• This area is a closed archive from PF2 which did not abide by the same quality standards as the current main community.

Is Life's Complexity Evidence of an Intelligent Designer?

In summary, the debate over whether life's complexity is evidence of an intelligent designer examines the intricate structures and processes found in living organisms. Proponents argue that the complexity and interdependence of biological systems suggest the presence of a purposeful creator, while critics contend that natural selection and evolutionary mechanisms can explain these complexities without invoking a designer. The discussion encompasses philosophical, scientific, and theological perspectives, ultimately questioning the nature of existence and the origins of life.
  • #1
Page:
This post, which is necessarily long, seeks to summate my argument in the other-sciences forum, concerning 'recreating life' - after considerations of its complex-order. I am posting it here because I believe it to be a sound rational-argument for the existence of an absolutely-intelligent 'Being', prior to Universal origins.Special note:-This post does *NOT* refute that the evolution of life came about via physical-processes. I.e., I acknowledge that the complexity of life COULD be explained via physical-processes. My argument is not really about which physical-processes led to the complexity of life. My argument is about the underlying order inherent within those processes, and what this actually means in relation to life's origins.The order of lifeTo progress this argument, we need to recognise two important aspects of life:-a) Life is highly-ordered. A living-organism can be compared to a highly-tuned machine; whereby each part of that organism is doing a specific job to enable that organism to function as a 'whole'.b) Life is highly-complex. There is no such thing as a simple life-form. That's just a relative-phrase.I came across this interesting site:From it, I would like to bring this to your attention:-~ "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated. ~Thus, we see that life is complex-order, on an extremely-grande scale.The evolution of this complex-orderWhen we contemplate the evolution of life, we cannot fail to recognise the ever-growing magnitude of this order & complexity. I.e., the above-argument relates to complex-order at the molecular-level; whereas considerations of larger-organisms, sees this complex-order also imposed at the cellular-level... on an equally-grande scale.Not only this; but we should also note how 'chemistry' produces ordered-groups of organisms: for example, an ant-colony. Hence, even more order & complexity is produced.We can also ask ourselves: What is the highest form of complexity & order producable by such laws? Interestingly, the answer to that question is:- The highest form of complex-order is an organism with self-awareness and free-will (or the belief that it has free-will), which will integrate with other-such organisms (a society of such complexity). This is the highest-form of order possible for chemistry to create. And ithasbeen achieved. 'Humanity'.It becomes clear that the laws of science (the forces behind those laws) are predisposed to impose *supreme* complex-order upon matter & energy.No matter howthese processes transpire, we can state with certainty that the laws of science are inclined to yield supreme complex-order (in the correct environment - which the forces of nature also create).This is highly-significant. We are not just contemplating the existence of 'Laws' here. We are contemplating Laws which impose the highest form of complex-order upon energy and matter, to produce the highest-form of complex-order attainable:- Organisms with human characteristics.Every action, inter-action, and reaction inherent within the matter/energy/forces of Nature, are so-designed to yield (eventually) Human-type life. The fundamental-point to be made thus-far from this argument, is that the laws of sceincearethe Laws of sentient-life. Life was pre-ordained to exist in this Universe... even from the onset of Universal-origins.It wasdeterminedto occur.Origins of the forces of NatureNow; the finale of this argument: Where do these forces/laws come from?Given the difference between classical physics and quantum physics, wouldn't you say that it was fair to say that 'order has emerged from chaos.'?Given the complexity of life, wouldn't you say that 'it' represented the emergence of a higher-order, emanating from this pre-existing order?The laws of science are obviously ordered in such a way that whatever has transpired, was destined to transpire... even from the beginning.From the initial indeterminancy, a set of laws dictated the birth of man.Of all the countless possibles & probables that exist within the quantum-realm, this perfect-order of life arose.Remember, the 'quantum-realm' is the essence of these laws of science - the determiner of these laws. Order emerges from chaos. Thus, the reason why we cannot completely apply classical-law to the quantum-realm, is because the q-realm is not a slave to our laws-of-science. We cannot apply order to it. But 'it' has applied order to those Laws themselves. 