[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

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.

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.

Your veiw point is inconsistent.
The electromagnetic and weak forces are experimentally known to be unified so you should accept that either you count the unified forces individually when there are five or you count the groups of unified forces in which case there are three.
Lets be clear about this; I have listed all 5 and yet you say there are 4.

If the GUT people are right then actually, there's only 1.
Even 6 would be not very complex compared to a God.

Please don't argue. I know there are by academic conjecture four fundemental forces of nature, whether or not they unify at sufficiently high enough temperatures.

FROM : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

The four known fundamental interactions are electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction (also known as "strong" and "weak nuclear force") and gravitation.

[Bored chemist]

"Please don't argue. I know there are by academic conjecture four fundemental forces of nature, whether or not they unify at sufficiently high enough temperatures.
"
I'm not arguing.
I'm just pointing out that there are five.
Magnetism
Electicity
Gravity
The weak force and
The strong force

It's odd that you persist in saying there are only 4.
Academic conjecture can do what it likes, but there's no way that you can count those 5 forces and only get 4.

I know that 2 of them are both facets of electromagnetism but, as I said, if you don't count the unified ones individually then there are 3. The answer's not 4.

Anyway- it hardly matters. A handfull of forces is still a lot less irreducibly complex than a God.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

I never appealed to God - Nor does any credible scientist call the forces five. If you want to get technical, yes, there are five fascets. Two of which are incredibly close enough to be classed as a single force, hence, electromagnetism.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

"Please don't argue. I know there are by academic conjecture four fundemental forces of nature, whether or not they unify at sufficiently high enough temperatures.
"
I'm not arguing.
I'm just pointing out that there are five.
Magnetism
Electicity
Gravity
The weak force and
The strong force

It's odd that you persist in saying there are only 4.
Academic conjecture can do what it likes, but there's no way that you can count those 5 forces and only get 4.

I know that 2 of them are both facets of electromagnetism but, as I said, if you don't count the unified ones individually then there are 3. The answer's not 4.

Anyway- it hardly matters. A handfull of forces is still a lot less irreducibly complex than a God.

Bored chemist:

I have just came to realize that you have read this work drastically-wrong. Am i correct in saying that this irreducible-complexity arguement has you believing that it asserts you cannot unify the fundamental forces theoretically?

It by no means suggested that whatsoever.

[litespeed]

I just don't see how 'electricity' is a fundamental force. We get electricity by spinning magnets and wire, among other techniques.  Electricity is simply the displacement of electrons by various methods. It is an effect. Not a fundamental force.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

I think she or he meant it as ''electic'' rather than electricity itself.

[Ethos]

I think she or he meant it as ''electic'' rather than electricity itself.

Ofcourse,   Whether 1, 4, or 5, by anyones count the basic construct of the cosmos must and will reduce it's complex character to the lowest common denominator. All systems seek the simplest equilibrium because that's the key to greatest efficiency. I agree with your point Mr. Scientist about the initial circumstances of the proposed Big Bang. However, I personally, do not invest much faith in the Big Bang scenario. Nevertheless, if the Big Bang is correct, then your accessment would be right. I prefer to believe in the eternal state of the universe. 

[yor_on]

What you seem to be arguing Mr S is that we should look at SpaceTime as 'it is' and use that as the best plausible example for creating those than can discuss it

It's one way of looking at it.

As for the concept of breaking down stuff into smaller and smaller 'forces'?
That's another way to look at it.

It's a little like time.

You may assume that as time has an arrow all things will have a chronological procession and a past, a present and a future. But at a quantum level that description can be questioned. It all comes down to what your presumptions are. In the Newtonian world we believed in objective celestial mechanisms. In our Einsteinian world we believe in probability and relativity.

If you think of it in terms of 'emergences' time only have an clear 'times arrow' macroscopically. Which then seems to suggest that black body radiation and time both 'jumps' from obscurity to 'revelation' in a non-hierarchical (smooth) way, and by that I mean 'emerging'.

--

Which doesn't mean that our arrow of time isn't smooth at our macroscopic level btw. Im only suggesting that there are 'jumps' to it.