Yes and I think just as there are many things that logically are said to imply something. As in if X happens then Y MUST happen. And that's just what has happened thus far. If up untill now X always implies Y then its not unreasonable to use the word 'must' because otherwise you might as well NEVER use it because nothing can be proven or disproven absolutely (as far as we know, lol, I'm not absolute about 'even' that).
Well the thing is it would be very unusual indeed for a particle to be omnipotent and fully conscious! I don't see how that is possible!
Being fully conscious and omnipotent makes something very complex. That something is very unlikely to come about by chance.
But for something to be omnipotent and fully conscious it would almost certainly have to be made up of just one particle I would think! Many particles working together to make consciousness and omnipotence is very complex.
But for all that to work with just one particle you think that would be even MORE complex? How bloody sophisticated would a particle have to be to do things that would very probably normally take a great great many particles?
But generally the combo of many particles working together would be very complex.
Both alternatives are certainly very complex to me.
I'm curious, where exactly by my own definition do I say that biology is simple?
(February 24, 2009 at 9:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Well considering how I've said earlier in the thread that the two kinds of complexity; - 1: difficult to understand and 2: something that is unlikely to simply come about by chance - often get mixed up... and right now I'm talking about number 2 - I would say that with this definition of complexity a particle that is fully conscious AND omnipotent would be complex! It wouldn't be ultimately simple! Because its total consciousness and omnipotence would give it a lot of complexity.
DD Wrote:By your definition, biological life is 'simple'. I don't think that's the kind of complexity people are talking about here.Huh?
Well the thing is it would be very unusual indeed for a particle to be omnipotent and fully conscious! I don't see how that is possible!
Being fully conscious and omnipotent makes something very complex. That something is very unlikely to come about by chance.
But for something to be omnipotent and fully conscious it would almost certainly have to be made up of just one particle I would think! Many particles working together to make consciousness and omnipotence is very complex.
But for all that to work with just one particle you think that would be even MORE complex? How bloody sophisticated would a particle have to be to do things that would very probably normally take a great great many particles?
But generally the combo of many particles working together would be very complex.
Both alternatives are certainly very complex to me.
I'm curious, where exactly by my own definition do I say that biology is simple?
