Emergent Complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2013, 12:17 AM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(07-04-2013 12:25 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 05:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Can you provide one example from a theist other than myself who even talked about emergent complexity in this forum?

Also I forgive you for calling me a troll and for spreading lies about my social life.
You realize there is a search feature on the forum right? Simply put in Emergent Complexity and walla, dozens and dozens of threads spawn up. Ones even in reference to videos of Tyson and with similar responses of yours.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...complexity

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...complexity

As in troll fashion, if somebody doesn't beat you over the head with it.. they will cry as if it's impossible for them to figure out.

So yes, it's another troll thread based on false assumptions.

Clyde, where in those two threads is the argument made that emergent complexity is proof of intelligent design? Buckee confused emergent complexity with irreducible complexity. Then to cover up his ignorance he claimed that theists are always using emergent complexity to prove ID....which is bullshit. So I challenged him on it by asking him to produce one thread, where an ID'st uses emergent complexity to justify intelligent design. Of course he couldn't do it because he was full of b.s. to begin with. You made a noble attempt at wiping his ass for him, but as far as I can tell you haven't really cleaned up Buckee's mess. Maybe I missed it it but in skimming thru those threads, where exactly is emergent complexity used to justify intelligent design?

Give me a post number
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 12:26 AM
RE: Emergent Complexity
More deflection. Just ignores the questions raised.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 12:41 AM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(08-04-2013 12:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  More deflection. Just ignores the questions raised.

Your right....I did ignore Clyde's question.

Yes Clyde, I do realize there is a search feature on this forum. I figured Buckee would use it to actually substantiate his claim....which it seems now was just a b.s. attempt by him to save face.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 06:31 AM
RE: Emergent Complexity
Bucky, are you planning to argue against anything Heywood has said in this or any related thread or are you planning to continue arguing against a strawman of your own invention while hurling ad hominem abuse?

Here is a paraphrase of the points that Heywood has made so far in this thread:
* Emergent complexity exists, is interesting, and is understood and explained by scientists
* Emergent has been going on for 13.7 billion years, but there is no guarantee it has been going on eternally
* Complexity has been increasing as entropy has increased within the lifetime of the universe
* There is more to the universe than the portion observable from Earth
* There is some interesting science being done that suggests that the principle of uniformity might not be a complete picture of the observable universe
* He doesn't accept Krauss's "A universe from nothing"
* He assumes the eternal existence of some basic physical laws that form a first cause of the universe
* He associates the idea of the emergent complexity that might have arisen from these eternal physical laws with the concept of God

Bucky, you have posted nine times in this thread and as I read it only one post has addressed any of Heywood's claims. My summary of your post is "There's no evidence in the concept of emergent complexity to support the notion of a God.

Heywood,

In response to your specific claim that emergent complexity sounds a lot like a God, I would if you could elaborate on that. I think you'll find the error in your reasoning if you do. Let me take you down my line of understanding.
1. You have identified a set of physical laws that you believe are eternal, the first cause of the universe. Therefore, I think you are stating that you do not believe God is the first cause. Instead you see God as the cause in fact of the universe.
2. You believe that God is the product of emergent complexity, ie random chance and evolution in some free dimension of existence outside of this universe
Am I representing your views correctly?

If so, do you think that a God of the type Christians accept is the most likely form of emergent complexity to be the cause of our universe? Wouldn't there be other simpler causes that could have created a universe of this type? For example, your emergent complexity game or Conway's game of life produce all sorts of interesting little structures out of random chance without the need for a mind. Therefore it seems that if we assume emergent complexity has arisen from some eternal set of laws that the simplest plausible cause of the universe is such a random complex interaction, like a boiling see of membranes crashing and breaking into each other to form little universes - some of which are capable of supporting life.

If you accept that is the simplest explanation based on your premises then presumably you have an additional reason to take things further - presumably you accept the teleological argument which would be somewhat off topic to address in this thread. Certainly on the basis of what you have described in this thread it would seem that the most rational conclusion to draw based on your stated assumptions is that the universe's cause is those eternal physical laws and that the universe is part of the resulting emergent complexity rather than inserting the notion of a mind - or at least a mind who takes attendance[1].

[1] http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/series...xcitation/

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 01:54 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2013 02:02 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Emergent Complexity
(08-04-2013 12:17 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-04-2013 12:25 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You realize there is a search feature on the forum right? Simply put in Emergent Complexity and walla, dozens and dozens of threads spawn up. Ones even in reference to videos of Tyson and with similar responses of yours.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...complexity

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...complexity

As in troll fashion, if somebody doesn't beat you over the head with it.. they will cry as if it's impossible for them to figure out.

