Theoretical physics shows "irreducible complexity" arguments invalid.

[Chas]

It's synthetic, man-made. You are conflating this with what is meant by irreducible complexity. Show something not man-made.

Negative Chas,

Irreducible complexity isn't an idea about how something is made. It is an idea about how something isn't made. This is an important distinction. I believe the eye evolved but I will use it as an example.

The claim the eye is irreducibly complex doesn't say that God made the eye. To say the eye is irreducibly complex is to say the eye didn't evolve. It could have been designed by aliens.

Rampant AI made a claim that theoretical physics invalidates irreducible complexity arguments. His claim is false because it is trivially easy to show that irreducible complexity exists. If his claim was true then our scientific achievements with Mycoplasma_Laboratorium violated the laws of physics.......which is silly.

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.

[Heywood]

Negative Chas,

Irreducible complexity isn't an idea about how something is made. It is an idea about how something isn't made. This is an important distinction. I believe the eye evolved but I will use it as an example.

The claim the eye is irreducibly complex doesn't say that God made the eye. To say the eye is irreducibly complex is to say the eye didn't evolve. It could have been designed by aliens.

Rampant AI made a claim that theoretical physics invalidates irreducible complexity arguments. His claim is false because it is trivially easy to show that irreducible complexity exists. If his claim was true then our scientific achievements with Mycoplasma_Laboratorium violated the laws of physics.......which is silly.

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.

[Chas]

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.

I am responding to your mischaracterization of what constitutes IC. You continue to attempt to obfuscate the subject by conflating that which is known to be constructed by humans with the naturally occurring.

You continue to be mistaken or dishonest.

[Rampant.A.I.]

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:

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:

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:

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.

[Heywood]

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.

I am responding to your mischaracterization of what constitutes IC. You continue to attempt to obfuscate the subject by conflating that which is known to be constructed by humans with the naturally occurring.

You continue to be mistaken or dishonest.

Its obvious you do not know what IC is.

[Anomalocaris]

It is bullshit.

[Heywood]

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.

Doesn't that imply that if reality is eternal then it is infinitely complex? An infinite complex reality would be infinitely intelligent.....OMG!!!! QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT IMPLIES GOD!.

I think you're reading more into your article then is actually there.

[Chas]

I am responding to your mischaracterization of what constitutes IC. You continue to attempt to obfuscate the subject by conflating that which is known to be constructed by humans with the naturally occurring.

You continue to be mistaken or dishonest.

Its obvious you do not know what IC is.

I have a clearer understanding than you do.

It is obvious that you are disingenuous.

[Heywood]

Its obvious you do not know what IC is.

I have a clearer understanding than you do.

It is obvious that you are disingenuous.

Negative Chas,

You think that IC is an argument for God. It is not.

IC is simply the hypothesis 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.

Even if God does not exist, IC still can....and in fact does exist(as was trivially easy to show). The fact that human activity was responsible for the known unambiguous examples of IC....doesn't make IC magically go away. I'm afraid you're just going to have deal with it.

IC is here to stay.

[Angrboda]

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.

Irreducible complexity has always, by definition, appealed to causes that are not currently known, ie. natural causes. To say that natural science rules out irreducible complexity is to argue that only natural causes currently known exist. You're effectively claiming that IC doesn't exist because only natural causes exist, and nothing in your article justifies that conclusion.

So no, quantum entanglement and decoherence do not show "irreducible complexity" arguments invalid.