Is there any single thing in the universe which is irreducibly complex?

[iNow]

It's a Friday night, and my girlfriend has to work in the morning so didn't come over. I'm decompressing after a long week. School has been challenging, but we did take our last oral quiz today in Chinese, and all that is left is our skit show and final. I've got a solid A in the class, so reimbursment from my company will arrive in a few weeks. That is of more importance than one can know...

 

So, it's floodin' down in Texas tonight. I've been watching the radar for the past few hours, embedded as picture-in-picture as I catch up on my recorded shows while the GF is not here. Monster storm coming in. Tornadic activity, huge down-pours of rain... But, that's Texas. As we like to say, "If you don't like the weather, just wait 10 minutes and it will change."

 

 

My dog, he's great. Such a problem solver. Through the years, I've made sincere attempts to teach him how to think for himself, and not just to obey. After 10 years, he has repeatedly impressed me in this regard. Either way, he was nervous as the thunder began. I decided to make this a learning experience for him. I opened the back door, and stood there... He backed off. The rain was heavy, the thunder loud, and the lightening bright... and he didn't like it. So, I called him over in hopes of ameliorating his axieties.

 

He stood beside me, good and trusting dog that he is, comforted knowing that I was not nervous, but still unsure of what was going on.

 

 

And, I thought...

 

Can you imagine how scary a thunder storm would be to a person prior to having a present day understanding of the complexity which makes it so powerful... so amazing?

 

 

 

 

I felt the cool drops of rain splashing off the concrete and onto my arms. I felt the strong gusts of wind pushing the storm front across my path. I felt the rumble of the thunder claps shaking the ground, and felt the powerful vibrations from those claps moving through my house. I watched the strange shadows, every few seconds, being created as the lightening shown through the branches of the trees in my yard... I smelt the air, and sensed how the conditions were just right for monster hail stones like those we've received so many times in so many storms in the past... and, I thought...

 

 

No wonder people came up with grandiose stories to explain things. This simple storm is enormously complex. Weather fronts, temperature graidients, density induced cyclonic action, electrostatic discharge, exploding air, and countless other elements which, even I, with modern day wiki and google abilities don't truly comprehend.

 

Gosh... when we were cavepeople, aside from being completely unexplainable, this would be absolutely petrifying!

 

 

So, we came up with stories to explain things.

 

 

But now, the stories don't explain as well as the books and experiments.

 

 

I have two questions. Please feel free to address just one, both, or neither.

 

First, why do the stories get protected in the face of information which more accurately describes events? Why are so many inaccurate descriptions of nature held and protected like children in the face of data which provides more sustainable explanation?

 

Second, is there ANYTHING in this entire universe which is so complex as to be irreducibly so?

 

 

I do hope you'll comment. Enjoy.

[Donut.Hole]

I don't know the answer to any of your questions, but I just found it interesting that you took Chinese. I thought I was the only one! At my school, Chinese is like the "weirdo" foreign language.

[SkepticLance]

The answer to both questions is the same.

 

Human foolishness.

 

Well, at least human foolishness is excessively complex, with rationalisation, evasion, and muddy thinking all mixed up together.

[Rev Blair]

Second, is there ANYTHING in this entire universe which is so complex as to be irreducibly so?

 

No...with the possible exception of the web of bizarrity (I'm inventing new words today, just go with it) woven by various fundamentalist religions in an attempt to discredit science.

[CDarwin]

First, why do the stories get protected in the face of information which more accurately describes events? Why are so many inaccurate descriptions of nature held and protected like children in the face of data which provides more sustainable explanation?

I sort of wrote a paper on this once. A bit different topic. It all comes down to enculturation and familiarity, though. The simpler, narrative, cultural stories are the ones that get passed onto children. Scientific explanations are either too complicated, too poorly known, or change to rapidly. Can you imagine how different the story of the scientific origins of the universe would sound told now versus in 1950? Genesis (and the like) never change.

