Simpler things understanding complexity

[CosmicJoghurt]

Greetings.

I've recently had a small casual discussion with my mother, who is a softly religious person, I would say. She's a believer but doesn't believe literally in the mythology that is into it.

I casually brought up the subject of the universe and its coming to existence, because I wanted to see her reaction and this way I could know mildly her thoughts. We don't discuss these things, usually.

To start the topic I casually said that I find it amazing that, in reality, all of the atoms in our bodies are actually billions of years old. I know, it's cheesy, but she went along.

What she answered immediately was that she didn't find it possible for relatively simple organisms like ours to grasp something as complex as the universe coming to existence. That we, so small and almost meaningless (okay she didn't say that final part) in the universe, could never understand the complexity of it all.

This got me thinking. I immediately answered that questions like this are one of the reasons why we formulated what we now call science, a method for finding out the truths and lies and understanding the cosmos, and ourselves. Not the best answer... perhaps...

Well, what do you think? Is complexity a determining factor when it comes to understanding stuff? Can simpler things grasp more complex ones?

The more I think about this the more confused I get... So I'll leave it to you as well.


Cheers!

 

[lrkun]

This reminds me of the human/ ant analogy. Can an ant understand a human? or maybe some other factor is at play and maybe the other members can fill the gap.

Another way to look at this is, if you understand little things, and little things make up bigger things, then you understand bigger things because they are made of many little things and you understand little things.

Edit: added "things."

 

[televator]

This reminds me of the human/ ant analogy. Can an ant understand a human?

Yeah, I used to like that one a lot in my pantheistic phase. I do think it is possible for creatures to obtain a cognitive level that is higher than the human's capacity, but I just think it now means humanity has some catching up to do with technological/biological advancement.

 

[lrkun]

This reminds me of the human/ ant analogy. Can an ant understand a human?

Yeah, I used to like that one a lot in my pantheistic phase. I do think it is possible for creatures to obtain a cognitive level that is higher than the human's capacity, but I just think it now means humanity has some catching up to do with technological/biological advancement.

We need a theory of everything.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well, what do you think? Is complexity a determining factor when it comes to understanding stuff? Can simpler things grasp more complex ones?

Complexity is a factor, but not necessarily a fundamental one. And yes, simpler things can grasp more complex ones, and we are a perfect example of that.
The computer you are in front of right now is currently understood by any computer engineer and yet none of then know the exact configuration of everysngle trasistor, the path of every single electron as it produces operations. You have the entire internet itself, people understand how it works even though noone fully compreheends the entire extent of it. We generally do this by repiting blocks, we know how a transitor works, a logic gate is made of several equal transistors which all work the same, only the way they are arranged change. Then we can construct a simple operation with this logic gates, each logic gate works the same way as other logic gates. And then we can construct a controler with this operational gates, and as we go up to build for instance a CPU we are not thinking in terms of each individual transistor and how the arragement of atoms produces a material that conducts in some conditions but not others.

There is a documentary that in a popular away has sort of explained that. I have seen it originaly on this forum, but I don't rememebr who linked it, so Kudos to him. here its is:

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

We need a theory of everything.

Predictable shit happens. Random shit happens People are idiots. Life rolls on regardless.

Where's my Nobel Prize?

 

[lrkun]

We need a theory of everything.

Predictable shit happens. Random shit happens People are idiots. Life rolls on regardless.

Where's my Nobel Prize?

You won't receive a nobel prize for an idea that doesn't make sense. ^^

A theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and predicts the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle. (1)

"Predictable shit happens. Random shit happens People are idiots. Life rolls on regardles." is not physics.

So, "Predictable shit happens. Random shit happens People are idiots. Life rolls on regardless." is not a toe.

So, you don't get a nobel price because "Predictable shit happens. Random shit happens People are idiots. Life rolls on regardless." is not toe. ^^

---

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

*overzealous comment*

My sarcasm seems to have evaded your grasp. xD

I am very aware of the ToE - the closest thing we've gotten is the String Theory, and it only works in Mathematics, and in many different ideas for exactly how it works. Might as well be a Diety of Mathematics with all the versions flipperting around.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I have a ominous feeling that if there is somekind of "theory of everything", it might as well not have been one as you most likely not be able to compute it in order to make observable predictions before the events happen.

 

[Ad Initium]

@Master_Ghost_Knight .... I was the one that linked that video a while back.

