Complexity is in the eye of the beholder

[Blastcat]

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?

[Divine Insight]

I'm quite sure that a theist would say that the eye of the beholder is so complex that it must have been designed.

In fact, one very famous theist suggested that everything your eyes behold leave you without excuse for not believing in his God:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (who don't believe in my specific God) are without excuse:

Note the part in italics was added by me for clarification of the context in which Paul was speaking.

Note that Paul even claims that his God's "Eternal Power" is included in what can be "seen".

I wonder what he would think if he were alive today and realized that the universe will most likely die a heat death eventually? So much for any eternal power being "seen" anywhere. Clearly Paul was imagining things that cannot be seen at all.

By the way, I voted for "Whatever Blastcat say is right" because it's clearly not on the bulls-eye, it's way off to the right.

[OnceConvinced]

Is complexity in the eye of the beholder?

I believe what is complex is subjective and all depends on your understanding or lack thereof. The less you understand, the more complex it becomes. The more you understand, the less complex it becomes.

That is why when a believer looks at the universe and marvels at what he sees as complexity, he declares "goddidit" because he just can't understand it. He can't fathom it. However as soon as one starts to study the sciences behind the universe, some of the complexity begins to disappear and then you begin to realise it's not quite as magical and incredible as it first seems. AFter all, most of what we see breaks down to a few simple elements!

Just like computers. They have got more and more complex, but they all break down to some hunks of metal and some 1s and 0s (electronic signals).

I like to use the example of maths to demonstrate what I'm saying here.

When I was 5 years old, simple addition was very complicated.
When I was 9, multiplication was extremely complicated, but addition was a piece of cake
When I was 12, long division was extremely complicated, but multiplication was a piece of cake.
When I was 16, standard calculus was extremely complicated but long division was a piece of cake.
When I was 30 and doing my IT degree, differential calculus was extremely complicated but standard calculus was a piece of cake.
When I looked back at addition I now see it as extremely basic stuff. Very very basic stuff.

So yeah, it's all about how well you understand it.

[OnceConvinced]

I wonder what he would think if he were alive today and realized that the universe will most likely die a heat death eventually? So much for any eternal power being "seen" anywhere. Clearly Paul was imagining things that cannot be seen at all.

What I see in Paul now was a very uneducated and ignorant man who had no clue about the universe, so to make sense of it determined that "godididit" And Paul being the very arrogant type, expected that everyone would see things his way.

[benchwarmer]

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?

As an engineer by degree and a software designer by trade, I would argue that "Simplicity = Design". Complexity is bad engineering

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 3 by OnceConvinced]




[center]A post well worth reading[/center]

Is complexity in the eye of the beholder?

I believe what is complex is subjective and all depends on your understanding or lack thereof. The less you understand, the more complex it becomes. The more you understand, the less complex it becomes.

This is an excellent point.

A few theists have told me that their god concept was VERY simple. In fact, some told me that "God" is the MOST simple thing imaginable. ( because complex things have to be designed )

That is why when a believer looks at the universe and marvels at what he sees as complexity, he declares "goddidit" because he just can't understand it. He can't fathom it.

Ah yes.. the tastiness of this post keeps on coming. I had a dream last night that I spent my Saturdays acting as Jamie Oliver's sou chef.. but my girl friend didn't like being left alone. Well, the point is.. the food in my dream was tasty.

I just got up.. this post is tasty was my point.

If I'm not mistaken, you are talking about the very sad "argument from ignorance" ... which I believe "Goddidit" represents. There are lots of things that humans don't yet understand ( are ignorant of ) and too many apologists want to PLUG that gap in our knowledge with a word. "God" is such a word. It stands in for "IGNORANCE".

If God=Ignorance.. well... not very compelling "being".
We might as well say that the word "God" is an anthropomorphism or deification for not knowing stuff. I'm not sure I'm ready to PRAY to not knowing stuff.

However as soon as one starts to study the sciences behind the universe, some of the complexity begins to disappear and then you begin to realise it's not quite as magical and incredible as it first seems. AFter all, most of what we see breaks down to a few simple elements!

Mmmmm

We have to be careful, I think, on how we define "complexity". A toy truck is less complex than a real one, for example, because there are way many more PARTS to a real truck than a toy one. That's kind of the point of toys.

When I think of all that science that I DON'T know.. I think "WOO.. complexity".
There is a whole lot of these "parts" to learn about nature. Nature is big. I look up into the night sky and think complexity. Maybe the basic PRINCIPLES are a lot simpler than all those data points. So, again, what DOES complexity mean? Two people can look at the same data points and call them complex OR simple.

Eye of the beholder, in my opinion.

Just like computers. They have got more and more complex, but they all break down to some hunks of metal and some 1s and 2s (electronic signals).

Again, eye of the beholder.

A computer is very very simple and very very complex at the very very same time, in my opinion. I think of all the engineering and science that went into my computer... very complex TO ME... and yes, zeros and ones are quite simple too.

Depends on my point of view.

I like to use the example of maths to demonstrate what I'm saying here.

When I was 5 years old, simple addition was very complicated.
When I was 9, multiplication was extremely complicated, but addition was a piece of cake
When I was 12, long division was extremely complicated, but multiplication was a piece of cake.
When I was 16, standard calculus was extremely complicated but long division was a piece of cake.
When I was 30 and doing my IT degree, differential calculus was extremely complicated but standard calculus was a piece of cake.
When I looked back at addition I now see it as extremely basic stuff. Very very basic stuff.

So yeah, it's all about how well you understand it.

Oh that math example is great !!
Good work !!

[H.sapiens]

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?

As an engineer by degree and a software designer by trade, I would argue that "Simplicity = Design". Complexity is bad engineering

I have long thought that creationists were shooting themselves in the foot with the complexity argument. Good design is clean and crisp and the "design" of the living creatures on this planet clearly shows the complexity that results from the accepting of any advance in survivability, as long as it's fitness value exceeds it's fitness cost at the moment and hell take the hindmost tomorrow.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 7 by H.sapiens]

I have long thought that creationists were shooting themselves in the foot with the complexity argument. Good design is clean and crisp and the "design" of the living creatures on this planet clearly shows the complexity that results from the accepting of any advance in survivability, as long as it's fitness value exceeds it's fitness cost at the moment and hell take the hindmost tomorrow.

I'm afraid that creationists, ID proponents, and all apologists hope and pray that nobody is going to notice the very huge honking HOLES in their complex bits of reasoning...

It seems to work gangbusters for their fans.
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance ..... "

[Kenisaw]

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 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.

[Blastcat]

[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]

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.

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 !!


You seem to be mistaking the simple parts for the complex whole.


Thats the fallacy of composition by an other name.