 

Second, is there ANYTHING in this entire universe which is so complex as to be irreducibly so?

 

As I understand irreducible complexity, it's not simply something really complex. It's something complex in a certain way such that it unfeasible that it could be approached naturally. I think there's some smart-sounding phrase to that effect.

 

I suppose something like helicopter rotor blades (or the wheel and axle they are derived from) might suffice to that definition. It's hard to imagine a sequence of adaptive steps leading to an animal helicopter or even an animal car.

[thedarkshade]

First, why do the stories get protected in the face of information which more accurately describes events? Why are so many inaccurate descriptions of nature held and protected like children in the face of data which provides more sustainable explanation?

Humans can be very naive sometimes. This has been shown throughout all the history. In ancient times humans found themselves in front of many thing for which they had no clue what they were, how did they form, why do they happen the way they do. And they indeed couldn't have known anything about it. They had no proper rational base in which they cold base their understanding for complicated natural phenomenas. And as they found no better way way, they plugged in something that is still rooted in humanity, the ideas of GOD. For humans at that time, and strangely for humans today still, god seemed a good enough explanation of what was going on. I actually do not see how it actually explains anything, but being omniscient (as they think of him) allows the possibility of being able to do anything, no matter how complicated.

 

But not all humans have been this naive. Some of them had the courage (if it's the right word) to try to understand how things worked, to understand 'the mind of god'. And this courage has gradually evolved and now we live in a time where there really is no need for metaphysical explanations for natural phenomenas which actually offer nothing more than an idea which is thousands of years old but modified through years the give it a fresh taste. A rational person, a person who wants to grasp the universe the way it is, has to put some doubt on everything, even in science, because it is by doubting that you (IMO) are able to understand the real nature of things.

 

And it is the ignorance toward science and fear that science will knock down god that makes inaccurate description of nature still live among people. "Just believe and don't ask questions". It is by this premise that 'they' give themselves the right to make up description for nature, no matter how inaccurate, childish and silly those stories are.

 

Second, is there ANYTHING in this entire universe which is so complex as to be irreducibly so?

I don't think there is (are) such thing(s). I mean, there sure are big differences in complexity between different things, but I really do not think that there is a kinda infinite complicated anything. All the things in the universe have some common features. They belong to the same universe, they all obey the laws of physics. And since everything has these features, then their complexity is reduced by the current knowledge we on the laws of physics and other things that are similar for everything.

 

I don't know if I'm being clear.

[SkepticLance]

Re religious faith.

 

I see commonalities between the state of mind that allows faith, and that which permits people to be shafted by con artists. Basically, the willingness to believe something without evidence has to be seen as a negative. I find it quite ironic that certain religions tout this quality as a great virtue. To me it is a great stupidity.

 

There are a great many belief systems that do not involve a god or gods. When they involve things that are accepted by faith, they become, in my opinion, pseudo-religions. Those who dispute the ideas held by faith are regarded with great displeasure by those in the pseudo-religions.

 

For example : Feminists may believe that all men are rapists. I once challenged this by telling a rabid feminist that I was a man who had never raped anyone, and never would. Therefore I had proved that not all men were rapists. You can only guess at the scorn that was received with!

 

An environmentalist may believe that all human activity reduces biodiversity. I know many human activities that increase it. However, that idea would be blasphemy in some circles.

 

Science is the antithesis of faith. In science, beliefs are based on objective empirical evidence. Faith is independent of evidence. Therefore science and faith are incompatible.

[YT2095]

it must be rather Dull to live a life whereby you`re Never disappointed or wrong.

 

because in order to be disappointed or wrong about something, you Must have therefore at some point had Faith or believed in it.

 

 

Sometimes the parachute doesn`t Deploy!

[iNow]

All evidence shows that the parachute has deployed in the past and will continue to deploy in the future, just like all evidence in the past has shown that once you deplane the force of gravity will bring you toward the earth as you free fall.

