Hi gang!
It seems that ID relies heavily on the concept of "complexity".
I think the story goes that "Complexity=Design"
So, the question is:
Is complexity in the eye of the beholder?
Complexity is in the eye of the beholder
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: Complexity is in the eye of the beholder
Post #11No. That's just fractal geometry. Cut a branch off a tree. The pattern of how it shoots off into smaller branches always resembles the whole tree that it came from. View all the notches and points and angles on 1/2 mile of coastline. Zoom out to 100 miles and the general pattern of notches and angles and points is remarkably similar. It's known as expanding symmetry. It's a pattern that repeats no matter what the scale. Unlike classic geometry uses formula to define a shape, fractal geometry uses iteration. And what's amazing is that while the shapes in fractal geometry are always rough and very complex, the shapes that come out look like nature. Fractal geometry models nature with amazing accuracy time and again.Blastcat wrote: [Replying to post 9 by Kenisaw]
[center]
The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part).[/center]
Yeah, well, math is based on very simple things like numbers and squiggles, but math is sometimes very complex to me. Math's complexity is in the eye of THIS beholder, let me tell you !!Kenisaw wrote:
Complexity may not even really be "complex". With fractal geometry, we've become very aware that most things in the universe are just higher magnitudes of order larger than the same basic thing at smaller scopes. What we call complex is really nothing more than a bigger scale of the pieces making it up.
You seem to be mistaking the simple parts for the complex whole.
Thats the fallacy of composition by an other name.
The simple parts ARE the complex parts.
Re: Complexity is in the eye of the beholder
Post #12[center]
The fallacy of composition Part Two[/center]
Very simple patterns iterated randomly to produce a complex design.
So much so, that movies rely on the technique to imitate realistic looking landscapes and skin textures.
Maybe a squiggle is simple.
Not a forest of trees full of "almost" identical leaves.
Not all of nature.
Well if that reasoning is sound, you just convinced me that shoes are shoe boxes.
Sorry friend, the whole is DIFFERENT than it's parts.
Fallacy of composition
The fallacy of composition Part Two[/center]
I assure you that fractal geometry is a VERY complex subject to this cat.
Right.Kenisaw wrote:
Unlike classic geometry uses formula to define a shape, fractal geometry uses iteration.
Very simple patterns iterated randomly to produce a complex design.
So much so, that movies rely on the technique to imitate realistic looking landscapes and skin textures.
Maybe a squiggle is simple.
Not a forest of trees full of "almost" identical leaves.
Not all of nature.
Kenisaw wrote:
And what's amazing is that while the shapes in fractal geometry are always rough and very complex, the shapes that come out look like nature. Fractal geometry models nature with amazing accuracy time and again.
The simple parts ARE the complex parts.
Well if that reasoning is sound, you just convinced me that shoes are shoe boxes.
Sorry friend, the whole is DIFFERENT than it's parts.
Fallacy of composition
-
- Sage
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:51 am
Re: Complexity is in the eye of the beholder
Post #13[Replying to post 1 by Blastcat]
But I have seen that the idea of "god" is needed a lot less the more things are understood around us.
I think that speaks buckets on what god is and why there was a need for it.
It depends on the person in question, as it goes with most things.Is complexity in the eye of the beholder?
But I have seen that the idea of "god" is needed a lot less the more things are understood around us.
I think that speaks buckets on what god is and why there was a need for it.