Theoretical physics shows "irreducible complexity" arguments invalid.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Are fundamentally invalid.

Entanglement may also wreak havoc at the particle level with causality:

If the new line of research is correct, then the story of time’s arrow begins with the quantum mechanical idea that, deep down, nature is inherently uncertain. An elementary particle lacks definite physical properties and is defined only by probabilities of being in various states. For example, at a particular moment, a particle might have a 50 percent chance of spinning clockwise and a 50. . .

And while thermodynamics states systems tend toward entropy -- but only in sealed systems, which seems to be the #1 misapplication of claiming order tends only toward chaos -- the more entropic events, the more complexity seems to arise out of entanglement.

"What’s really going on is things are becoming more correlated with each other,” Lloyd recalls realizing. “The arrow of time is an arrow of increasing correlations.”

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/quantum-the...=social_fb

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Damned interesting, but I though IC had been pretty thoroughly demolished already.

Boru

[Rampant.A.I.]

It has, but you still hear the same 20 year old arguments ("the eye is irreducibly complex") being flopped out like the hundreds of years old cosmological arguments.

Which this also may apply to, in that causality is nowhere near as simple as cause -> effect.

[Angrboda]

The backdrop for the steady growth of entanglement throughout the universe is, of course, time itself. The physicists stress that despite great advances in understanding how changes in time occur, they have made no progress in uncovering the nature of time itself or why it seems different (both perceptually and in the equations of quantum mechanics) than the three dimensions of space. Popescu calls this “one of the greatest unknowns in physics.”

“We can discuss the fact that an hour ago, our brains were in a state that was correlated with fewer things,” he said. “But our perception that time is flowing — that is a different matter altogether. Most probably, we will need a further revolution in physics that will tell us about that.”

This is an interesting melange of quantum information theory, MWI, and decoherence, but the final paragraphs seem to indicate that this is much ado about nothing. The problems in quantum information theory remain problems, and the mystery of the arrow of time remains a mystery.

[Heywood]

Not sure how theoretical physics shows irreducible complexity can't exist. It is trivially easy to show irreducible complexity exists in some biological entities.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Not sure how theoretical physics shows irreducible complexity can't exist. It is trivially easy to show irreducible complexity exists in some biological entities.

Which ones? Why do theists throw out statements like this without supporting them? Claims about "The eye being irreducibly complex" have been debunked decades ago, and theists still try to convince people they are.

[Heywood]

Not sure how theoretical physics shows irreducible complexity can't exist. It is trivially easy to show irreducible complexity exists in some biological entities.

Which ones? Why do theists throw out statements like this without supporting them? Claims about "The eye being irreducibly complex" have been debunked decades ago, and theists still try to convince people they are.

The genome of Mycoplasma Laboratorium contains water marks that were designed by intellects which are of sufficient complexity that it would be unreasonable to ever think they evolved sans intellect.

The water marks contained in the genome of Mycoplasma Laboratorium are as follows:

watermark 1 an Html script which reads to a browser as text congratulating the decoder with an email link ([email protected]) to click to prove the decoding.

watermark 2 contains a list of authors and a quote from James Joyce: "To live to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life".

watermark 3 contains more authors and a quote from Robert Oppenheimer (uncredited): "See things not as they are, but as they might be".

watermark 4 contains yet more authors and a quote from Richard Feynman: "What I cannot build, I cannot understand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium

[Rampant.A.I.]

Which ones? Why do theists throw out statements like this without supporting them? Claims about "The eye being irreducibly complex" have been debunked decades ago, and theists still try to convince people they are.

The genome of Mycoplasma Laboratorium contains water marks that were designed by intellects which are of sufficient complexity that it would be unreasonable to ever think they evolved sans intellect.

The water marks contained in the genome of Mycoplasma Laboratorium are as follows:

watermark 1 an Html script which reads to a browser as text congratulating the decoder with an email link ([email protected]) to click to prove the decoding.

watermark 2 contains a list of authors and a quote from James Joyce: "To live to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life".

watermark 3 contains more authors and a quote from Robert Oppenheimer (uncredited): "See things not as they are, but as they might be".

watermark 4 contains yet more authors and a quote from Richard Feynman: "What I cannot build, I cannot understand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium

Ok, so you have proved that a human-modified species contains watermarks they were genetically modified by humans to contain.

If humans are capable of this, why don't we see "made by God" tags in the genome of extant animals?

You claimed to have an example of irreducible complexity in the natural world, and yet the only one you've come up with is a laboratory experiment to produce seen nowhere else in nature?

How does that prove any naturally occurring species is "irreducibly complex"?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/123..._revealed/

[Heywood]

Ok, so you have proved that a human-modified species contains watermarks they were genetically modified by humans to contain.

If humans are capable of this, why don't we see "made by God" tags in the genome of extant animals?

You claimed to have an example of irreducible complexity in the natural world, and yet the only one you've come up with is a laboratory experiment to produce seen nowhere else in nature?

How does that prove any naturally occurring species is "irreducibly complex"?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/123..._revealed/

What I did was show that irreducible complexity exists in the world you live in. In doing so I have cast serious doubt on your claim that theoretical physics shows irreducible complexity arguments invalid(which I still don't know how you've reached that errant conclusion).

[Anomalocaris]

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.