So yes, it's another troll thread based on false assumptions.

Clyde, where in those two threads is the argument made that emergent complexity is proof of intelligent design? Buckee confused emergent complexity with irreducible complexity. Then to cover up his ignorance he claimed that theists are always using emergent complexity to prove ID....which is bullshit. So I challenged him on it by asking him to produce one thread, where an ID'st uses emergent complexity to justify intelligent design. Of course he couldn't do it because he was full of b.s. to begin with. You made a noble attempt at wiping his ass for him, but as far as I can tell you haven't really cleaned up Buckee's mess. Maybe I missed it it but in skimming thru those threads, where exactly is emergent complexity used to justify intelligent design?

Give me a post number

That's very impressive false recollection of history for something you can scroll up to look back at.

You didn't ask for an example of the argument of emergent complexity being used to proof intelligent design... you asked for a case of a theist, other than you, talking about emergent complexity.

Bucky was just pointing out, the trend is that usually when emergent complexity is brought up, it's going to be linked in connection to those arguing about intelligent design.

You are willfully called a troll because causing thread like this while changing around what you are arguing amidst a point is the equivalent of baiting people into debate.

BTW: I can still actually point out the case with the threads posted anyway: Abdelz's thread does it in his first 4 posts.(If I remember correct he was a Muslim who tried to say a bunch of stuff about God not being objective but if you live in the Islamic way, you will find the objective truth of God) He mentioned how he felt the mind was an emergence property. He connected it all with how God to him was apart of all things, man couldn't of created the idea of God themselves, God had to have designed and created all things. Doesn't make sense to me but just through his own posts it's the same type of argument in a bizarre somewhat culture clashed idea.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2013, 02:44 AM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(08-04-2013 06:31 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Bucky, are you planning to argue against anything Heywood has said in this or any related thread or are you planning to continue arguing against a strawman of your own invention while hurling ad hominem abuse?

Here is a paraphrase of the points that Heywood has made so far in this thread:
* Emergent complexity exists, is interesting, and is understood and explained by scientists
* Emergent has been going on for 13.7 billion years, but there is no guarantee it has been going on eternally
* Complexity has been increasing as entropy has increased within the lifetime of the universe
* There is more to the universe than the portion observable from Earth
* There is some interesting science being done that suggests that the principle of uniformity might not be a complete picture of the observable universe
* He doesn't accept Krauss's "A universe from nothing"
* He assumes the eternal existence of some basic physical laws that form a first cause of the universe
* He associates the idea of the emergent complexity that might have arisen from these eternal physical laws with the concept of God

Bucky, you have posted nine times in this thread and as I read it only one post has addressed any of Heywood's claims. My summary of your post is "There's no evidence in the concept of emergent complexity to support the notion of a God.

Heywood,

In response to your specific claim that emergent complexity sounds a lot like a God, I would if you could elaborate on that. I think you'll find the error in your reasoning if you do. Let me take you down my line of understanding.
1. You have identified a set of physical laws that you believe are eternal, the first cause of the universe. Therefore, I think you are stating that you do not believe God is the first cause. Instead you see God as the cause in fact of the universe.
2. You believe that God is the product of emergent complexity, ie random chance and evolution in some free dimension of existence outside of this universe
Am I representing your views correctly?

If so, do you think that a God of the type Christians accept is the most likely form of emergent complexity to be the cause of our universe? Wouldn't there be other simpler causes that could have created a universe of this type? For example, your emergent complexity game or Conway's game of life produce all sorts of interesting little structures out of random chance without the need for a mind. Therefore it seems that if we assume emergent complexity has arisen from some eternal set of laws that the simplest plausible cause of the universe is such a random complex interaction, like a boiling see of membranes crashing and breaking into each other to form little universes - some of which are capable of supporting life.

If you accept that is the simplest explanation based on your premises then presumably you have an additional reason to take things further - presumably you accept the teleological argument which would be somewhat off topic to address in this thread. Certainly on the basis of what you have described in this thread it would seem that the most rational conclusion to draw based on your stated assumptions is that the universe's cause is those eternal physical laws and that the universe is part of the resulting emergent complexity rather than inserting the notion of a mind - or at least a mind who takes attendance[1].

