0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I have several comments:Firstly, your argument was incoherent and unintelligible enough to make my head hurt.Physics is hard to explain. Could you do any better?Secondly, how did you get the idea that any aspect of the universe is irreducibly complex?My idea of the irreducibility of the complexity was based purely on theoretical considerations on the current quantum-cosmological theory of entropy. The general acceptance of cosmologists and physicists alike state that the universe at the first instant of time yielded a peculiar low state of entropy - also known as a ground state - the lowest fundemental state you can get making the universe an efficient place. Since today the maximal amount of entropy is considered on the quantum and grand cosmological scales, then the minimum amount of entropy can be classed as reducing the entropy to a ground state (lowest entropy) but if one wanted another universe to begin fundementally in a lower state of entropy we have a paradox on what is allowed in any given universe. This would mean that the entropy in our universe is irreducibly-complex to state that no other universe could manifest in lower energy states.Thirdly, to my knowledge, the apparent irreducible complexity of any natural entity or phenomenon has never been shown to be more than an illusion. Further, many things considered irreducibly complex by some, have positively been demonstrated to be reducible.Only in the biological sense. I made this clear in the OPFourthly, whatever the statistics supposedly may indicate, we already have an extremely accurate model of the evolution of the universe, and believe it or not, it is reductive towards very simple beginnings.I don't know what you have been reading but the evolution of the universe now depends on an unseen force called dark energy which pervaids 74% of all the matter in the universe. If anything, we don't have any accuracy on cosmological scales, only local scales, such as our solar systemSo why should we accept your argument? [8D]You weigh what i have written.
Physicists are currently working towards reducing the complexity of the Universe to just one law. They haven't got there yet but, at the moment, there seem to be just 3 forces involved.That's not very complex.
Physics is hard to explain. Could you do any better?
My idea of the irreducibility of the complexity was based purely on theoretical considerations on the current quantum-cosmological theory of entropy. The general acceptance of cosmologists and physicists alike state that the universe at the first instant of time yielded a peculiar low state of entropy - also known as a ground state - the lowest fundemental state you can get making the universe an efficient place. Since today the maximal amount of entropy is considered on the quantum and grand cosmological scales, then the minimum amount of entropy can be classed as reducing the entropy to a ground state (lowest entropy) but if one wanted another universe to begin fundementally in a lower state of entropy we have a paradox on what is allowed in any given universe. This would mean that the entropy in our universe is irreducibly-complex to state that no other universe could manifest in lower energy states.
Only in the biological sense. I made this clear in the OP
I don't know what you have been reading but the evolution of the universe now depends on an unseen force called dark energy which pervaids 74% of all the matter in the universe. If anything, we don't have any accuracy on cosmological scales, only local scales, such as our solar system
QuotePhysics is hard to explain. Could you do any better?I don't know if I personally could because I don't generally write about physics. But it is definitely possible to write better about physics.I never said it couldn't. It was you being critical of something you could not do better yourself, as you admitted.QuoteMy idea of the irreducibility of the complexity was based purely on theoretical considerations on the current quantum-cosmological theory of entropy. The general acceptance of cosmologists and physicists alike state that the universe at the first instant of time yielded a peculiar low state of entropy - also known as a ground state - the lowest fundemental state you can get making the universe an efficient place. Since today the maximal amount of entropy is considered on the quantum and grand cosmological scales, then the minimum amount of entropy can be classed as reducing the entropy to a ground state (lowest entropy) but if one wanted another universe to begin fundementally in a lower state of entropy we have a paradox on what is allowed in any given universe. This would mean that the entropy in our universe is irreducibly-complex to state that no other universe could manifest in lower energy states.This seems to me to be a non-sequitur: "but if one wanted another universe to begin fundementally in a lower state of entropy we have a paradox on what is allowed in any given universe. This would mean that the entropy in our universe is irreducibly-complex to state that no other universe could manifest in lower energy states". It is not consistent with the rest of your comment.I don't think you've understood the comment. If you understood it, you would see the connection. Last time, different way of explaining: If there are parallel universes, then the laws of physics state that each universe will have exactly the same amount of particles in each universe, which is around 10^80, give or take a few tens. Now, if our universe began in a ground state, it means that you cannot get a universe any more simpler than a ground state. To expect that our universe out of so many arises to be the most simplest way for reality to form (and knowing that the simple-nature cannot be reduced any more) means that none of the other universes (an infinite amount of them) can have begun in a lower state of energy.Now... this is true. What part of it do you argue?QuoteOnly in the biological sense. I made this clear in the OPBiology is of course highly organised and intricate physics and chemistry. The examples of falsified irreducible complexity in biology are also generalisable to abiological concepts. Not for this topic it isn't. We are talking about entropy, not biological systems - we are talking about the cosmological make-up, not animals.Consider a biological structure that is composed of several parts. The structure may be completely nonfunctional if any of its parts are modified or absent. However, because we know that the structure and its parts have evolved (changed) over time, we can show that at some time in the past, the structure and its parts were different and the structure was not nonfunctional in the absence of some parts. Eventually the parts evolved to be completely dependent on each other for proper function.Wrong talkA simpler, more purely physical/mechanical example is this: Build an arch out of bricks. This is how arches are made, and its a very reducible process: http://www.diyinfo.org/wiki/How_To_Build_A_Brick_Arch,_Ringed-Curved_Style http://www.diyinfo.org/images/f/f7/Brickarch_C.jpgThe bricks in the arch are at first supported by a wooden scaffold. Once the arch is complete, the scaffold is removed and the arch supports itself. Some of these arches do not even require cement, for example if the bricks are wedged, because all the bricks are being forced down and push against each other so there is no way for them to fall.But what happens if you remove the key brick? The structure collapses.You are talking about devices. This is not a proper arguement to the conjecture being exampled. You cannot associate that therefore, with a quantum mechanical aspect of the universe.Does that mean that either the arch or the biological structure were irreducibly complex? No. Extreme co-dependence for function does not equal irreducible complexity. Neither do complex present conditions equal irreducibly complex past conditions.Doesn't matter.QuoteI don't know what you have been reading but the evolution of the universe now depends on an unseen force called dark energy which pervaids 74% of all the matter in the universe. If anything, we don't have any accuracy on cosmological scales, only local scales, such as our solar systemThat information is not inconsistent with current theories about the reducibility of the universe. Not my point. My point is is that you believe we have an accurate model of the evolution of the universe. This is not true, and there are many holes for error.
I never said it couldn't. It was you being critical of something you could not do better yourself, as you admitted.
I don't think you've understood the comment. If you understood it, you would see the connection. Last time, different way of explaining: If there are parallel universes, then the laws of physics state that each universe will have exactly the same amount of particles in each universe, which is around 10^80, give or take a few tens. Now, if our universe began in a ground state, it means that you cannot get a universe any more simpler than a ground state. To expect that our universe out of so many arises to be the most simplest way for reality to form (and knowing that the simple-nature cannot be reduced any more) means that none of the other universes (an infinite amount of them) can have begun in a lower state of energy.Now... this is true. What part of it do you argue?
Not for this topic it isn't. We are talking about entropy, not biological systems - we are talking about the cosmological make-up, not animals.You are talking about devices. This is not a proper arguement to the conjecture being exampled. You cannot associate that therefore, with a quantum mechanical aspect of the universe.
Not my point. My point is is that you believe we have an accurate model of the evolution of the universe. This is not true, and there are many holes for error.
QuoteI never said it couldn't. It was you being critical of something you could not do better yourself, as you admitted.It doesn't change the fact that it has taken you until this post to clearly explain what your argument is. My own skills are irrelevant; you are the one making the argument.I don't care for your degrading comments. Whether i reached you in the past is irrelevent to whether i have finally reached you now. Ever considered it has something to do with your own mental capacity?QuoteI don't think you've understood the comment. If you understood it, you would see the connection. Last time, different way of explaining: If there are parallel universes, then the laws of physics state that each universe will have exactly the same amount of particles in each universe, which is around 10^80, give or take a few tens. Now, if our universe began in a ground state, it means that you cannot get a universe any more simpler than a ground state. To expect that our universe out of so many arises to be the most simplest way for reality to form (and knowing that the simple-nature cannot be reduced any more) means that none of the other universes (an infinite amount of them) can have begun in a lower state of energy.Now... this is true. What part of it do you argue?So all you are saying is that other universes would start off with similar characteristics to this universe?Why do you you think that would be the case? They can be similar but identical is forbidden. The reason why is because at t=1 the universe was compressed into an infinite state of density. You cannot get any more simpler than that. But to assume any other universe can exist beyond this threashold becomes obsolete because you cann reduce the complexity any further - which puts a contraint on where our universe is on the so-called infinite ladder. Theoretically, there should be universes which starts off in a lower state than ours; but that would contradict the vacuums laws in this universe. Saying you cannot have it simpler also means you cannot have any less dimensions. In fact there is no theoretical theory of quantum mechanics (which is not classical) which can fundamentally deal with a universe with any less than three. The lowest entropy state in this universe would forbid any other universe arising in this state so we are unique on the lowest state of order; its a bit like shuffling electrons together in orbitals inside an electron.Why do you need to use "irreducible complexity" in your argument? All it does is obstruct more explicit explanation. "Complex" isn't even a good adjective for what you are saying.It's irreducible because no universe can reduce any more simpler. Why do you not understand this?QuoteNot for this topic it isn't. We are talking about entropy, not biological systems - we are talking about the cosmological make-up, not animals.You are talking about devices. This is not a proper arguement to the conjecture being exampled. You cannot associate that therefore, with a quantum mechanical aspect of the universe.Entropy is something that changes (increases) over time. Those biological and mechanical systems also change over time. The point was that you can't consider past and present states in the same way.Various accounts can lead toa decrease. It's not always linear - But i am TALKING ABOUT COSMOLOGY - not local life on earth. Whilst life has its own statistical analysis, such analysis is usually left to the Strong Anthropic Principle which has absolute Nada to do with the conjecture/thought-experiment at hand. Leave this biology stuff alone please.QuoteNot my point. My point is is that you believe we have an accurate model of the evolution of the universe. This is not true, and there are many holes for error.It's extremely accurate and it is the most accurate model to date. Of course it's not perfect - if it was, science would end.Most accurate yes - i never said it wasn't. Sometimes i think you imagine half the things you think i have said. Whether it's the most accurate model does not excuse the fact that 74% of the universe we still do not understand.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/10/2009 06:53:54Physicists are currently working towards reducing the complexity of the Universe to just one law. They haven't got there yet but, at the moment, there seem to be just 3 forces involved.That's not very complex.Also, there are actually four forces.
Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 29/10/2009 11:00:51Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/10/2009 06:53:54Physicists are currently working towards reducing the complexity of the Universe to just one law. They haven't got there yet but, at the moment, there seem to be just 3 forces involved.That's not very complex.Also, there are actually four forces.Electricity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and gravity.There are 5 basic forces but three of them can already be shown to be aspects of just one- the electro-weak force. (electricity and magnetism were "unified" by Maxwell.That, for those who can't count for themselves leaves (at most) 3.
So you solved your own problem? Congratulations.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 30/10/2009 06:59:15Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 29/10/2009 11:00:51Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/10/2009 06:53:54Physicists are currently working towards reducing the complexity of the Universe to just one law. They haven't got there yet but, at the moment, there seem to be just 3 forces involved.That's not very complex.Also, there are actually four forces.Electricity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and gravity.There are 5 basic forces but three of them can already be shown to be aspects of just one- the electro-weak force. (electricity and magnetism were "unified" by Maxwell.That, for those who can't count for themselves leaves (at most) 3.In the standard model, we do not account for magnetism and electric forces alone for they are known to be experimentally-unified, so you are wrong. There are by textbook definition, four fundamental forces of nature.
If the GUT people are right then actually, there's only 1.Even 6 would be not very complex compared to a God.