Specified Complexity
2 views
Skip to first unread message
backspace
May 4, 2011, 6:50:51 AM5/4/11
to Tautology notes
Dembski specified complexity. Relate this to the pattern - design
issue.
issue.
backspace
May 8, 2011, 12:40:05 PM5/8/11
to Tautology notes
On May 4, 12:50 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dembski specified complexity. Relate this to the pattern - design
> issue.
backspace
May 9, 2011, 8:02:59 AM5/9/11
to Tautology notes
The mouse trap is specified as having five parts to make it IF
(irreducible functionality) or IC. But the number of parts must
not be confused with complexity of the individual parts themselves.
There tends to be a sense that if the number of parts are limited ,
that this also equates to simplicity of the parts themselves.
SC(specified complexity) must take the functionality of the individual
parts themselves into consideration.
backspace
May 9, 2011, 8:17:27 AM5/9/11
to Tautology notes
parts themselves are highly functional , specified and aesthetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
We could assign each individual part an arbitrary number on a scale of
1 to 10 as to its functionality, specificity , complexity and
aesthetic.
The spring of a mousetrap would be lets say 9, while the pin 3 for
example.
backspace
May 9, 2011, 12:37:48 PM5/9/11
to Tautology notes
Random(pattern).
Design(Specified pattern).
Design(Specified pattern).
backspace
May 11, 2011, 9:17:03 AM5/11/11
to Tautology notes
On May 9, 6:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Random(pattern).
> Design(Specified pattern).
On May 11, 10:03 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (2011/05/11 16:18), backspace wrote:
> > On May 10, 4:20 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/05/11 15:05, backspace wrote:> On May 10, 3:48 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> I mean, look at this : "The crucial test is whether one s pet theory can
> >>>> distinguish between selection for trait A and selection for trait B when
> >>>> A and B are coextensive: were polar bears selected for being white or
> >>>> for matching their environment? Search me; and search any kind of
> >>>> adaptationism I ve heard of. Nor am I holding my breath till one comes
> >>>> along."
>
> >>>> Polar bears are extremely like other bears, the main difference being
> >>>> that they live in a white environment. This STRONGLY suggests that their
> >>>> white colour was selected to match their environment.
>
> >>> If the bears were in a black environment but still white, how would
> >>> selection explain this?
>
> >> There might be some other function to being white, such as energy
> >> conservation (for example, creatures living in lightless environment
> >> tend to lose their pigmentation).
>
> > As explained elsewhere my question was grammatically correct but
> > meaningless. You should have asked who did the selecting or made a
> > decision.
>
> Selection doesn't require an intelligent or conscious "who" to be doing
> the selecting. As explained elsewhere.
The word the selection of the process of making a selection?
> The beach aren't random assemblages, they
> tend to have definite longitudinal layers delimiting zones of seaweed,
> gravel, different kinds of sand, etc.
Lets avoid the usage of random without supporting context. We only
have two options.
1) A pattern that represents only itself, such as leaves blowing in
the wind- random pattern.
2) A specified pattern(Dembski specified complexity) that represents
something other than itself. A layer of bricks repeating in a pattern
to form a wall represents a design idea.
The *random* assemblages on the beach like the leaves blowing
represents only themselves.
> Something is selecting seaweed for
> this strip, fine sand for that place, rocks beyond that zone.
> Who is doing the selecting ?
Depends, are you using selection in the sense of 1)random pattern or
2)specified pattern?
> Dissolve salt in water. Leave it to evaporate for a day. Admire the
> result. Who designed the crystals ?
Do the crystals represent themselves or something else, is there an
encoding decoding mechanism.
> Random(pattern).
> Design(Specified pattern).
On May 11, 10:03 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (2011/05/11 16:18), backspace wrote:
> > On May 10, 4:20 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/05/11 15:05, backspace wrote:> On May 10, 3:48 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> I mean, look at this : "The crucial test is whether one s pet theory can
> >>>> distinguish between selection for trait A and selection for trait B when
> >>>> A and B are coextensive: were polar bears selected for being white or
> >>>> for matching their environment? Search me; and search any kind of
> >>>> adaptationism I ve heard of. Nor am I holding my breath till one comes
> >>>> along."