'Something' definitely has done this. Our existence is proof of that.Perfectly consistent and singular laws cannot emanate from everlasting indeterminancy, unless willful order is imposed upon that indeterminancy.Thus, the *continuous* (note the emphasis of this word) existence of a singular-law from chaos/infinity/indeterminancy/whatever, MUST involve the continuous involvement of supreme-order upon chaos/infinity/whatever.'This' cannot be attributed to 'chance'. It requires will & intelligence, not to mention power of ability and purpose.The last line of 'defence' is the Strong Anthropic Principle, which basically states:-'Anthropic-principle: anything which can be,is. The anthropic-principle is an idea which encapsulates omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience: anything which can be;is.'The AP is not a refutation of anything I have said. It's an endorsement.I conclude by stating that these Laws - this Universe - have emanated from a 'Being' of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, exhibiting willful-intelligence and purpose at a supreme level:-A God.Thanks for taking the time to read this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This post, which is necessarily long, seeks to summate my argument in the other-sciences forum, concerning 'recreating life' - after considerations of its complex-order. I am posting it here because I believe it to be a sound rational-argument for the existence of an absolutely-intelligent 'Being', prior to Universal origins.Special note:-This post does *NOT* refute that the evolution of life came about via physical-processes. I.e., I acknowledge that the complexity of life COULD be explained via physical-processes. My argument is not really about which physical-processes led to the complexity of life. My argument is about the underlying order inherent within those processes, and what this actually means in relation to life's origins.The order of lifeTo progress this argument, we need to recognise two important aspects of life:-a) Life is highly-ordered. A living-organism can be compared to a highly-tuned machine; whereby each part of that organism is doing a specific job to enable that organism to function as a 'whole'.b) Life is highly-complex. There is no such thing as a simple life-form. That's just a relative-phrase.I came across this interesting site:From it, I would like to bring this to your attention:-~ "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated. ~Thus, we see that life is complex-order, on an extremely-grande scale.The evolution of this complex-orderWhen we contemplate the evolution of life, we cannot fail to recognise the ever-growing magnitude of this order & complexity. I.e., the above-argument relates to complex-order at the molecular-level; whereas considerations of larger-organisms, sees this complex-order also imposed at the cellular-level... on an equally-grande scale.Not only this; but we should also note how 'chemistry' produces ordered-groups of organisms: for example, an ant-colony. Hence, even more order & complexity is produced.We can also ask ourselves: What is the highest form of complexity & order producable by such laws? Interestingly, the answer to that question is:- The highest form of complex-order is an organism with self-awareness and free-will (or the belief that it has free-will), which will integrate with other-such organisms (a society of such complexity). This is the highest-form of order possible for chemistry to create. And ithasbeen achieved. 'Humanity'.It becomes clear that the laws of science (the forces behind those laws) are predisposed to impose *supreme* complex-order upon matter & energy.No matter howthese processes transpire, we can state with certainty that the laws of science are inclined to yield supreme complex-order (in the correct environment - which the forces of nature also create).This is highly-significant. We are not just contemplating the existence of 'Laws' here. We are contemplating Laws which impose the highest form of complex-order upon energy and matter, to produce the highest-form of complex-order attainable:- Organisms with human characteristics.Every action, inter-action, and reaction inherent within the matter/energy/forces of Nature, are so-designed to yield (eventually) Human-type life. The fundamental-point to be made thus-far from this argument, is that the laws of sceincearethe Laws of sentient-life. Life was pre-ordained to exist in this Universe... even from the onset of Universal-origins.It wasdeterminedto occur.Origins of the forces of NatureNow; the finale of this argument: Where do these forces/laws come from?Given the difference between classical physics and quantum physics, wouldn't you say that it was fair to say that 'order has emerged from chaos.'?Given the complexity of life, wouldn't you say that 'it' represented the emergence of a higher-order, emanating from this pre-existing order?The laws of science are obviously ordered in such a way that whatever has transpired, was destined to transpire... even from the beginning.From the initial indeterminancy, a set of laws dictated the birth of man.Of all the countless possibles & probables that exist within the quantum-realm, this perfect-order of life arose.Remember, the 'quantum-realm' is the essence of these laws of science - the determiner of these laws. Order emerges from chaos. Thus, the reason why we cannot completely apply classical-law to the quantum-realm, is because the q-realm is not a slave to our laws-of-science. We cannot apply order to it. But 'it' has applied order to those Laws themselves. 'Something' definitely has done this. Our existence is proof of that.Perfectly consistent and singular laws cannot emanate from everlasting indeterminancy, unless willful order is imposed upon that indeterminancy.Thus, the *continuous* (note the emphasis of this word) existence of a singular-law from chaos/infinity/indeterminancy/whatever, MUST involve the continuous involvement of supreme-order upon chaos/infinity/whatever.'This' cannot be attributed to 'chance'. It requires will & intelligence, not to mention power of ability and purpose.The last line of 'defence' is the Strong Anthropic Principle, which basically states:-'Anthropic-principle: anything which can be,is. The anthropic-principle is an idea which encapsulates omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience: anything which can be;is.'The AP is not a refutation of anything I have said. It's an endorsement.I conclude by stating that these Laws - this Universe - have emanated from a 'Being' of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, exhibiting willful-intelligence and purpose at a supreme level:-A God.Thanks for taking the time to read this.
 
