Order vs. Randomness

[Rayaan]

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.

...

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.

I get why you are so puzzled by this, and I think the reason is mainly because you don't understand the complex relationship between simplicity and complexity, and how these two concepts themselves are what we fundamentally interpret as forms of mental information processing (as I shall explain below). All of this, once again, complements the notion that intelligence and order are not incidental but rather fundamental aspects of reality.


1. What is simplicity? Is simplicity something physical?

Obviously, no, simplicity is not something tangible, but rather it is a concept that is evoked in our minds because of the background knowledge that we have of more complex/complicated objects in reality. In other words, the idea of "simplicity" exists only because our thought processes simultaneously relate it with the idea of "complexity." They are both concepts that are mutually intertwined because they are relative to each other.

Something "complex" requires more information to describe and something "simple" requires less information to describe, but again, the "less information" and the "more information" are not identifiable except in terms of the relationship that the two concepts have in our minds.

2. The ultimate simplicity that describe the universe has to be the most sophisticatedly simple.

As strange as this may sound to you, my perception is that the "simple" rules already have all the complexity encoded within them. It's just that the complexity is more hidden from us because the complexity is in a "compressed" state (i.e. inside the simplicity). Therefore, no matter how much scientists believe that it's possible for them discover the simplest and the "ultimate" law behind the universe, it's never going to happen because that fundamental law contains an even greater amount of surprise and mystery behind it - which conceals more and more information about itself - and thus it will always remain beyond our full comprehension.

The point is, there is a simplicity lurking behind all the complexity, and at the same time there is complexity lurking behind the simplicity, otherwise they wouldn't be what they are. So if there is a deep simplicity underlying everything in the universe (which I believe there is), then that would be the ultimate sophistication, the ultimate creativity. As Leonardo da Vinci very wisely noted in the same respect, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."

3. Humans are intrinsically biased towards simplicity.

Our brains are inclined to search for simpler explanations over complex ones. And this process of finding the shortest and simplest description possible is a basic element of the cognitive ability that we refer to as "understanding" or "comprehension." Finding simpler descriptions of reality increases the depth of our understanding. As Einstein once stated, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" ... but again, paradoxically, "understanding" itself is a complicated process.

But, let us see one way to understand what it means to "understand," as simply as possible. From an information-theoretic point of view, all forms of understanding are technically different forms of "data compression," which means that we transform a larger set of data or inputs that exist in our minds into a simpler and shorter set of data (i.e. to get an understanding). As the mathematician Gregory Chaitin said (quoted in Marcus Chown's The Never-Ending Days of Being Dead), "Understanding is compression," and then he says, "Ockham's razor is simply saying that the best scientific theory is the most compressible."

This approach to epistemology fits perfectly with the patternist philosophy of mind as well because data compression (or understanding) is the same thing as the act of linking things together by identifying patterns around us. I read in a paper recently which argues that even our consciousness and our mental states are but elements of data compression that we experience subjectively.

4. The universe being the product of a "simple but sophisticated" law would be indistinguishable from a designed universe.

To explain that, here's a thought experiment:

Suppose that a scientist, by a feat of astounding genius (and some luck), discovered the simplest and the "ultimate" law behind life, the universe, and everything. But what was the mechanism that was necessary for him to be able to do all of this? Essentially, it was the orderly data compression carried out by his brain, which we interpret as understanding. Technically, however, understanding and the entire essence of understanding (or data compression) are one and the same. So, understanding = simplification = data compression.

But if you think about it, that fundamental law (or entity, force, or whatever) that he learned about must have data compression - the essence of understanding - as a feature encoded within itself in order for him to be able to understand anything in the first place. If the essence of understanding was not already already built into the simplest instruction (or law), then there would be no way for him to even conceive anything. So, even if you don't call it "God," "Yahweh," or "Allah," that fundamental law would possess self-awareness and understanding on a scale that would make it just as complex as an intelligent designer. Thus it would equally reasonable to think that the universe is a product of intelligent design.

5. Even the whole picture of physics is ultimately a mental consequent. As the physicist David Bohm said, "Physics is a form of insight and as such it's a form of art."

Therefore, if anyone tries to simplify the nature of the physical world to the simplest thing possible through the study of physics, then he will never succeed in proving it to be simpler than the mind because mind and physics are inextricably connected; mind and physics are bound together. So such a goal would be like using his mind to escape his own mind - which is impossible.