-
League Of Reason Forums will shut down 10th September 2025.
There is a thread regarding this in General Discussion.
Is the universe complicated?
- Thread starter Canto
- Start date
ImprobableJoe
Active Member
The answer is in the question, isn't it?Canto said:
Canto said:
No offence, but I just involuntarily facepalmed.
I think Richard Feynman expressed it well. It's like trying to work out the rules of chess by watching a game being played, except you can see only a few squares in one corner and the lighting may not be so good. After a lot of watching, you can say a few things about it, but even then, sometimes surprising things happen (like a pawn becomes a queen or two rooks castling).
We have evolved to survive on this planet, and that's what our senses are good for. We have not evolved sensory apparatus which is good for detecting the minutiae of the workings of the universe. It's not that our minds are limited, it's that our senses are limited, which is why we build machines to extend our senses - telescopes, microscopes, etc.
Fordi
Member
Canto said:
Yes and no.
In the sense that the universe is governed by six relatively simple equations that define the behavior of matter and energy within space-time, no. The rules are simple.
But, in the same sense that a high cell count in a simple game of Conway's life can produce complex and even self-replicating structures, so the high particle count of the universe gives rise to localized areas of extreme complexity.
So, the universe is not terribly complex - but its content is.
Master_Ghost_Knight
Active Member
[WRONG TOPIC]
Coma White
New Member
Complexity is just an idea. A way for humans to state: "This is a great deal to comprehend." I would say that nobody can state definitively whether or not the universe is complicated, because complexity is not a constant. It's just an opinion (however confined to that opinion human beings may be, by virtue of their own limited perceptions).
CW
CW
I can rationalize that the universe is not as complicated as it seems, which is why I don't need to resort to "God did it" as an answer. We all hear that phrase too often from many people, and I was hoping to get a mental start point for putting it into perspective for myself so I can explain it properly. My boss and I argue God vs Natural means constantly(and amicably) and he's always pointing to the complexity of the universe, the human body and how he views evolution by natural selection(he says its complex, but that one has always seemed simple and elegant to me). The universe does not intuitavely seem simple, even when watching stuff from AW and Zuke about it(And I already had), it fails to strike me as "simple and elegant". I just wanted to know a bit more. Thanks for those who gave actual answers.
Coma White
New Member
Canto said:
Rather than examining the complexity or simplicity of things, we should instead examine why said complexity or simplicity is or isn't important.
From what I can gather from your post above, your boss is using the tried-and-untrue "watchmaker axiom". This item is a postulate that many proponents of intelligent design will use in an attempt to construe circumstantial aspects of universal construct as being "proof" for an intelligent designer being responsible for said construct. The only reason the use of this axiom persists is because there is no evidence for intelligent design in the universe, and this is next-best (and I use the term loosely) thing.
Disproving the watchmaker axiom is a rather simple logical process. The notion that life must be intelligently designed because a watch (or any other mechanical construct) is intelligently designed is deeply flawed. Life and a watch are not comparable. They are not the same thing. This statement is without basis and, when viewed objectively, quite absurd.
In summary: the complexity a given item (a watch, life, the universe, and so on) does not necessarily denote intelligence, merely by virtue of its own existence. Complexity is proof of nothing.
CW
Fordi
Member
I think the difficulty of the question is based in the fact that when we normally ask about complexity, it's in reference to an interconnected system - a program, a machine, an organism.Coma White said:
When talking about the universe, however, it can't really be considered a system except in the sense of my previous post - a statistical "game" with a finite set of rules and a large number of "players" (particles). Complexity, then, is emergent from that system - as is always the case with any game - but not intrinsic in it.
Sorry. A lot of AI and *geek* stat game modeling is in my background, and I can *geek* almost never resist taking an opportunity to describe the simplicity and elegance of *geek* using game theory to model active phenomena.
*geek* *geek* *geek* *geek* *geek* *geek*
I would say it's complicated for our minds to comprehend. But to state "or is it just difficult for our minds to comprehend?" is like saying, is it difficult for a goose to understand GR, or is it just too complex for their minds to understand?
The universe is going to seem complicated for millenia to come, I imagine (well for humans anyway, maybe the dolphins will magically mutate and grow some bloody thumbs, start writing shit down, scoff at our inability to fully grasp physics and work out the TOE. Ridicule primates and mock throw feces at each other).
We still don't have the technology to really observe what we see around us and even if we had the technology, there is so much of the universe we've not observed. We're going to speculate and create elegant mathematics and make things more difficult for ourselves to understand.
The universe is going to seem complicated for millenia to come, I imagine (well for humans anyway, maybe the dolphins will magically mutate and grow some bloody thumbs, start writing shit down, scoff at our inability to fully grasp physics and work out the TOE. Ridicule primates and mock throw feces at each other).
We still don't have the technology to really observe what we see around us and even if we had the technology, there is so much of the universe we've not observed. We're going to speculate and create elegant mathematics and make things more difficult for ourselves to understand.
Dustnite
Member
The universe is a vast, wondrous, and dangerous place that harbors billions and billions of stars, planets, quasars, and other stellar phenomenon.
However, the universe is based off of definable rules and constants that we can clearly grasp and continue to unfold from the physical universe. Which means we can figure stuff out.
It only seems complex to the untrained observer who has not discovered the language we use to communicate with the universe (math) or the perspective needed to grasp these concepts.
However, the universe is based off of definable rules and constants that we can clearly grasp and continue to unfold from the physical universe. Which means we can figure stuff out.
It only seems complex to the untrained observer who has not discovered the language we use to communicate with the universe (math) or the perspective needed to grasp these concepts.