  • #3
ok, i'm not arguing that there is no God.I kinda believe in a God.But i have trouble in agreeing with the "supreme being" part for my reasons to which I'll try to explain.You probaly agree that everything could have been at a very small part of this universe for a very short period of time (big bang).Here is what i think.That God does not exisit now because God has not evolved to that being yet.That when everything comes back as one (I'm not exactly saying big crunch or whatever, just that somehow everything will be back in the same thing before the big bang) that God will exist.Now why i say that God can't be a supreme being is because i belive that if God is the only being that exist in the universe and only thing in the universe, meaning no matter of any kind. How can God be superior over nothing. Like looking at that school bully with no one to bully.Now the reason why i believe that God only exist in a short period of time is because i have a theory that there can be only 2 perfects and only one makes sense.one perfect is nothing and the one that makes sense is everything.now with only 2 perfects in mind narrowed down to one perfect because nothing can't be a possibility because our existance proves that it can't.So thats why i believe that God did not create, but converted everythign we know today. That we live in an infinite cycle of one action and many reactions. Now hopfully my God makes sense. Although this God may need a new name because this God can not in any way be superior over nothing."What one does. Does for oneself." - KnightOwl
 
  • #4
quote:Originally posted by KnightOwl:Now why i say that God can't be a supreme being is because i belive that if God is the only being that exist in the universe and only thing in the universe, meaning no matter of any kind. How can God be superior over nothing. Like looking at that school bully with no one to bully.I don't see God as the superior-nothing. I see God as the superior Self. Everything which exists, emanates from God - not from 'nothing'.Your post didn't really address my post. But thanks for participating.
 
  • #5
well i was just explain how my God exist. Since this is "An argument for the existence of ''God''."can you explain superior Self? because i see if something is superior, then something esle has to be inferior. And in self i would see inferior self."What one does. Does for oneself." - KnightOwl
 
  • #6
quote:Originally posted by KnightOwl:can you explain superior Self? because i see if something is superior, then something esle has to be inferior. And in self i would see inferior self.Finite entities/objects are inferior *aspects* of the Self... in that no finite-entity can be equated to an omnipotent; omniscient; omnipresent Self - as can 'The Self' itself.No disrespect intended; but I think this conversation is irrelevant to my first post. From experience, I know that this is not a good thing. I don't want the relevance of my first post to be lost.
 
  • #7
Lifegazer, I know many of the regulars will disagree with me but I think this post is an excellent one. Here are my thoughts. I see your post in 2 main parts: 1)establishing that life/existence is a determined result of complex/ordered processes and 2) what are the implications of this life origin?I don't think you will get past number 1 with most of the people that normally posts here. I'll call them "The science club". The first thing some of the science club members will do is follow the link you provided and then scoff at anything it says by associating the author or the quoted scientist as a known creationist. They'll say this person is a religious wacko cloaked as a scientist. Not sure you want to get bogged down with these folks again.But I'm getting off the topic..... from my readings there is "some" discussion in the scientific world that "chance" may not be the best explanation of life. If you haven't already done so you should read a little about complexity/chaos/information theory. I by no means understand all there is about this stuff but it at least is another place to look for a reasonable explanation if you are like many who look at "chance" with your jaw open and your head shaking. If something has broken your kitchen window, you don't have to blindly accept that it must have been a meteor(natural selection). Natural processes that inherently build complexity could be the 2 kids playing ball in the yard.But you will never get that far with the science club. But I am with you. So on to number 2. If complexity truly is a determined result of natural processes then the implications on science would be great. What are they? It is this question that makes this such a great post for the philosophy forum. But I'm not really sure what the answer is exactly. You begin to build a case for god. I have not gotten there in my thinking. I think where I stop following you is here:quote:We cannot apply order to it. But 'it' has applied order to those Laws themselves. 'Something' definitely has done this. Our existence is proof of that.Perfectly consistent and singular laws cannot emanate from everlasting indeterminancy, unless willful order is imposed upon that indeterminancy.Thus, the *continuous* (note the emphasis of this word) existence of a singular-law from chaos/infinity/indeterminancy/whatever, MUST involve the continuous involvement of supreme-order upon chaos/infinity/whatever.'This' cannot be attributed to 'chance'. It requires will & intelligence, not to mention power of ability and purpose.The only way I can follow this line of thinking is if I accept that there is nothing but potential in the quantum realm until a "will" is imposed to force a reality. If I accept this then you're reasoning is ok. But I'm not sure I understand quantum physics enough to assume this and even if I did I would still be stuck with the idea that quantum physics is only a theory and does not explain everything. So we can reason that a better theory probably is attainable one day and it may impact your argument. Can you get me past this paragraph of yours?
 
  • #8
Greetings !LG, have you ever seen the void ?It's out there...So empty and silent...(BTW, even in the void things follow lawsas do reasonable arguments follow logic.)PEACE and long life.
 
  • #9
quote:Originally posted by Fliption:Lifegazer, I know many of the regulars will disagree with me but I think this post is an excellent one.Thanks. I took my time putting it together. I just hope it doesn't get ignored.quote:The first thing some of the science club members will do is follow the link you provided and then scoff at anything it says by associating the author or the quoted scientist as a known creationist. They'll say this person is a religious wacko cloaked as a scientist. Not sure you want to get bogged down with these folks again.True. Although, from what I can gather, religion isn't even mentioned. Regardless; what they had to say about the bacteria is correct. That's the only thing I wanted the reader to know - how complex & ordered even a 'simple' life-form is.The validity of my argument has nothing to do with the link provided. I should make that clear now. My argument should be judged on its own merits.Thanks for making me notice this. It might save a few un-needed posts.quote:from my readings there is "some" discussion in the scientific world that "chance" may not be the best explanation of life.How can there be any such thing as 'chance', when the motion of all particles, and the possible interactions between them, is all governed by a Law/Force which drives these motions/interactions in a manner which will produce 'supreme-order'?I defined what this supreme-order meant in my first post, when I said "The highest form of complex-order is an organism with self-awareness and free-will (or the belief that it has free-will), which will integrate with other-such organisms (a society of such complexity). This is the highest-form of order possible for chemistry to create. And it has been achieved: 'Humanity'.".The Laws of Science are still relentlessly-pressing mankind to succumb to this absolute order-of-complexity. It's impossible to avoid, except by obliteration.It's written somewhere within the Laws themselves. I don't know how these forces/laws work. I just know that they are there, and working. The existence of humanity is proof-enough of that. But 'humanity', at present, isn't enough for this Force/Law of supreme-order, and it wont have finished its 'pressing' until humanity as a whole is completely unified -at One. Religious people would equate this to the 'fulfillment of theword'. Though, I have no wish to start any discussion about any specific religions. Not yet, anyway.quote:Natural processes that inherently build complexity could be the 2 kids playing ball in the yard.They would be a part of the process. Determined to be who they are, what they are, and what they will do.I'm not saying that people don't have free-will; but in my considered-opinion, this awareness and will is emanating from elsewhere - at source, so to speak...I Am. But that's another argument which will serve to cloud my first post. We have to try and discuss this topic without falling into 'everything' at once. We need to concentrate on what I have saidbeforewe ponder the conclusion.quote:If complexity truly is a determined result of natural processes then the implications on science would be great. What are they? It is this question that makes this such a great post for the philosophy forum.It may be possible to work upon theories that predict higher levels of complexity. I don't know. We'd need someone like Tom to answer that.But the implications for our morality would surely take primal-consideration, given that the conclusion is correct?quote:The only way I can follow this line of thinking is if I accept that there is nothing but potential in the quantum realm until a "will" is imposed to force a reality. If I accept this then you're reasoning is ok.I wouldn't ask you to blindly accept it. But if we take away 'intelligence', 'will','power', and 'purpose' from this quantum-realm, we cannot yield this Universe from what is left - not unless you embrace the S.A.P. - which basically endows the q-realm with omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, anyway.quote:So we can reason that a better theory probably is attainable one day and it may impact your argument. Can you get me past this paragraph of yours?I think so, yes. You say that a better theory may impact my argument. But what could this theory possibly state that could do that? Essentially, my argument doesn't even fallwithinScience. It embraces it. It embraces the fact that the universe has a tendency towards ever-growing complex-order. Humanity itself seems to be the culmination of this process, although unity evades our grasp for the present-moment. Perhaps arguments such as this will be the basis for that unity to become tangible. But only if we are sincere about them. Perhaps we don't even need the 'second coming' to unite us. We have the minds to unite ourselves.Give me any reasoned-guess as to what the quantum-realm could tell us which I haven't already addressed. You might wish to confuse me with fancy math: xyp/t - dubya/trubble = classical-physics, so-to-speak; but you'd only be giving me a more-detailed analysis of how the 'quantum-realm' manifests itself into order. You wouldn't be addressing the origins of that order, as I am here.I appreciate your response. Thanks.
 
