RE: Theoretical physics shows "irreducible complexity" arguments invalid.
May 8, 2014 at 8:19 pm
(This post was last modified: May 8, 2014 at 8:30 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
(May 7, 2014 at 9:22 pm)Heywood Wrote:(May 7, 2014 at 6:51 pm)Chas Wrote: You are dishonestly trying to recast the IC debate. Stop that.
There has been found no naturally occurring irreducible complexity, and I don't think Rampant said that there is no created IC.
This isn't an IC debate. We are not discussing if IC occurs "naturally". We are discussing if theoretical physics invalidates IC arguments. It does not.
You and Rampant are the ones being dishonest. After I easily demolished the original claim, you now want to change the discussion into one about whether or not IC occurs "naturally". You're calling me dishonest from the pile of rubble that is the original claim.
WAT?
You don't see the difference between "Irreducible Complexity Arguments are invalid" and "Irreducible Complexity does not exist," having you yourself defined "IC Arguments as:
(May 4, 2014 at 10:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: Irreducible complexity is the name given to the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations. It is a bad name choice because even if humans were intelligently designed by God, they could still be reducible.
Which, just as a reminder, you posted as a dodge to:
(May 4, 2014 at 9:40 pm)Chuck Wrote: There is no such thing as irreducible complex. There is only complexity which appear to have low probabilities of arising within the time and number of tries thought to be available through paths and mechanisms we have yet conceived of.
If you underestimate the time available, or underestimate the number of ties that could have been made, or overestimate how completely you have enumerated all available paths and mechanisms, even the simplest thing can seem irreducible complex, hell, simpler than simplest, even the mind of a creationist can seem irreducible complex to overconfident simpletons like creationists.
Btw, artificially inserted watermark is not irreduceavly complex. You just have to know which path involving multiple reducible complex steps was taken to get to it. Humans are reducible complex. The works of humans are therefore reducible complex. So insertion of watermark is therefore reduce ably complex.
Who's being intellectually dishonest again?
Moreover, it appears you have not read the article:
Quote:Quantum uncertainty then gives rise to entanglement, the putative source of the arrow of time.
When two particles interact, they can no longer even be described by their own, independently evolving probabilities, called “pure states.” Instead, they become entangled components of a more complicated probability distribution that describes both particles together. It might dictate, for example, that the particles spin in opposite directions. The system as a whole is in a pure state, but the state of each individual particle is “mixed” with that of its acquaintance. The two could travel light-years apart, and the spin of each would remain correlated with that of the other, a feature Albert Einstein famously described as “spooky action at a distance.”
Quantum Entanglement implies complexity is an inherent property of the universe, measured by time. Things get more complex as time goes on (so to speak), therefore "irreducibly complex; i.e. not reducible to the result of natural systems" no longer makes sense according to physics.