[1] http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/series...xcitation/

Thanks Hanoff.

I wasn't clear regarding Krause. Its no it so much that I reject his universe from nothing idea. I reject his notion of "nothing". His nothing is really "something".

I don't believe there was a first cause. I believe that reality and God are both eternal. The idea of God, an intellect, existing outside reality is nonsensical. In order to be intelligent there must be a reality to be intelligent about....there must be a reality to navigate. The idea of nothing but pure intellect floating around in nothingness makes no sense to me.

I don't want to say that God caused reality to come into existence or that realty caused God to come into existence. Both these things are a consequence of eternal emergence.

I realize that doesnt makes sense. I have a notion in my mind that I can' t find the words to describe. When I started this thread I didn't intend it to be a discussion about God, but rather strictly about emergence. When Guitarnut asked me about significance he suckered me into it....but I blame that which I imbibed for ending up here moreso then Guitarnut's innocent and valid question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2013, 06:08 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2013 06:11 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Emergent Complexity
Heywood,

Just to amplify on my previous post -

The fundamental question is the question of how we deal with infinite regress. "What is the cause of the universe as we know it?" or "Why is there something instead of nothing?" I think the conventional answers are:
1. There was some conscious or otherwise first cause that has special properties that enable it to cause everything else. For example, assuming some infinite time (or other free dimension) at some point in time a thing that always existed caused other things to come into existence. For example the boiling sea of universes caused this universe to exist, or a God that always existed caused this universe to exist
or
2. There was some fundamental beginning for which it doesn't make logical sense to look back further than. For example the universe itself has a beginning in time, a point at which time was created or time can be thought of as ending if we were to travel backwards in time. Beyond then there was no cause, so whatever state existed at that time requires no cause.
or
3. Infinite regress - that is to say that we have a cause, and that cause had a cause, and it to had a cause etc etc infinitely in some time-like dimension.

No matter whether you take the universe we know with the big bang as the beginning or some other set of physics that is deeper and older than the big bang with its own distinct beginning it seems we need one of those things to happen.

I believe you said that you thought God looked like emergent complexity, which explicitly places him in the realm of the caused rather than in the realm of the first cause. His existence might be a necessary consequence of that first cause just as strange little artefacts are a necessary consequence of the rules that govern Conway's game of life... but under this model he would be created as a consequence of those rules.

But if we are to postulate that God is the consequence of those rules, to paraphrase Sagan, then why not skip a step and assume that we and our universe are the consequence of those rules without the need for a God in the mix?

But now you seem to be switching strides to suggest that God does not really resemble emergent complexity, and instead that God and the rules are essentially one and the same. A first cause that is not emergent but eternal and ever present. This begs the question of why given our experience of simple rules being behind all of the emergent complexity in our universe would we postulate that a complex entity such as a God was the first cause? Why not assume that simple rules were the first cause there, as they have been in every other emergently complex system we have experience with?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
09-04-2013, 03:13 PM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(09-04-2013 02:44 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-04-2013 06:31 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Bucky, are you planning to argue against anything Heywood has said in this or any related thread or are you planning to continue arguing against a strawman of your own invention while hurling ad hominem abuse?

Here is a paraphrase of the points that Heywood has made so far in this thread:
* Emergent complexity exists, is interesting, and is understood and explained by scientists
* Emergent has been going on for 13.7 billion years, but there is no guarantee it has been going on eternally
* Complexity has been increasing as entropy has increased within the lifetime of the universe
* There is more to the universe than the portion observable from Earth
* There is some interesting science being done that suggests that the principle of uniformity might not be a complete picture of the observable universe
* He doesn't accept Krauss's "A universe from nothing"
* He assumes the eternal existence of some basic physical laws that form a first cause of the universe
* He associates the idea of the emergent complexity that might have arisen from these eternal physical laws with the concept of God

Bucky, you have posted nine times in this thread and as I read it only one post has addressed any of Heywood's claims. My summary of your post is "There's no evidence in the concept of emergent complexity to support the notion of a God.

Heywood,

In response to your specific claim that emergent complexity sounds a lot like a God, I would if you could elaborate on that. I think you'll find the error in your reasoning if you do. Let me take you down my line of understanding.
1. You have identified a set of physical laws that you believe are eternal, the first cause of the universe. Therefore, I think you are stating that you do not believe God is the first cause. Instead you see God as the cause in fact of the universe.
2. You believe that God is the product of emergent complexity, ie random chance and evolution in some free dimension of existence outside of this universe
Am I representing your views correctly?