  • #10
quote:Originally posted by drag:LG, have you ever seen the void ?It's out there...So empty and silent...Show me it. Good luck.You've told me that you're a man of 'logic'; yet you have little grasp of whatnothingis. 'Nothing'; according to you; is the absence of 4-dimensional entities. That's a non-sequitor, I believe. That's like Bugs-Bunny believing that nothing = the absence of 2-d paper to be drawn upon. You have no logical-right to define your 'void' as 'nothing'.Furthermore, it's a common-error to believe that the universe converges to '0'.It converges to singularity = '1'.Your so-called 'void' actually relates to the existence of a singular entity/source. It does not equate to 'nothing'.quote:(BTW, even in the void things follow lawsas do reasonable arguments follow logic.)Yes, theyfollow. What they followfrom, is what we're trying to discuss here.
 
  • #11
I don't agree with your conclusions and i don't see any direct inference of 3 from 1 and 2. I'd like to take a moment to think about a tiny bit of the 3rd part of your post.quote:Given the difference between classical physics and quantum physics, wouldn't you say that it was fair to say that 'order has emerged from chaos.'?In a limited way, yes, it is fair; if we limit ourselves towhat we now know, our present understanding of physical law, etc. I would venture to guess that Quantum reality will become much more intelligible in the future. Lets suppose that in the future we come to an understanding of our quantum mysteries. Lets suppose that the quantum blur becomes precisely ordered to our understanding. What becomes of your point then? Yes, these are a couple large suppositions but so is supposing intelligent design."Now in the moment all falls into focusTime, just a number warped while I�m wrapped in you"~Chris ShinnSend hate mail totypeo007@physicsforums.com
 
