How can we define complexity?

[Tiberius]

This is a topic branched off from Ephrium's original (http://atheistforums.org/thread-722.html) in which he failed to argue that creators could be less complex than the things they created. His major failing point was the fact that he could not come up with a valid way of determining complexity.

One example of a more complex "creation" was a robot that has

more 'body parts', which does everything better than humans, which can even do certain aspects humans cannot...(Such as flying, night vision, hibernation and natural immortality)

I disagree with this, since the human body can regenerate tissue, and is wired in a much more complex way than the robot. The human also has an active conscience and the ability to come up with new ideas, which the robot cannot. So should complexity be measured by how powerful the creation is, or how intricate the design is?

It should also be noted that all robots need some human input, whether to start or to program them, or to interact with them. Robots cannot simply function on their own and do whatever they want, so where do we end the "creator/creation" relationship? Does a creation that needs a creator to help it or start it really make it more complex?

Discuss.

[leo-rcc]

From wiki:

In general usage, complexity tends to be used to characterize something with many parts in intricate arrangement. In science there are at this time a number of approaches to characterizing complexity, many of which are reflected in this article. Seth Lloyd of M.I.T. writes that he once gave a presentation which set out 32 definitions of complexity.

So I would summarize that defining complexity is something to be done on a case to case basis and can't be generalized.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well I understand complexity through the way Dawkins defines it in The Blind Watchmaker. Something that is unlikely to come about by chance alone.

An eye has many parts working together that make it very very very improbable to just 'happen'. Or just 'be there right from the start'.

So it has to evolve gradually. You only get complexity of this definition, through gradual changes - it doesn't come about by chance alone. It doesn't just JUMP into existence - or build up with huge steps, big chunks, rather than really slowly.

- Its a continuum.

Nor could you simply say "oh well the eye was ALWAYS there". Just as you shouldn't say it with God. Because its just as illogical. You might as well just say the universe was always there - or the big bang was always there to bang, or whatever.

[Ephrium]

And why cannot the robot do all the above and have a more intricate design too?

"I disagree with this, since the human body can regenerate tissue, and is wired in a much more complex way than the robot. The human also has an active conscience and the ability to come up with new ideas, which the robot cannot. So should complexity be measured by how powerful the creation is, or how intricate the design is?"

[Tiberius]

Have you got an example of a robot that can regenerate it's body, is wired more intricately than a human, has a conscience, and the ability to come up with new ideas? If not, then you are once again going down the avenue of wild speculation. Why cannot the robot do all of the above? Because we have no idea how to create consciousness, we have no idea how to create a robot that can regenerate its own body, we have no idea how to create a robot that can think up new ideas.

I agree, just because we have no idea doesn't make it impossible, but saying that eventually we might do it is wild speculation, because it relies on faith alone. Put it this way, a hundred years ago we thought there was no speed limit in this universe, and that in the future we would be able to travel instantaneously to everywhere in the universe. Einstein proved that this was impossible because the speed limit of the universe is the speed of light. Your speculation could be easily nulled by someone coming up with a proof that says it is impossible. That is how science works.

[athoughtfulman]

But science is constantly being updated. I am no scientist myself, but would I be wrong in saying that there have been 'scientific facts' which have been deemed outdated when new evidence is found? If so, this speed limit might just be another one of those, true until proven false.

We haven't created the robot yet, but then go back 500 years and ask them if they think man would ever be able to fly around the earth, dig under the sea, fly to the moon, etc etc. The things that we think impossible might well be possible in time. Though for now, we have no such robot, and no such proof or evidence that there will ever be one.

In speculation however, there is a case for it. Think about the Matrix, or I Robot, or any other science fiction book or movie. Humans usually end up creating something more powerful, more intelligent, more self-sufficient, than themselves. Take something like I Robot by Isaac Asimov (the book). At one point a robot is arguing with some humans that he is more suited to the world. He tells the humans that they are outdated, that he is the evolved version of them. Why? Humans have to eat, robots, don't. Humans have to sleep, robots don't. Humans can get hurt in innumerable ways, robots can't. Sure, robots have to be created by a human, but suppose that in the end we created a robot to build a robot. It becomes the matrix. And all of a sudden, we've got a creation more powerful, more intelligent, and more complex then his creators.

But then again, it's all just speculation.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah. I wouldn't declare anything unknown to be IMPOSSIBLE.

The probability (or improbability) of the matter is in question here I think.

Hard to for see the advancement of the future.

I can see the side that everything is progressing exponentially and robots could advance to the point that they could create themselves - and maybe somehow someday, providing humans are still around to see it - they are able to surpass humans in complexity.

But then I can also see that how can anything mechanical surpass anything biological in the matter of complexity? I certainly wouldn't say its impossible though. I think to declare it impossible would actually be the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity.

What about cybernetic organisms? As a hypothetical possibility for the future? Biology and mechanical robotics mixed together?

In the words of Arnie "I'm a cybernetic organism..."

What about that? Could have best of both....could be totally impossible.

P.S: Although I do think I saw a documentary how it DOES work already to a very small extent so...could build up from there.

I saw that people can have like some kind of mechanical in plants in their brain (as an implant) to help with certain medical conditions or something.......but then whether people will ever be able to interact with their mechanical, robotic, parts - I don't know. Does it require any interaction between the brain and the implant I wonder? Hmm.

Anyway, thoughts? What about cybernetics?

EvF

[athoughtfulman]

I don't know much about cybernetics, but I know what you mean about biological complexity never being surpassed. I think that our biological systems in our body, are simply are a really complex mechanical system. There one and the same thing. Just to different degrees of complexity.

I've heard about experiments about somehow creating plants, or a gene that replicates itself, or something like that. I'm no scientist so this sounds a little stupid Think about the way the human body heals itself. I've heard they're trying to create an organism that can do that. If they succeed, apply it to robots, and we have something more complex than humans. And yes, they're trying to do the same thing with the brain. A robot that can THINK and REGENERATE.

Like I said, I'm no expert, but it's something along those lines. I think it will happen eventually. Unless humans somehow die out from something. OR GOD COMES BACK!!!

But humans will keep advancing, keep improving, and eventually we'll get there, either in our lives, or somewhere down the track.

[lilphil1989]

When I come up against a creationist claiming that a creator can be less complex than it's creation (and therefore more probable), my stock response is something like this:

"Do you REALLY believe that the mere human body is more complex, and so in a sense, more advanced that the glorious creator you propose?"


It's fun to see them furiously backpedal when they are accused (for lack of a better word) of believing that a human is is some way superior to their god .



As to the definition of complexity, I agree with Leo, there is no standard definition.
I also think a reference point is needed.
A cell is extrememly complex in comparison to the molecules it is made up of, but a person is complex in comparison to that cell.
It doesn't make any sense to me to talk about absolute complexity.

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree there is no absolute or standard definition. There are many different definitions of complexity (or at least ways at looking at it).

So we need to make sure we are talking about the same kind of complexity, - the same definition - when we are talking about it. To avoid semantic confusion.

EvF