 

This is faith based on evidence, and it is quite different in a very fundamental way to faith based on fairy tales and presumed entities whom by definition cannot be proven.

 

However... that's a line of conversation which is not representative of my intentions for this thread.

 

 

 

Why do we hold on to stories even when they've been proven false or non-sustainable?

 

Is there any single object in the entire universe which is so complex as to be irreducibly so?

 

 

 

(btw, CDarwin, I see and understand your point about how this term is generally used and intended, which is really the root of what I'm ultimately challenging. )

 

As I understand irreducible complexity, it's not simply something really complex. It's something complex in a certain way such that it unfeasible that it could be approached naturally.

[YT2095]

how about, all the paths a single electron takes at the same time (that`s freaky stuff!), or Chaos theory (butterfly effect and the likes), or the pure white noise generated when electrons jump the depletion zone in a semiconductor, measuring position and velocity at the same time (Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

the amount of games possible on a chess board including all possible stupid moves.

 

I`m sure there`s Plenty more too.

[iNow]

how about, all the paths a single electron takes at the same time (that`s freaky stuff!), or Chaos theory (butterfly effect and the likes), or the pure white noise generated when electrons jump the depletion zone in a semiconductor, measuring position and velocity at the same time (Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

the amount of games possible on a chess board including all possible stupid moves.

Good list, YT. Very thought provoking, indeed.

 

I'll need to chew on those for a while, because you've raised some very interesting possibilities in response to my question that I hadn't anticipated.

[YT2095]

it`s a pity you limited to this universe in the OP, because the Everett Wheeler model (something I also believe in), would have been a nice addition.

[iNow]

I keep arriving at the same conclusion. Even though these things you listed are very specific and need a very well defined set of parameters to describe the universe, they are still composed of smaller parameters, and hence are not irriducibly complex.

 

I'm totally biased on this though. I'm not really willing to accept irriducible complexity. I approach life with the sense that everything can be understood and broken down further. This is part of the reason I asked the question, so I can learn from the ideas of others.

 

 

By the way, according to the Everett Wheeler model, I DID include the MWH in the OP, so there are countless verses where you and I are actually discussing THAT right now.

[Mr Skeptic]

Second, is there ANYTHING in this entire universe which is so complex as to be irreducibly so?

 

It's not really about complexity though. There was a fancy name for a property, which meant something like "unnatural." For example, a perfect sphere of ultrapure sodium would be extremely good evidence that it was made by some process other than nature, even though it is simple in the extreme. Much better than a vaguely arrowhead shaped rock in any case. A pile of mud, on the other hand, is incredibly complex (eg to describe the shape and position of every particle in it), but very "natural".

 

However, since ID is all about proving that living things were ID'ed, and living things just happen to be complex, they chose the name irreducible complexity.

 

[...]

This is faith based on evidence, and it is quite different in a very fundamental way to faith based on fairy tales and presumed entities whom by definition cannot be proven.

 

All faith is based on some kind of evidence though. It just turns out that personal experiences and stories aggregated and passed down through many generations (stories, myths, fairy tales) aren't as reliable as repeatable, objective evidence (science). And of course religion had some use in bringing people in a group together, as well as for altering their behavior if only slightly.

 

[...]

I'm totally biased on this though. I'm not really willing to accept irriducible complexity.

 

Then your question is just trolling... but its an interesting subject.

 

I approach life with the sense that everything can be understood

 

Which is pretty much a prerequisite for even trying to understand it...

 

and broken down further.

 

But that need not be the case. I'd say that the fundamental particles are irreducible, though not complex. Break down an electron for me, make my day!

[iNow]

Then your question is just trolling...

Well, I wouldn't go THAT far. That's pretty harsh, especially considering I was openly acknowledging my own bias on the subject. Sheesh.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, I wouldn't go THAT far. That's pretty harsh, especially considering I was openly acknowledging my own bias on the subject. Sheesh.