If so, do you think that a God of the type Christians accept is the most likely form of emergent complexity to be the cause of our universe? Wouldn't there be other simpler causes that could have created a universe of this type? For example, your emergent complexity game or Conway's game of life produce all sorts of interesting little structures out of random chance without the need for a mind. Therefore it seems that if we assume emergent complexity has arisen from some eternal set of laws that the simplest plausible cause of the universe is such a random complex interaction, like a boiling see of membranes crashing and breaking into each other to form little universes - some of which are capable of supporting life.

If you accept that is the simplest explanation based on your premises then presumably you have an additional reason to take things further - presumably you accept the teleological argument which would be somewhat off topic to address in this thread. Certainly on the basis of what you have described in this thread it would seem that the most rational conclusion to draw based on your stated assumptions is that the universe's cause is those eternal physical laws and that the universe is part of the resulting emergent complexity rather than inserting the notion of a mind - or at least a mind who takes attendance[1].

[1] http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/series...xcitation/

Thanks Hanoff.

I wasn't clear regarding Krause. Its no it so much that I reject his universe from nothing idea. I reject his notion of "nothing". His nothing is really "something".

I don't believe there was a first cause. I believe that reality and God are both eternal. The idea of God, an intellect, existing outside reality is nonsensical. In order to be intelligent there must be a reality to be intelligent about....there must be a reality to navigate. The idea of nothing but pure intellect floating around in nothingness makes no sense to me.

I don't want to say that God caused reality to come into existence or that realty caused God to come into existence. Both these things are a consequence of eternal emergence.

No first cause, so everything has always existed. But you say your god is a consequence of something, so your god is a product. But you say god and reality are eternal. Undecided

Righto, I shall add. The idea of an intellect being eternal seems rather fishy too doesn't it, where did he get all that information? What process lead to the accumulation of such knowledge and power?

Eternal Emergence, which is?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2013, 07:57 PM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(09-04-2013 02:44 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-04-2013 06:31 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Bucky, are you planning to argue against anything Heywood has said in this or any related thread or are you planning to continue arguing against a strawman of your own invention while hurling ad hominem abuse?

Here is a paraphrase of the points that Heywood has made so far in this thread:
* Emergent complexity exists, is interesting, and is understood and explained by scientists
* Emergent has been going on for 13.7 billion years, but there is no guarantee it has been going on eternally
* Complexity has been increasing as entropy has increased within the lifetime of the universe
* There is more to the universe than the portion observable from Earth
* There is some interesting science being done that suggests that the principle of uniformity might not be a complete picture of the observable universe
* He doesn't accept Krauss's "A universe from nothing"
* He assumes the eternal existence of some basic physical laws that form a first cause of the universe
* He associates the idea of the emergent complexity that might have arisen from these eternal physical laws with the concept of God

Bucky, you have posted nine times in this thread and as I read it only one post has addressed any of Heywood's claims. My summary of your post is "There's no evidence in the concept of emergent complexity to support the notion of a God.

Heywood,

In response to your specific claim that emergent complexity sounds a lot like a God, I would if you could elaborate on that. I think you'll find the error in your reasoning if you do. Let me take you down my line of understanding.
1. You have identified a set of physical laws that you believe are eternal, the first cause of the universe. Therefore, I think you are stating that you do not believe God is the first cause. Instead you see God as the cause in fact of the universe.
2. You believe that God is the product of emergent complexity, ie random chance and evolution in some free dimension of existence outside of this universe
Am I representing your views correctly?

If so, do you think that a God of the type Christians accept is the most likely form of emergent complexity to be the cause of our universe? Wouldn't there be other simpler causes that could have created a universe of this type? For example, your emergent complexity game or Conway's game of life produce all sorts of interesting little structures out of random chance without the need for a mind. Therefore it seems that if we assume emergent complexity has arisen from some eternal set of laws that the simplest plausible cause of the universe is such a random complex interaction, like a boiling see of membranes crashing and breaking into each other to form little universes - some of which are capable of supporting life.

If you accept that is the simplest explanation based on your premises then presumably you have an additional reason to take things further - presumably you accept the teleological argument which would be somewhat off topic to address in this thread. Certainly on the basis of what you have described in this thread it would seem that the most rational conclusion to draw based on your stated assumptions is that the universe's cause is those eternal physical laws and that the universe is part of the resulting emergent complexity rather than inserting the notion of a mind - or at least a mind who takes attendance[1].

