhaps you can show me where I said something that implies that? I'm pretty sure I didn't even go down the "first thing" path in this thread, AFAIK.

What planning and design was needed to produce the complex diversity of the snowflake?

Underseer and I discussed snowflakes in another thread, and he can confirm, if you like, that I understand that interesting objects can come from simple basic principles (after all, I do work with mathematical generating functions occasionally). And he pulled an awesome NSFw trick on me in that thread too.

 

[Kharakov]

It doesn't matter in the end. Positing a designer to explain complexity (even if we ignore the argument from ignorance inherent in this argument) doesn't actually explain the complexity.

I wasn't positing a designer to explain complexity, instead design was mentioned to explain some simple methods we use to interact with complex systems (an on/off switch on a TV). Although...

Just now I was thinking about a being of infinitely complex form and possibility, selecting certain possibilities from within itself to narrow down what occurs to within certain parameters. In other words, constantly whittling down the possibilities to make selection of paths easier for itself and those it cares for, while still preserving freedom for itself and those within its care from within the possibility sphere (uhoh, the possibilities fear... wooooooo.. and you're still going to be fine, the possibilities exist, and you simply need to select from the ones that you are presented- or not. Your decision ).


Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery


So forms are selected against (or removed), unless they have a specific use. Take death, for example. It causes one to value life, and if one does not know that one will see one's loved ones again, one learns to value them a bit more during their mortal life. The thought of loss adds to the depth of one's love, rather than takes away, it makes us more aware of the value of life, rather than takes away from the value of life.

 

[Kharakov]

I'd like to hear K's resonse, but I suspect there cannot be a rational reason to assert an intelligent designer into every chain of events.

I don't think I did? I don't think the existence of the qualia blue required an intelligent designer, or the flavor of salt. Rather, they existed as possibilities... with certain places in which they are more apropos.

 

[Underseer]

I wasn't positing a designer to explain complexity, instead design was mentioned to explain some simple methods we use to interact with complex systems (an on/off switch on a TV). Although...

Still irrelevant. Your explanation doesn't explain any mysteries, but instead inserts a larger and far more complex mystery to replace the mystery we already have.

 

[Malintent]

Thank you for the responses. Your position at this point in the thread appears "softer" than in the begining. rather than sift through to find the statements you made earlier that led me to believe you were implying a "first designer", I'll just say that the assertion that a designer is necessary is a slippery slope that asymtoticly draws us close to that situation... but I accept that you did not intend to imply "necessity" of a designer in all complex systems... however that leaves us with, "some complex things are designed and some elements of complexity arise "naturally".

Which kind of leaves us with a big, "so what", as Underseer just said.

 

[Kharakov]

Your explanation doesn't explain any mysteries, but instead inserts a larger and far more complex mystery to replace the mystery we already have.

How? It's the same thing, just another observation that must be considered. Life didn't up and change because you have more information. In fact, if anything, it should be clearer to you now. Or not. You know, because information is confusing.

 

[Kharakov]

Thank you for the responses. Your position at this point in the thread appears "softer" than in the begining.

You think I drifted away from making the following point: simplicity and ease of use of an extremely complex system requires great care and effort to be put into it.

rather than sift through to find the statements you made earlier that led me to believe you were implying a "first designer", I'll just say that the assertion that a designer is necessary is a slippery slope that asymtoticly draws us close to that situation... but I accept that you did not intend to imply "necessity" of a designer in all complex systems... however that leaves us with, "some complex things are designed and some elements of complexity arise "naturally".

The point was that simplicity also sometimes requires design. It's not some great big mystery- it's just the whole conversation was centralized around complexity, which isn't the only thing that requires design. And design also incorporates brute force trial and error in some cases- AKA "mutations".

Freedom of mind is preserved.

Which kind of leaves us with a big, "so what", as Underseer just said.

So, we aren't establishing various premises before we lead to a conclusion? I'm hardly going to say the conclusion before establishing a few premises. The conclusion will not trap any of our minds, although we will be bound and freed by....

 

[Malintent]

prolly best you get to your point, then... before the thread is abandoned.

premises you have successfully established: Some things that exist are designed and some things that exist are not designed. Some things that are designed take great care and effort to design and some things that are designed do not take great care or effort to design. Some things are hard to do and some things are not. Some things rely on previous work, some do not.
That about cover the wisdom you have brought so far?

For the things that fall into the category "Are designed", which of them are not desinged by living things with purpose and intent (such as people, ants, and bees)? And, most importantly, how do you know?

 

[Underseer]

You think I drifted away from making the following point: simplicity and ease of use of an extremely complex system requires great care and effort to be put into it.

rather than sift through to find the statements you made earlier that led me to believe you were implying a "first designer", I'll just say that the assertion that a designer is necessary is a slippery slope that asymtoticly draws us close to that situation... but I accept that you did not intend to imply "necessity" of a designer in all complex systems... however that leaves us with, "some complex things are designed and some elements of complexity arise "naturally".

The point was that simplicity also sometimes requires design. It's not some great big mystery- it's just the whole conversation was centralized around complexity, which isn't the only thing that requires design. And design also incorporates brute force trial and error in some cases- AKA "mutations".

Freedom of mind is preserved.

Which kind of leaves us with a big, "so what", as Underseer just said.

So, we aren't establishing various premises before we lead to a conclusion? I'm hardly going to say the conclusion before establishing a few premises. The conclusion will not trap any of our minds, although we will be bound and freed by....

Your entire argument rests on an argument from ignorance fallacy.

If you want to prove that something is designed, you have to actually prove that it was designed. Simply throwing your hands in the air and declaring "Well, I can't imagine any other way that thing came into being" doesn't cut it.

 

[Underseer]

The confusion that makes these creationist arguments possible comes from the fact that there are two completely different theories with the same name. Information Theory in computer science defines "information" as bits and bytes. Information Theory in physics defines information as quantum states.

Creationists have created a third "information theory" by randomly picking things from the two different theories and creating a bizarre Frankenstein's monster. They never conducted any experiments to verify that their new amalgam theory is in any way valid. The reason, of course, is that they refuse to define what they mean by "information," and so their new third theory is completely untestable.

If it's untestable, then it's not a hypothesis, much less a theory.

 

[Kharakov]

I've created a couple of interesting mathematical formulas (for complex 3+ dimension fractal type objects) by brute force trial and error.

Truthfully, one of the most interesting formulas is a "Frankenstein type" combination of 2 different formulas.

It's intelligent to try out different things, because you don't necessarily know what you're going to get.

 

[Narapoia]

The confusion that makes these creationist arguments possible comes from the fact that there are two completely different theories with the same name. Information Theory in computer science defines "information" as bits and bytes. Information Theory in physics defines information as quantum states.

Creationists have created a third "information theory" by randomly picking things from the two different theories and creating a bizarre Frankenstein's monster. They never conducted any experiments to verify that their new amalgam theory is in any way valid. The reason, of course, is that they refuse to define what they mean by "information," and so their new third theory is completely untestable.

If it's untestable, then it's not a hypothesis, much less a theory.

or even science....

 

[Malintent]

I've created a couple of interesting mathematical formulas (for complex 3+ dimension fractal type objects) by brute force trial and error.

Truthfully, one of the most interesting formulas is a "Frankenstein type" combination of 2 different formulas.

It's intelligent to try out different things, because you don't necessarily know what you're going to get.

Totally. Copying nature is a great way to learn... would we have invented the airplane yet without first observing birds fly? What if we only had bumblebees to emulate? that would suck. The difference is that it took nature millions of years to figure out flying.. but once that happened, us intelligent designers were able to slap something together in just a few millennia or so.

design by intelligence is faster than design by no intelligence... but we need something to copy and modify.. giants, upon shoulders we stand.

 

[Underseer]

I've created a couple of interesting mathematical formulas (for complex 3+ dimension fractal type objects) by brute force trial and error.

Truthfully, one of the most interesting formulas is a "Frankenstein type" combination of 2 different formulas.

It's intelligent to try out different things, because you don't necessarily know what you're going to get.

That has to be the most bizarre rationalization of incompetence I've yet seen.

If life was designed, then the designer is beyond incompetent.

 

[bigfield]

I've created a couple of interesting mathematical formulas (for complex 3+ dimension fractal type objects) by brute force trial and error.

Truthfully, one of the most interesting formulas is a "Frankenstein type" combination of 2 different formulas.

It's intelligent to try out different things, because you don't necessarily know what you're going to get.

That has to be the most bizarre rationalization of incompetence I've yet seen.

If life was designed, then the designer is beyond incompetent.

At least now we know which god Kharakov believes in:

 

[Kharakov]

My beliefs are bit more in line with SMBC/xkcd than Dilbert. My sarcasm, however, is never present.

 

[Kharakov]

I've created a couple of interesting mathematical formulas (for complex 3+ dimension fractal type objects) by brute force trial and error.

Truthfully, one of the most interesting formulas is a "Frankenstein type" combination of 2 different formulas.

It's intelligent to try out different things, because you don't necessarily know what you're going to get.

That has to be the most bizarre rationalization of incompetence I've yet seen.

Ehh, well, I wouldn't say that I was completely incompetent.

I had to learn a little bit of math and programming languages to accomplish what I accomplished. The trial and error part probably got me places that nobody else would reach because they were pursuing direct paths to certain goals based on mathematical knowledge, rather than trying many different ideas (with slight mutations/variations).

The path I took didn't rely upon full knowledge of where I was trying to go- I was trying many different things, and some of them worked. Not to mention I did so at the exact time that there was finally enough computational capacity and freeware disseminated which allowed these explorations.

If life was designed, then the designer is beyond incompetent.

That depends on the goals, and what conscious beings need for fulfillment, and whether it is easy to give conscious beings fulfillment. The whole eternal orgasm thing sounds good, but do conscious beings need more than that? Do they need a connection to others? Will the eternal joy fountain be crushed by negligent behaviors?

I've seen competence and apparent incompetence in others. I've definitely seen incompetence in myself.. although it's probably the fault of others.