  • #12
Greetings !quote:Originally posted by lifegazer:quote:Originally posted by drag:LG, have you ever seen the void ?It's out there...So empty and silent...Show me it. Good luck.You've told me that you're a man of 'logic'; yet you have little grasp of whatnothingis. 'Nothing'; according to you; is the absence of 4-dimensional entities. That's a non-sequitor, I believe. That's like Bugs-Bunny believing that nothing = the absence of 2-d paper to be drawn upon. You have no logical-right to define your 'void' as 'nothing'.Furthermore, it's a common-error to believe that the universe converges to '0'.It converges to singularity = '1'.Your so-called 'void' actually relates to the existence of a singular entity/source. It does not equate to 'nothing'.I'm sorry, I do not understand a word of thisresponse.What are you talking about ?MY OPINION :As for what I said, the void are hundreds of billions of empty'lifeless' star systems in hundreds of billions of galaxies.How does that show us that the laws of physics evolve towardsa state of higher complexity ?Have you ever heard of the laws of Thermodynamics ?My answers to your propositions in this thread are -entropy and anthropy.BTW, the current scientific view is that things move from'order' to 'chaos', not the other way around.It is truely unfortunate that you take some scientificfacts some of which you do not even appear to fullycomprehend and then use them to claim God exists.I assure you that it is a logicly futile attempt, since evenif your argument sounded logical - the existence of Godis illogical according to many examples some of which Ihave presented to you elsewhere.No offense !Infinite complexity in infinite combinations (IDIC).Peace and long life.
 
  • #13
I'm quite sure that you will disappear mid-discussion this time too, but am going ahead anyway ...quote:Originally posted by lifegazer:a) Life is highly-ordered. A living-organism can be compared to a highly-tuned machine; whereby each part of that organism is doing a specific job to enable that organism to function as a 'whole'.I'm not sure exactly at what level of complexity you're drawing the line and labelling the complexity as "life". But this would certainly not hold for all level of complexities for 3 billion years or more. So the "highly tuned" bit, however vague it may be, could not have applied to all levels of complexities which led upto what we label "life" today.quote:b) Life is highly-complex. There is no such thing as a simple life-form. That's just a relative-phrase.Not true again. "Simple" and "complex" may be relative terms ... but at whatever level of complexity you draw the line .... there surely was a time whensimplerorganisms existed.Since the rest of the post is based on these 2 .... I needn't go further.- Sivakami.********************************************************"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." -- Carl Sagan
 
  • #14
quote:Originally posted by ssivakami:I'm quite sure that you will disappear mid-discussion this time too, but am going ahead anyway ...I'm not sure exactly at what level of complexity you're drawing the line and labelling the complexity as "life". But this would certainly not hold for all level of complexities for 3 billion years or more. So the "highly tuned" bit, however vague it may be, could not have applied to all levels of complexities which led upto what we label "life" today.Not true again. "Simple" and "complex" may be relative terms ... but at whatever level of complexity you draw the line .... there surely was a time whensimplerorganisms existed.Since the rest of the post is based on these 2 .... I needn't go further.- Sivakami.Lol. See what I mean? heh
 
  • #15
quote:Originally posted by Fliption:quote:Originally posted by ssivakami:I'm quite sure that you will disappear mid-discussion this time too, but am going ahead anyway ...I'm not sure exactly at what level of complexity you're drawing the line and labelling the complexity as "life". But this would certainly not hold for all level of complexities for 3 billion years or more. So the "highly tuned" bit, however vague it may be, could not have applied to all levels of complexities which led upto what we label "life" today.Not true again. "Simple" and "complex" may be relative terms ... but at whatever level of complexity you draw the line .... there surely was a time whensimplerorganisms existed.Since the rest of the post is based on these 2 .... I needn't go further.- Sivakami.Lol. See what I mean? hehAlways happy to be of service in amusing you ... but may we also have a rational discussion ?If you see anything logically (or evendentially) wrong with my above post, please let me know. Thanks.- Sivakami.********************************************************"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." -- Carl Sagan
 