[1] http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/series...xcitation/

Thanks Hanoff.

I wasn't clear regarding Krause. Its no it so much that I reject his universe from nothing idea. I reject his notion of "nothing". His nothing is really "something".

I don't believe there was a first cause. I believe that reality and God are both eternal. The idea of God, an intellect, existing outside reality is nonsensical. In order to be intelligent there must be a reality to be intelligent about....there must be a reality to navigate. The idea of nothing but pure intellect floating around in nothingness makes no sense to me.

I don't want to say that God caused reality to come into existence or that realty caused God to come into existence. Both these things are a consequence of eternal emergence.

I realize that doesnt makes sense. I have a notion in my mind that I can' t find the words to describe. When I started this thread I didn't intend it to be a discussion about God, but rather strictly about emergence. When Guitarnut asked me about significance he suckered me into it....but I blame that which I imbibed for ending up here moreso then Guitarnut's innocent and valid question.

I think you should watch the first minute of this...




You really seem to be adding a lot into things unnecessarily here based on countless possibilities. Yes it's possible God drives evolution in whatever label you provide, and it's possible he is one with the universe.. There isn't evidence discovered at this stage to actually support that claim; it's just silly to belief and the extra idea of something existing serves no purpose.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2013, 11:12 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2013 02:38 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Emergent Complexity
(08-04-2013 06:31 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Bucky, are you planning to argue against anything Heywood has said in this or any related thread or are you planning to continue arguing against a strawman of your own invention while hurling ad hominem abuse?

Here is a paraphrase of the points that Heywood has made so far in this thread:
* Emergent complexity exists, is interesting, and is understood and explained by scientists
* Emergent has been going on for 13.7 billion years, but there is no guarantee it has been going on eternally
* Complexity has been increasing as entropy has increased within the lifetime of the universe
* There is more to the universe than the portion observable from Earth
* There is some interesting science being done that suggests that the principle of uniformity might not be a complete picture of the observable universe
* He doesn't accept Krauss's "A universe from nothing"
* He assumes the eternal existence of some basic physical laws that form a first cause of the universe
* He associates the idea of the emergent complexity that might have arisen from these eternal physical laws with the concept of God

Bucky, you have posted nine times in this thread and as I read it only one post has addressed any of Heywood's claims. My summary of your post is "There's no evidence in the concept of emergent complexity to support the notion of a God.

Heywood,

In response to your specific claim that emergent complexity sounds a lot like a God, I would if you could elaborate on that. I think you'll find the error in your reasoning if you do. Let me take you down my line of understanding.
1. You have identified a set of physical laws that you believe are eternal, the first cause of the universe. Therefore, I think you are stating that you do not believe God is the first cause. Instead you see God as the cause in fact of the universe.
2. You believe that God is the product of emergent complexity, ie random chance and evolution in some free dimension of existence outside of this universe
Am I representing your views correctly?

If so, do you think that a God of the type Christians accept is the most likely form of emergent complexity to be the cause of our universe? Wouldn't there be other simpler causes that could have created a universe of this type? For example, your emergent complexity game or Conway's game of life produce all sorts of interesting little structures out of random chance without the need for a mind. Therefore it seems that if we assume emergent complexity has arisen from some eternal set of laws that the simplest plausible cause of the universe is such a random complex interaction, like a boiling see of membranes crashing and breaking into each other to form little universes - some of which are capable of supporting life.

If you accept that is the simplest explanation based on your premises then presumably you have an additional reason to take things further - presumably you accept the teleological argument which would be somewhat off topic to address in this thread. Certainly on the basis of what you have described in this thread it would seem that the most rational conclusion to draw based on your stated assumptions is that the universe's cause is those eternal physical laws and that the universe is part of the resulting emergent complexity rather than inserting the notion of a mind - or at least a mind who takes attendance[1].

[1] http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/series...xcitation/

I accept none of his assumptions, or premises. He has not addressed my questions raised in #30, #34, and #39, and neither have you or anyone else. His assertions and conjectures are supported by no evidence, and are simplistic crap. "There is likely more to Reality than the observable universe". Well "duh". Like that shit is profound or something ? He's pretty well exposed his level of scientific knowledge and mentality in his debate with Reltzic. He's not even worth responding to. Assertions and conjecture, and never any substantiation.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: