(July 19, 2011 at 6:53 am)Chuck Wrote: Just to give the prepetrators of walls of bullshit text about complexity of god a lifeline with which they might conceivably pull their rambling closer to respectability, let me point out that complexity is as quantifiable as mass and energy, and is therefore fundamentally not subjective. If something is indeed infinitely complex, then a very large magnitude of complexity for it ought to be measurable for a detectable part of that thing. Will they take the lifeline?

How so? The term "complex" is an evaluation of an entity, not a quantifiable trait.
What makes a thing "quantifiably complex"? How does one measure "complex" without perception?
A "Complex number" has a real and imaginary component. That is a quantifiable only because it has a fixed
definition outside of perception.

The fact that a certain trait is used to evaluate an entity, like mass, doesn't mean it's not quantifiable. You may say whether some thing is heavy or light, massive or insubstantial, but that does not change the fact it is 53 grames. It is true that trait depends on perception, but that does not change it's quantifiability. No matter how fickle perception might be, all the fundamental factors governing perception, from the mass of the entity in the example above, to the gravity that allows you to perceive the mass as weights, to the neurological state which caused you to regard that weight as light, are in principle quantifiable. Complexity of a thing can be quantified by many different ways. Some example includes the theoretical minimum amount of data required to predict the behavior of the thing to a given degree of precision.

The amount of data required to predict the behavior of the entire universe, or "Entire creation" as Christians would yokelishly put it, is potentially vast but finite by understanding of modern physics. The fact that physical universe might be infinite does not necessarily make the amount of data required to predict all arbitrary parts of it infinite as well. So long as there is ultimately an consistent set of rules governing it's behavior, a finite set of description of the rules would suffice to describe an infinite universe, or even an infinite number of individually infinite universes. So there is no need to postulate infinite complexity for purpose other than airy theological sophistry, much less need for any infinitely complex god.

However, what is certain is if the universe were created by god, god can not less complex than the universe, since predicting the universe is necessary to predicting that which created it, thus god can not be predicted by less information than required to predict what he created. So god can not solve the complexity paradox, which is the original thrust of this thread.

You can look up complexity on Wikipedia if you wish to genuinely begin to explore complexity as a specific, meaningful term capable of setting your statements above airy talk.

(July 18, 2011 at 3:29 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: I do love it when they do this and they only seem to say this when the debate about God's existence gets into defining his character. Otherwise, they will fully claim to not only know the will of God, but to be living examples of it.

It does seem a common occurrence among some Christians. I met a full on Texas Fundy once who aspired to be a minister. He shared his parenting experience was based on Bible tenets as god's will that he be responsible for raising a god fearing child, a son, of the future. Which included letting his boy suffer an attack by red ants that had built a home in the corner of their back yard. This Fundy father had said he'd told his son about them and instructed him to stay away, and yet the child's free will caused him to disobey and he suffered the consequences. Bites all over his little bare feet legs and buttocks. His screams drew his dad's attention to the suffering that dad saw fit to save him from. Only later to discipline the child for his disobedience, as if the ants weren't punishment enough.

The baby boy was 3.

So after he shared that I mentioned he had assumed the same attitude as did his god in Genesis, punishing Adam and Eve for their sin of disobedience and all the generations that come after them, for that one finite mistake. Asking, how could a all powerful eternal god eternally punish his children for one error and not forgive them if he truly loved them. How could he then later drown the whole world because of the burden of sin he, god, cast upon them by his free will which demonstrated wrath as superior to compassion?

His answer?

He's god. He can do whatever he want's with his creation. Who are we to judge god?

In my travels I've found that most of the vocal committed Fundy Christians I've met have actually never read their Bible cover to cover. They rely on ministers, they thumb through from time to time as if it's an oracle that will guide them in times of need, but they've never read the entire book. And they've certainly never stepped back and critically reviewed the characteristics of god, which isn't hard to ascertain considering god brags about his deficits, so as to realize he's not only the universal abortionist, and was never pro-life, as those lot are hand and hand with hypocrisy in Fundamentalist values, but he's also the universal sinner.

Of all the faults humans are led to believe are that what builds a barrier between themselves and the divine, of all that list of those 7 deadly sins, the one entity not only in the Bible but in the Christians world and universe, as they believe god is omnipresent, that is black as night with the burden of evil and sin through and through, it's their own god.

And in their ignorance of that, they love him for it.

What really blows their wig back is when it's noted that according to the Bible, Satan has a higher moral standard. Thus, he's far less a sinner.

Of course at that point is when the most devout Fundy roll their eyes in the back of their head as if looking for a means of refuting that fact, after which all they can come up with is the quaint retort; well, when you find yourself burning in hell you'll know who the real sinner is!

As I can't resist watching the backwards eye roll I usually reply with: Oh but dear, Hell is for Christians.Those damned sinners and those who's names were not included in the Book of Life and are now this very minute screaming; BUT WE WERE SAVED BY THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB! THIS SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING TO MEEEEEEEE! Looks like Jesus was a liar too huh? Like father like son.

That usually shuts them up. At least so far.
One has to set aside the intellect in order to voluntarily choose to be a sheep.

(July 19, 2011 at 7:37 am)Chuck Wrote: The fact that a certain trait is used to evaluate an entity, like mass, doesn't mean it's not quantifiable. You may say whether some thing is heavy or light, massive or insubstantial, but that does not change the fact it is 53 grames. It is true that trait depends on perception, but that does not change it's quantifiability. No matter how fickle perception might be, all the fundamental factors governing perception, from the mass of the entity in the example above, to the gravity that allows you to perceive the mass as weights, to the neurological state which caused you to regard that weight as light, are in principle quantifiable. Complexity of a thing can be quantified by many different ways. Some example includes the theoretical minimum amount of data required to predict the behavior of the thing to a given degree of precision.

I wholeheartedly agree that some traits are quantifiable because they are based on fixed definitions outside of perception
Mass for instance (as in your example) is universally defined as "how much spacetime an object displaces".
It can be measured in different ways but the same value will be reached completely independant of what is perceived.
When you use a term like "heavy", "light", "soft", "bright", or "complex" those are JUDGEMENTS about an entity and
they depend very much on the perceiver. A child may say a carton of milk is "heavy" but an adult may say it is "light"
Independant of those judgements, the carton has the same mass.

All I get from your statement, is that in order for "complex" to be quantifiable, there has to be a fixed definition of
"complex" that is agreed upon. If we agree arbitrarily that "complex" is an object that has more than ten sides
then a ten-sided object is "simple" and an eleven-sided object is "complex". Someone outside of the agreement may
choose a completely different definition and so on. In order for something to be quantifiable, it has to correlate to
a fundamental principle that is true regardless of the perceiver. Mass, luminosity, composition, etc. those are
qualities that cannot vary between perception. complexity, attractiveness, sharpness, etc, are qualities
that depend on the perception of the observer and thus cannot be quantifiable.

(July 19, 2011 at 7:37 am)Chuck Wrote: The amount of data required to predict the behavior of the entire universe, or "Entire creation" as Christians would yokelishly put it, is potentially vast but finite by understanding of modern physics. The fact that physical universe might be infinite does not necessarily make the amount of data required to predict all arbitrary parts of it infinite as well. So long as there is ultimately an consistent set of rules governing it's behavior, a finite set of description of the rules would suffice to describe an infinite universe, or even an infinite number of individually infinite universes. So there is no need to postulate infinite complexity for purpose other than airy theological sophistry, much less need for any infinitely complex god.

Agreed. To argue that something is complex and therefore there is a god takes an arbitrary position and extrapolates wildly on the
reason for that arbitrary position.

(July 19, 2011 at 7:37 am)Chuck Wrote: However, what is certain is if the universe were created by god, god can not less complex than the universe, since predicting the universe is necessary to predicting that which created it, thus god can not be predicted by less information than required to predict what he created. So god can not solve the complexity paradox, which is the original thrust of this thread.

There I disagree with you. Because the term "complex" isn't defined, you can't say X is more complex than Y
and you are implying that "simple" entities cannot create entities with more "complexity" and if that were the case then life would not be possible.
A single cell (with an arbitrary complexity value of X) , can become an entire organism (with an arbirary complexity of X + Y). Whatever the measure
of complexity, the second entity carries with it many more times the original entity and thus could be said to be "more complex"
We can predict very "complex" things (like evolution) with very "simple" rules (like natural selection) (the quotes are because the terms
are relativeistic)

(July 19, 2011 at 7:37 am)Chuck Wrote: You can look up complexity on Wikipedia if you wish to genuinely begin to explore complexity as a specific, meaningful term capable of setting your statements above airy talk.

Yes and if you'll notice in the article terms like "system", "Tends", etc are used. Which are, as I said, based on arbitrary agreements.
"At the same time, what is complex and what is simple is relative and changes with time"
(Quoted from wikipedia).

Cheers.

(July 19, 2011 at 3:09 pm)Trog31 Wrote: I wholeheartedly agree that some traits are quantifiable because they are based on fixed definitions outside of perception
Mass for instance (as in your example) is universally defined as "how much spacetime an object displaces".
It can be measured in different ways but the same value will be reached completely independant of what is perceived.
When you use a term like "heavy", "light", "soft", "bright", or "complex" those are JUDGEMENTS about an entity and
they depend very much on the perceiver. A child may say a carton of milk is "heavy" but an adult may say it is "light"
Independant of those judgements, the carton has the same mass.

You confuse qualitative judgement with quantitative attribute. The underlying quantitative attribute of the thing remains exactly what it is no matter what qualitative judgement your fickle mind pass on it. 3 grames is heavier than 2 grames regardless of whether you think 3 grames is heavy or light. If god is infinitely complex in the information sense than it must require more data to describe than anything with a finite information content, regardless of where you place the line between your notion of simplicity and complicity.

(July 19, 2011 at 3:09 pm)Trog31 Wrote: All I get from your statement, is that in order for "complex" to be quantifiable, there has to be a fixed definition of
"complex" that is agreed upon. If we agree arbitrarily that "complex" is an object that has more than ten sides
then a ten-sided object is "simple" and an eleven-sided object is "complex". Someone outside of the agreement may
choose a completely different definition and so on. In order for something to be quantifiable, it has to correlate to
a fundamental principle that is true regardless of the perceiver. Mass, luminosity, composition, etc. those are
qualities that cannot vary between perception. complexity, attractiveness, sharpness, etc, are qualities
that depend on the perception of the observer and thus cannot be quantifiable.

So? a 10 sided object still has 1 more side than a 9 sided object. If you imagine a object with infinite number of sides then it would still have more sides than any object with finite sides. Doesn't matter whether you call that "sidedness" or "complexity" or "divine polygonity".

(July 19, 2011 at 3:09 pm)Trog31 Wrote: Because the term "complex" isn't defined, you can't say X is more complex than Y
and you are implying that "simple" entities cannot create entities with more "complexity" and if that were the case then life would not be possible.
A single cell (with an arbitrary complexity value of X) , can become an entire organism (with an arbirary complexity of X + Y). Whatever the measure
of complexity, the second entity carries with it many more times the original entity and thus could be said to be "more complex"
We can predict very "complex" things (like evolution) with very "simple" rules (like natural selection) (the quotes are because the terms
are relativeistic)

Incorrect. A simple entity can only create a complex organism by taking complexity from somewhere else and adding it to what would become the complex organism. It can not manufacture complexity out of thin air. So to fully describe the simple entity, one must also descibe the complexity it would use to create the complex organism. Thus an appearently simple entity would be seen as simpler than its product no longer if one were to descibe all involved in the process of making its product. Modern physics say information can never be created or destroyed. There are only complexity about a single entity that created an appearently more complex organism that you neglected to describe. There are no complexity that the simple entity actually create.

(July 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm)Chuck Wrote: You confuse qualitative judgement with quantitative attribute. The underlying quantitative attribute of the thing remains exactly what it is no matter what qualitative judgement your fickle mind pass on it. 3 grames is heavier than 2 grames regardless of whether you think 3 grames is heavy or light. If god is infinitely complex in the information sense than it must require more data to describe than anything with a finite information content, regardless of where you place the line between your notion of simplicity and complicity.