  • #16
LG, if you don't mind, I wish to have this discussion with you one on one. So you can discuss whatever everyone else posts with them, but I am going to post as if no one else has posted, and expect you to respond to my posts individually. I feel this is the only way that a discussion on this sort of topic could possibly progress without backtracking, circling, skipping points, and generally crashing into a heap.quote:b) Life is highly-complex. There is no such thing as a simple life-form. That's just a relative-phrase.I came across this interesting site:At the outset, i am going to Contend this statement. I believe it is essentially false because you have made it as an absolute claim. While there may be elements of truth to it, it not an absolute truth. I shall explain:"Life", for a start, is a man made definition. It was defined long before thre was any conception of Biology, or 'replication' or anything like that. Since then, our use of the word 'life' has been changed, altered, and abused in every way possible.Why has this happened? I think it is quite simply because science has pushed back the boundary of ignorance so that we have seen the blurry line between "life" and "non-life" and are no longer certain. People can define life with certainty in their voice, but no one can really say for certain any more what life is. Thats because science is showing that life has nothing particularly special about it that sets it apart from all other things.AS such, your claim that 'life' is highly ordered, doesn't mean anything. Let alone then saying that there is no such thing as a simple life-form. Its about as meaningful as saying 'There's no such thing as a simple molecule.'
 
  • #17
quote:Originally posted by ssivakami:Always happy to be of service in amusing you ... but may we also have a rational discussion ?If you see anything logically (or evendentially) wrong with my above post, please let me know. Thanks.I certainly won't stand in the way of a rational discussion. But I am suggesting to the originator of this post that he not get bogged down with the same old people who get lost in their science facts and become philosophically comatose. My post has purpose in that I am pointing out to the originator exactly what I expected he would run into. I really don't want to see a good philosophical post get sidetracked yet again. Forgive me for being amused at your predictibility and but I can probably find a few posts from you which added about as much value as you perceive mine to have.Since you aren't the only one to get stuck in the point about complexity (I did say it would be a club) I will say a few things about it. I think that there is too much emphasis being placed on LG's use of the word "life" and how complex it is. Yes he did make 2 statements about how life is ordered and complex. But I think LG is just making a case for the existence of complexity. To me the main point being made in LG's post is that there are natural processes that are biased toward increasing complexity as opposed to the popular few that all things are explained by "chance". If I'm wrong about this interpretation then LG please correct me. The point about the simpliest life form being extremely complex is not meant primarily to say that life is special. IMO it is meant only too prove the case that complexity via natural process DOES exist relative to what we currently consider as "non-life". So it means nothing to argue that at one time there was perhaps a life form that was simple and not complex at all. Even if such a thing did exist, I think the main point is that a simple life form became a complex one through natural means. Which may be used to argue for natural laws biased toward more complexity. Thats it! Once you can agree that at least it is possible, then the remainder of the post deals with the implications of this set of natural laws biased toward life/complexity. Which gets us to the real philosophical fun.Lets not get into semantics and tear down a philosophical argument simply because we can't define exactly where "life" begins. The main point is that it does begin somewhere and it is more complex afterward than it was before.
 
  • #18
quote:Originally posted by Stephen:In a limited way, yes, it is fair [that order emerged from chaos/indeterminancy]; if we limit ourselves towhat we now know, our present understanding of physical law, etc.Fliption said something along these lines in his last post to me.I responded: "You say that a better theory may impact my argument. But what could this theory possibly state that could do that? Essentially, my argument doesn't even fall within Science. It embraces it. It embraces the fact that the universe has a tendency towards ever-growing complex-order. Humanity itself seems to be the culmination of this process, although unity evades our grasp for the present-moment. Perhaps arguments such as this will be the basis for that unity to become tangible. But only if we are sincere about them. Perhaps we don't even need the 'second coming' to unite us. We have the minds to unite ourselves.Give me any reasoned-guess as to what the quantum-realm could tell us which I haven't already addressed. You might wish to confuse me with fancy math: xyp/t - dubya/trubble = classical-physics, so-to-speak; but you'd only be giving me a more-detailed analysis of how the 'quantum-realm' manifests itself into order. You wouldn't be addressing the origins of that order, as I am here.".
 