>
> >>>> Polar bears are extremely like other bears, the main difference being
> >>>> that they live in a white environment. This STRONGLY suggests that their
> >>>> white colour was selected to match their environment.
>
> >>> If the bears were in a black environment but still white, how would
> >>> selection explain this?
>
> >> There might be some other function to being white, such as energy
> >> conservation (for example, creatures living in lightless environment
> >> tend to lose their pigmentation).
>
> > As explained elsewhere my question was grammatically correct but
> > meaningless. You should have asked who did the selecting or made a
> > decision.
>
> Selection doesn't require an intelligent or conscious "who" to be doing
> the selecting. As explained elsewhere.
The word the selection of the process of making a selection?
> The beach aren't random assemblages, they
> tend to have definite longitudinal layers delimiting zones of seaweed,
> gravel, different kinds of sand, etc.
Lets avoid the usage of random without supporting context. We only
have two options.
1) A pattern that represents only itself, such as leaves blowing in
the wind- random pattern.
2) A specified pattern(Dembski specified complexity) that represents
something other than itself. A layer of bricks repeating in a pattern
to form a wall represents a design idea.
The *random* assemblages on the beach like the leaves blowing
represents only themselves.
> Something is selecting seaweed for
> this strip, fine sand for that place, rocks beyond that zone.
> Who is doing the selecting ?
Depends, are you using selection in the sense of 1)random pattern or
2)specified pattern?
> Dissolve salt in water. Leave it to evaporate for a day. Admire the
> result. Who designed the crystals ?
Do the crystals represent themselves or something else, is there an
encoding decoding mechanism.
backspace
May 11, 2011, 10:17:42 AM5/11/11
to Tautology notes
On May 11, 3:26 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Lets avoid the usage of random without supporting context. We only
> > have two options.
> > 1) A pattern that represents only itself, such as leaves blowing in
> > the wind- random pattern.
> > 2) A specified pattern(Dembski specified complexity) that represents
> > something other than itself. A layer of bricks repeating in a pattern
> > to form a wall represents a design idea.
> > The *random* assemblages on the beach like the leaves blowing
> > represents only themselves.
>
> There are actually 3 options. The third one being where there is no
> > Lets avoid the usage of random without supporting context. We only
> > have two options.
> > 1) A pattern that represents only itself, such as leaves blowing in
> > the wind- random pattern.
> > 2) A specified pattern(Dembski specified complexity) that represents
> > something other than itself. A layer of bricks repeating in a pattern
> > to form a wall represents a design idea.
> > The *random* assemblages on the beach like the leaves blowing
> > represents only themselves.
>
> way of telling whether or not something shows an intended “design
> idea” or not.
The third option is self-defeating, for it means that you inherently
have no way of telling what you just wrote is itself designed or not.
Remember Godels theorem which states: Anything that is logical will be
within a circle, needing something outside of the circle to explain
it. Draw a circle around all the trillions of possible universes, you
still need something outside the circle to explain it. The universe is
logical , thus Godels theorem applies to because it applies to
anything that is logical. Draw a circle around a bridge, something
outside the bridge is needed to explain the bridge. Draw a circle
around the PID algorithms guiding a tiger's jump over a tream:
Something outside of the tiger itself is needed to explain the control
algorithms and feedback loop between eyes, brain and muscles , just
like a robot engineer is needed to explain they Japanese walking
robot.
What you are actually asking of me is to provide you with some way of
proof beyond all doubt that God exists. Godels theorem showed that
this isn't possible within our axiomatic assumptions. The obvious
thing is to ask God himself in what way has he revealed himself to us.
That man is Jesus Christ , who as God in the flesh said I am
Life(biology) and Truth personified, he who believes in me shall never
die.
backspace
Jun 12, 2011, 1:29:54 AM6/12/11
to Tautology notes
-
backspace
Jun 15, 2011, 2:55:31 PM6/15/11
to Tautology notes
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages