The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Angrboda]

Thus, according to you, two particles of hydrogen in an otherwise empty universe is complex. 

Yes. Even one particle of hydrogen is complex. It took hundreds of years before some very smart people discovered it, and more time to understand its properties. I don't know how good you are -or can be- at chemistry, but there is nothing about the hydrogen or any other chemical element that you can call simple.

None of that makes a particle of hydrogen complex. According to your definition, a particle is elementary or simple if it has no sub-structure. If you don't like hydrogen as an elementary particle, then substitute "two elementary particles" under any definition. As with John, your response is simply ignoratio elenchi -- even if true, it doesn't answer the point. The point is that two particles as an example of complexity is absurd. Your argument reduces to a bunch of equivocations.

---

Yes, and something may be incapable of being reduced along certain lines and not be irreducible.  Irreducibility is all or nothing.  It is only irreducible if it is not reducible given all methods.

I agree irreducible implies something wholistic. But how many partial failures does it take for it to be significant? The paper I referenced overviews about a dozen disorders. And yet one dysfunction alone creates a wholistic obstruction to reduction. Perhaps a solution to each obstruction exists, and if it's presented I'll be open to it.

I wasn't, and am not debating your argument. I am simply defending mine. I have no interest in the debate other than the aforementioned points.