Order vs. Randomness

[Alex K]

Cheers,

I get that idea, I don't think it is so. We know many examples where we control the rules of a "game", and choose them to be extremely simple, and can observe emergent complexity. Think of the game of life with a certain size field. There is complete control over the rules, and they are just two instructions. Would you say that all possible resulting life-like complexity you get out of it if you start with all possible initial conditions (*) is encoded in those two simple algorithmic rules to the extent that these two rules are identical with these complex "worlds" which can result from them? I just don't think it is sensible to equate the two.

(*) I consider the union of all these games, thus eliminating the information content in any specific initial condition from the argument, reminiscent of many worlds QM

As you just demonstrated, atheists occasionally like to bring up John Conway's Game of Life to prove that biological complexity doesn't require an intelligent designer.

But there are two points to this argument that (ironically) turn the tables on themselves:

1. An important question that you should ask yourself is, how were the initial rules for the Game of Life created?

Ok, so do I read you correctly that you concede that all we need to assume at some point to obtain the complexity of physics, life in the universe is a suitable set of simple rules? And you now shift your argument to: we need an intelligent designer to get these simple rules in the first place.

Did its creator Conway just blindly make up those rules in a couple of seconds (almost without even thinking), or did he exert a lot of mental effort and experimentation behind the process?

The answer to the above, apparently, is that the creator chose a few simple but very carefully selected rules - after a long period of experimentation - by trying to simplify and incorporate von Neumann's mathematical models of self-replicating systems into a virtual simulation. This shows us that the four simple rules in the Game of Life required intelligent engineering, that the rules behind the simulation (initially at least) required a level of foresight, a plan, or a goal that one had to work under in order to be able to create them. Therefore, it would be counter-intuitive to think that the underlying laws of the universe generating complexity didn't require any foresight or planning behind them, unlike the Game of Life.

Now that we have partly agreed that the necessary prerequisites to have complexity and life are reducible to a set of very simple rules, you seriously argue that this is a problem because they need an explanation, and yet, postulating a preexisting intelligent creator, which is a like bazillion times more complicated thing, is totally plausible and doesn't require a proportionally more elaborate justificiation? Come on.

2. Even though the Game of Life is a conceivable analogy of a basic aspect in nature (i.e. complexity arising from simpler, fundamental laws), it is hardly useful in explaining the amount of depth and the layers of complexity that exist in the real world, considering that the physical universe is enormously larger and that the laws of physics are considerably more complex than just the four rules implemented in the Game of Life. Therefore, the similarities drawn between the Game of Life and the physical universe are extremely superficial.

The "playing field" in nature is incredibly more fine grained than any simulation. The necessary rules which describe everything relevant for the purposes of this discussion, are all captured in the Standard Model of Particle Physics - a bit more elaborate than Conway's, but still fit on a coaster. It is a matter of quantity, not quality, that makes the difference here. Like the difference between the neural network in my text recognition software, and my brain.

Even something like this ...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20...vaRxc7v7O9

is almost nothing compared to living cells.

Sure, it's almost nothing compared to living cells, because as I said above the playing field is much much more high resolution, and the rules a bit more elaborate. But think early replicators, even before RNA. Not as far away from this simulation as you'd think. The rest is darwinian evolution.