 

No good deed goes unpunished. Anyhow, it's quite understandable if no amount of discussion with random people on an internet forum would change your mind about that kind of subject.

[Zephir]

...is there ANYTHING in this entire universe which is so complex as to be irreducibly so?

This is the formation of fluctuations from fluctuations inside of condensing supercritical fluid - the probable mechanism behind all this complexity observed by AWT

 

[lucaspa]

I have two questions. Please feel free to address just one, both, or neither.

 

First, why do the stories get protected in the face of information which more accurately describes events? Why are so many inaccurate descriptions of nature held and protected like children in the face of data which provides more sustainable explanation?

 

Your answer is in the essay "The Beginning", in Is God a Creationist? Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 44-50. by Richard W. Berry

 

Second, is there ANYTHING in this entire universe which is so complex as to be irreducibly so?

 

IC isn't defined as being "so complex". Massive complexity does not confer irreducibility. Behe's definition of IC is "a single system which is composed of several well-matched,interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." -Michael J. Behe "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference"

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/behefig1.gif

 

There are man-made structures that do meet the definition of IC. Behe's classic example is a mousetrap. Remove any of the parts and the trap doesn't function -- as a trap.

 

However, your question is really whether there is any process other than manufacture by an intelligent entity that can produce complex strutures that occur "naturally".

 

Darwinian evolution can produce any so-called "IC" structure:

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html

 

Science is the antithesis of faith. In science, beliefs are based on objective empirical evidence. Faith is independent of evidence. Therefore science and faith are incompatible.

 

Bullshit. First, faith is not "independent of evidence". Faith is based on evidence; it just isn't the subset of evidence that science limits itself to.

 

Second, science is based on 5 statements of faith about the nature of the physical universe. Beyond that, science is based on 2 statements of faith necessary to search for any truth.

 

Third, the empirical evidence over the last 500 years of modern science shows that people who do science have had faith. It appears that your faith that science and faith are incompatible is independent of evidence.

[iNow]

Massive complexity does not confer irreducibility. Behe's definition of IC is "a single system which is composed of several well-matched,interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." -Michael J. Behe "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference"

Right. I understand that, and don't think any such systems exist.

 

As I recall, the bacterial flagellum made a good case, or the eyeball. They've both been demonstrated NOT to be irriducibly complex, so what else ya got?

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_08_220.html

 

 

There are man-made structures that do meet the definition of IC. Behe's classic example is a mousetrap. Remove any of the parts and the trap doesn't function -- as a trap.

Mouse traps also don't evolve. This is like arguing that evolution is silly because tornadoes don't make 747 jets out of a junk yard full of scrap. You working in the field you do I KNOW find that argument ludicrous and misrepresentative, yet you do the same thing by spouting Behe's mousetrap example.

 

And... they do make pretty cool tie clips, as you well know.

[ecoli]

Mouse traps also don't evolve. This is like arguing that evolution is silly because tornadoes don't make 747 jets out of a junk yard full of scrap. You working in the field you do I KNOW find that argument ludicrous and misrepresentative, yet you do the same thing by spouting Behe's mousetrap example.

Man-made objects do fit the irreducibly complex argument, which is indeed irrelevant to evolution.... but, technically, it still answers the question posed in the title. Unless manmade objects aren't part of the universe.

 

OTOH... haven't manmade objects evolved? A watch couldn't have been designed without the invention of the gear, which relied on the invention of the wheel, for example.

[YT2095]

although Watches are Several thousand orders of magnitude more simple than Life, we can make Watches, we still can`t make Life.

(in vitro, NOT in vivo!)

So... it`s quite probable that there is a place somewhere in the universes that is Entirely clockwork, more probable in fact than we are.

 

and when you think about it, gravitational pull, and different size planets and stars and related Orbits of systems are remarkably Clockwork-like in function.

 

 

I have to admit, I have difficulty separating the "irreducibly complex" idea from the Questions-we-can`t-answer idea.