I don't think I confused it. It think that was the satement I was making. Mass is mass, but "heavy" and "light" are subjective.
If god is infinitely complex, there can be no description because the description would be as infinite.
Your example of god is the same as my example of a cellular entitiy. If a cell is of complexity X then a cluster of cells are more complex than the single

(July 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm)Chuck Wrote: So? a 10 sided object still has 1 more side than a 9 sided object. If you imagine a object with infinite number of sides then it would still have more sides than any object with finite sides. Doesn't matter whether you call that "sidedness" or "complexity" or "divine polygonity".

Again that is my example and I think you're making my point for me. The underlying attributes of an entity don't change
but the arbitrary and relativistic terms we use to describe that entity change all the time. (WAAAY back to my example of an engine)
If you define complexity as "sidedness" then an object with more sides is more complex
If you define complexity as "size" then a larger object is more complex than a smaller one (regardless of how many sides or any other qualities it has)
The point is that the definitions have to be agreed upon.

(July 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm)Chuck Wrote: Incorrect. A simple entity can only create a complex organism by taking complexity from somewhere else and adding it to what would become the complex organism. It can not manufacture complexity out of thin air.

I disagree. How can you say something takes complexity when you haven't defined complexity?
What is the "complex thing" that a single cell takes in order to replicate?
It takes a number things much simpler than itself (heat, carbon, amino acids, etc.) and combines them to become an entity just as
complex (or in some cases MORE complex) than itself.
It can manufacture "complexity" out of other simpler building blocks, but again it depends on how you define "complex"
Is a house more complex than a tree? Again it depends on how you define complex.
Certainly a house has more components and serves a different function, but it cannot grow and replicate like a tree even
though trees are a part of it.

(July 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm)Chuck Wrote: So to fully describe the simple entity, one must also descibe the complexity it would use to create the complex organism. Thus an appearently simple entity would be seen as simpler than its product no longer if one were to descibe all involved in the process of making its product. Modern physics say information can never be created or destroyed. There are only complexity about a single entity that created an appearently more complex organism that you neglected to describe. There are no complexity that the simple entity actually create.

I'm not sure I agree with you because you haven't defined the terms simple and complex.
Fully describing an entity in no way requires a description of how it was created.
I can fully describe a square (four sided polygon, with 4 90-degree angles, and each side is 1 unit in length)
I don't need to describe how it came to be.

I don't think modern physics says information cannot be created or destroyed, I think it says ENERGY cannot be
created or destroyed in a closed system. Information is destroyed and created constantly.

I disagree entirely with your last statement. Music, art, literature, language, customs, etc, etc. All started as "simpler"
units that were brought together to create something "more complex" (again in relativistic terms)
Letters were combined to form words, which were combined to form sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books and libraries
How "complex" or "simple" those entities are depend completely on perception and interpretation
Going back to the original point.

One cannot say God is "complex" when the term "complex" can't be defined
If, as you say, it takes a "more complex" entity to create a "complex" entity
then an infinitely complex entity could never exist.
If you say that a star is more complex than super heated plasma or dust or any of the things
it takes to produce one, how could stars (or any matter) ever form?

No, modern physics does indeed say information is conserved. Even the most famous hold out, Steven Hawkings, had capitulated.

(July 19, 2011 at 6:46 pm)Chuck Wrote: No, modern physics does indeed say information is conserved. Even the most famous hold out, Steven Hawkings, had capitulated.

I don't think they've quite resolved the "black hole" issue but maybe they have and I'm not up to speed.
Care to enlighten?

(July 19, 2011 at 7:08 pm)Trog31 Wrote:

(July 19, 2011 at 6:46 pm)Chuck Wrote: No, modern physics does indeed say information is conserved. Even the most famous hold out, Steven Hawkings, had capitulated.

I don't think they've quite resolved the "black hole" issue but maybe they have and I'm not up to speed.
Care to enlighten?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle.

(July 19, 2011 at 8:33 pm)Chuck Wrote: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle.

Very interesting reading. I like the convergence. I don't like how old and quaint I suddenly feel :-)
Thanks