The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Angrboda]

You asked if I could define simple scientifically.  I did.  Presuming you have a scientific definition of complex.  So show us that.  Otherwise, it doesn't matter.  You're a bit dim, aren't you?

Your definition is vacuous because you're using a term you're asking me to define. Never mind, I'll do it for you: a complex particle like molecules, sand, etc is a combination or aggregation of [lots and lots of] elementary particles. Now let's hear yours.

Under your definition, any collection of matter is complex. The only thing that is simple, then, is empty space. Fail. (*)

Let's hear my what?


(*) That's not even strictly true, as the only thing differentiating sparsely populated universes and solid rocks is the space between. It's all relative and therefore everything is an aggregate and therefore complex.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You are so funny. Take a rock. Hit it with Mjolnir. Instant sand. You are so funny.

No, that's not what making sand means. Sand contains mineral particles; do you have enough knowledge in chemistry, mineralogy, quantum theory, etc. to make mineral particles out of more elementary particles?

Have someone read this to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand

[R00tKiT]

Your definition is vacuous because you're using a term you're asking me to define. Never mind, I'll do it for you: a complex particle like molecules, sand, etc is a combination or aggregation of [lots and lots of] elementary particles. Now let's hear yours.

Under your definition, any collection of matter is complex.  The only thing that is simple, then, is empty space.  Fail. (*)

Let's hear my what?


(*) That's not even strictly true, as the only thing differentiating sparsely populated universes and solid rocks is the space between.  It's all relative and therefore everything is an aggregate and therefore complex.

I specifically said : complex=agreggation of elementary particles. Read again: elementary particles. They are simple.

More about elementary particles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

[John 6IX Breezy]

For what it's worth, medical problems may illustrate that things cannot be reduced in certain ways.  But irreducibility means cannot be reduced in any way.

Notice you are repeating what I said: "Any medical example you choose is a demonstration of a function that is irreducible via a given method (genetic disorders, infection, trauma)." My initial contribution to this thread also stated this: "The medical literature is full of examples (genetic or otherwise) of failed reductions in complexity." Meaning I'm open to the possibility of successful reductions.

[Angrboda]

Under your definition, any collection of matter is complex.  The only thing that is simple, then, is empty space.  Fail. (*)

Let's hear my what?


(*) That's not even strictly true, as the only thing differentiating sparsely populated universes and solid rocks is the space between.  It's all relative and therefore everything is an aggregate and therefore complex.

I specifically said : complex=agreggation of elementary particles. Read again: elementary particles. They are simple.

More about elementary particles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

All things exist as both separate particles while simultaneously being a part of an aggregate (see my note (*)). Thus, according to you, two particles of hydrogen in an otherwise empty universe is complex. Which, if we plug back into your argument, that complexity indicates design, results in your argument being that if more than one particle exists, then it must be design. That's dumb. Anyway, you also said that an aggregate is a particle. I missed your subtext amidst your fucked up language. Still, I was asked to define simple, and if you've given me complex, then I've given you simple in, "not aggregate," as previously stated which you disagreed with. You've just contradicted yourself. QED.

Also, from your link, "In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle with no substructure, i.e. it is not composed of other particles." Can you demonstrate that such a thing exists scientifically? If not, your definition isn't scientific.

---

For what it's worth, medical problems may illustrate that things cannot be reduced in certain ways.  But irreducibility means cannot be reduced in any way.

Notice you are repeating what I said: "Any medical example you choose is a demonstration of a function that is irreducible via a given method (genetic disorders, infection, trauma)." My initial contribution to this thread also stated this: "The medical literature is full of examples (genetic or otherwise) of failed reductions in complexity." Meaning I'm open to the possibility of successes in reduction.

No, I'm not. That's not what irreducible means. It's all or nothing. There's no a little bit pregnant. So what you initially said was nonsense. Something can be reduced by certain methods or in certain ways but not be "irreducible via a given method." You do indeed appear not to understand what irreducible means.

Regardless, what you may have said originally isn't relevant to my disputation, so you're either engaged in more ignoratio elenchi, or you are conceding the point. Which is it?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Irreducible simply means not able to be reduced―the function does not retain coherence in dissociated parts. Glue retains its function whether you have a cup or reduce it to an ounce. Vision does not retain its function when you tamper with the extraocular muscles, it leads to double vision, loss of depth perception, etc. Is that not an acceptable use of the word?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Certainly counts as a quibble.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You are so funny. Take a rock. Hit it with Mjolnir. Instant sand. You are so funny.

No, that's not what making sand means. Sand contains mineral particles; do you have enough knowledge in chemistry, mineralogy, quantum theory, etc. to make mineral particles out of more elementary particles?

Actually, that’s EXACTLY what ‘making sand’ means. Sand is defined by the size of the particles, not by their chemical makeup. 

If I cleave off a 50 tonne slab of basalt and smash it into boulders, smash those into smaller boulders, smash those into rocks, grind those into gravel, then abrade those into sand, I have made sand. I haven’t altered the chemistry of the material at all. No one would look at the original slab and think, ‘Gosh, what a big pile of sand!’.

Boru

[R00tKiT]

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.

[Angrboda]

Irreducible simply means not able to be reduced―the function does not retain coherence in dissociated parts. Glue retains its function whether you have a cup or reduce it to an ounce. Vision does not retain its function when you tamper with the extraocular muscles, it leads to double vision, loss of depth perception, etc. Is that not an acceptable use of the word?

Somewhat. Something may be incapable of being reduced along certain lines and not be irreducible. And it implies that it is not reducible to any function, not just the given function, in the sense under consideration. Irreducibility is all or nothing. It is only irreducible if it is not reducible given all methods. For instance, in the medical example you gave, a dysfunctional visual system may still function biologically in other ways.

irreducible, adj.

1. That cannot be reduced.

(Patricia Churchland does a good job of explaining reduction and its various species in the book "Neurophilosophy." I'll see if I can find my copy.)