[iNow]

I have to admit, I have difficulty separating the "irreducibly complex" idea from the Questions-we-can`t-answer idea.

If I interpret you correctly, then I'm on the same page as you with this. Just because we don't know YET what caused something to come about does not mean it was put in place in it's current form by something beyond nature.

[pioneer]

Science is a work in progress, with each generation thinking their state of art science is totally valid. Before Einstein's relativity, science would have also dismissed religion as hog wash, and excepted the many hundred year Newtonian view as the final reality. As history showed, this is still very useful but was only a good first approximation. They used a certain amount of blind faith. The reality is every generation of science has to deal with some of the bias of the previous traditions. The old school becomes a religion in the sense of catechism and dogma. The new school is sort of more like living science trying to overcome old science religion. This next generation eventually turns into its own religion, fighting the next generation, etc. If one is fully objective, much of what we know in science today, will also go the way of the science dinosaurs. Living science grows with the future.

 

One of the main strengths and potential weaknesses of modern science is connected to the power of computers. On the strong side it allows us to do thing we could never do before. But this same capability has a built in pitfall. Before computers, the math had to close to be valid math. If one was trying to solve an equation and it could not be solved, either the assumption or the math was wrong. But now we can solve such equations with numerical methods and computers. I can see a potential problem here if the equation was not suppose to be solved.

 

Maybe the equations couldn't be solved with cause and affect because the assumptions or math was not based on cause and affect. But now we can solve it with a good approximation, so it now appears right. Don't get me wrong, this is valid for practical science, since it allows us to make new artificial things not previously found in nature. Many of these thing help to improve on nature. One potential problem could be artificial preservatives being added to nature.

 

If, for the sake of argument, we assume some artificial preservatives, one symptom might be like in the free market, where the science consumer has more choices and former perishables goods have longer shelf life. Maybe up to Einstein's days, science was closer to rational monotheism. There is still only relativity, one Newton, etc. Now science is more like polytheism. I am not sure if nature is suppose to have multiple personalities. But maybe this is part of science evolution, with the goal to open the field. It does offer more opportunity for many more ideas.

[SkepticLance]

lucaspa said :

 

"Bullshit. First, faith is not "independent of evidence". Faith is based on evidence; it just isn't the subset of evidence that science limits itself to.

 

Second, science is based on 5 statements of faith about the nature of the physical universe. Beyond that, science is based on 2 statements of faith necessary to search for any truth.

 

Third, the empirical evidence over the last 500 years of modern science shows that people who do science have had faith. It appears that your faith that science and faith are incompatible is independent of evidence."

 

I doubt you and I will ever agree on the question of faith. Reading between the lines, I suspect you have certain faith based beliefs outside of science, and have an emotional attachment to those beliefs that you do not want challenged.

 

Faith is based on evidence??? Yes, but normally evidence that lacks critical validity. As I said before, most religious people are so because they have accepted the faith of their fathers. In other words, they have chosen to believe what they were told. Their evidence was simply that someone they respected told them so.

 

Faith based science??? Could you please elaborate. There are certain aspects of science that are not truly known. However, we cannot call it faith, because the real belief is not there. What is the cause of abiogenesis? There are theories but no certainty. Only if people expressed 'true belief' in an idea explaining abiogenesis, would you call it faith. Or did you have something else in mind?

 

Having religious faith while being a scientist. Sure. Very common. But this does not obviate my point. I once knew a Fijian man who was a member of a fire walking troupe. Their belief was an animist god once rewarded an ancestor with this power. Yet he was Christian. I asked him how many gods there were. Answer : only one - the Christian god. Very adamant! I asked him then about the story of the conferring of fire walking power. From a god other than the christian god. He believed both very fervently, and saw no contradiction.

 

People can hold two opposing views simultaneously and often do. Science and religion. Belief from empirical evidence and belief from faith with both held at the same time.