  • #19
quote:Originally posted by lifegazer:Essentially, my argument doesn't even fall within Science. It embraces it. It embraces the fact that the universe has a tendency towards ever-growing complex-order.As far as i understand physical law as it pertains to universe; the universe is not gaining complexity in general. It is losing complexity via entropy. This is why the universe is purported to be slowly cooling. Basically the point i was trying to make with my last post is that the quantum realm seems to be very much more complex than the macrocosm we can observe. Since the macrocosm is a causal aftereffect of the microcosm i feel we should readily agree that ,generally, what we observe is a lessening in complexity from a causal base in the quantum realm."Now in the moment all falls into focusTime, just a number warped while I�m wrapped in you"~Chris ShinnSend hate mail totypeo007@physicsforums.com
 
  • #20
quote:Originally posted by ssivakami:I'm quite sure that you will disappear mid-discussion this time too, but am going ahead anyway ...I always allow the lady to have the final word. That way, you don't get a frying-pan over the head.quote:Originally posted by lifegazer:I'm not sure exactly at what level of complexity you're drawing the line and labelling the complexity as "life". But this would certainly not hold for all level of complexities for 3 billion years or more. So the "highly tuned" bit, however vague it may be, could not have applied to all levels of complexities which led upto what we label "life" today.I'm not going to argue about this: not to evade it, but because it's actually irrelevant to my argument.You see, the fundamental aspect of my argument is that the Universe has a tendency towards ever-growing complex-order (ordered chaos). This is clearly true:- At origins/essence, the universe is its base energy/particles. But the Laws which drive this universe have 'sought' to gather this base energy/particles into increasing forms of complex-order. For example, the gathering of the particles creates an atom. The gathering of atoms creates molecules. The gathering of molecules creates (eventually) a simple-cell. Etc..It doesn't really matter how you want to define life, or as to what level of complexity was apparent at whatever moment. It's irrelevant. All you have to do, is accept that the universe has a tendency towards greater order. Then we can argue about the conclusions.
 
  • #21
quote:Originally posted by Stephen:As far as i understand physical law as it pertains to universe; the universe is not gaining complexity in general. It is losing complexity via entropy.The tendency towards localised-complexity increases entropy. You seem to be confusing the two.quote:Basically the point i was trying to make with my last post is that the quantum realm seems to be very much more complex than the macrocosm we can observe.The quantum-realm is chaotically-complex. It is not ordered-complexity. There's a huge difference. The macrocosm we observe is theordered-complexitywhich I am talking about.quote:Since the macrocosm is a causal aftereffect of the microcosm i feel we should readily agree that ,generally, what we observe is a lessening in complexity from a causal base in the quantum realm.It's not a lessening-complexity, so much as a more ordered complexity.The key-word is 'order'.
 
  • #22
quote:Originally posted by lifegazer:I'm not going to argue about this: not to evade it, but because it's actually irrelevant to my argument.You see, the fundamental aspect of my argument is that the Universe has a tendency towards ever-growing complex-order (ordered chaos). This is clearly true:- At origins/essence, the universe is its base energy/particles. But the Laws which drive this universe have 'sought' to gather this base energy/particles into increasing forms of complex-order. For example, the gathering of the particles creates an atom. The gathering of atoms creates molecules. The gathering of molecules creates (eventually) a simple-cell. Etc..It doesn't really matter how you want to define life, or as to what level of complexity was apparent at whatever moment. It's irrelevant. All you have to do, is accept that the universe has a tendency towards greater order. Then we can argue about the conclusions.Wow looks like I nailed it right on. So it's obvious to at least some of us. It's good that you don't get bogged down with this stuff.As too your comment about my statement of the science changing. What I meant is that it appears (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are relying on an interpretation of quantum physics to say that everything is undetermined until a "will" forces the soup into a reality. So it seems you are relying on the existence of an indeterministic quantum realm which I understand to be an invention ofscienceto explain what we see. Tomorrow there may be a better theory, not to explain what happens in the quantum realm but to say there IS NO QUANTUM REALM to begin with. What happens to your theory in this case?And even if this doesn't happen I still have problems understanding quantum physics. I've never really understood how you get from "an observer effects the measurement" to "the observation causes the reality to happen". I understand that the measurement is a wave of possibility and can only be described by a probablity function but that is only a description of ourknowledgeof the external subatomic world, not the external subatomic world itself. So I've never understood how me not knowing where a particle is suddenly means that it isn't in any particular place. And only when I measure it and know where it is does it actually exists in a specific place. If you or anyone else can help me with this please do so.
 
Back
Top