@CosmisJoghurt ... It is a very good documentary. What is basically explained in this video is how simplistic leads to complexity. There needs to be no thought or process behind it all, so ... no creator, ... hench no God, ... and it is in nature itself already that is doing it.

It starts with Morphogenesis ... how is it possible -in an embrio ex.- whithout a mind, central nervous system and such, for an embrio to order itself and start making the various parts of what later will become a new body: Selforganisation.

Explained is how Chaos theory (can a butterfly wing flapping cause a hurricane months later on the otherside of the earth?) and the natural process of Self-organisation are actually both sides of one coin, why they need eachother and how this is accomplished. I once studied programming language and feedback and am familiar with fractals. So the moment they mentioned this, it all felt into place for me.

Anyway ... When I linked it earlier in this forum somewhere, I think I said something like: "this is the best docmentary I have seen in years" ... because ... it explains so much, this docu is so powerfull, it will instantly turn doubters in straightline atheists. :lol: So my advice would be to let your mother see this documentary, ... and then you do the discussion you had before, again.

But to answer your question:
- Is complexity a determining factor when it comes to understanding stuff? Can simpler things grasp more complex ones?

Yes .. and yes, though on the latter, though the "simple thing" is responsible for the big thing comming into existance, it will not have an understanding of the big picture and may not even realise it is part of a big thing. But that is the beauty of it!

And to add a new point of view to supplement the docu Master_Ghost_Knight already linked for me ...

See in this small video how the same paterns they mentioned at the end of that documentary is also visible in the evolution of religions:

But to get the full shock effect of the video I am linking myself, ... BE SURE to have seen the BBC documentary first!


Now you see? The power of Chaos and Order !

 

[Leçi]

You won't receive a nobel prize for an idea that doesn't make sense. ^^

A theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and predicts the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle. (1)

"Predictable shit happens. Random shit happens People are idiots. Life rolls on regardles." is not physics.

So, "Predictable shit happens. Random shit happens People are idiots. Life rolls on regardless." is not a toe.

So, you don't get a nobel price because "Predictable shit happens. Random shit happens People are idiots. Life rolls on regardless." is not toe. ^^

---

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Everything is, that what isn't not does not. That what is does because it does.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Just finished watching the documentary. I mean, "The secret life of chaos", not the other video. I must say... YES. That IS the best documentary I've ever seen. They managed to present many mind-boggling concepts and still make it so we understand it all in the end. It all fits. An amazing production..

But I can't help but still wonder, what do patterns emerging from chaos have to do with self-organization of embryo cells? I mean, the basic link is obvious, but it fails to explain how self organization by pattern formation can bring about a precise order and organization of cells that is the same with all the other billions of embryos. How do they always arrange the same way? It couldn't come by chance alone, of course, and I imagine DNA information has something do with how the cells organize, but still...

If someone could help me out here, I would be most grateful. I'll watch the documentary again, these kinds of things are ought to be watched and re-watched, to make sure all the data has penetrated deep into your mind.

Anyways, cheers to y'all, thanks for

 

[lrkun]

You won't receive a nobel prize for an idea that doesn't make sense. ^^

A theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and predicts the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle. (1)

"Predictable shit happens. Random shit happens People are idiots. Life rolls on regardles." is not physics.

So, "Predictable shit happens. Random shit happens People are idiots. Life rolls on regardless." is not a toe.

So, you don't get a nobel price because "Predictable shit happens. Random shit happens People are idiots. Life rolls on regardless." is not toe. ^^

---

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Everything is, that what isn't not does not. That what is does because it does.

What do you mean?

 

[FaithlessThinker]

The BBC Four video is probably the most informative video I've watched in my entire life so far. Although there's one thing that puzzled me. For the computer simulation of evolution, the programmer created the initial set of brains from which the computer evolved better and better brains. So who are the "initial programmers" for real natural evolution?

And who's picking up the axe of good with me? These trees of religion have been parasitic on human intelligence for too long...

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

The BBC Four video is probably the most informative video I've watched in my entire life so far. Although there's one thing that puzzled me. For the computer simulation of evolution, the programmer created the initial set of brains from which the computer evolved better and better brains. So who are the "initial programmers" for real natural evolution?

And who's picking up the axe of good with me? These trees of religion have been parasitic on human intelligence for too long...

in the computer simulation they created an initial already a bit developed system. In natural evolution this would've started more primitively, i.e. systems of self-replicating molecules, I think.

 

[aMarshall]

So who are the "initial programmers" for real natural evolution?

None for evolution. The reason they program the initial functionality starting with an AI is to 'cut in line' so to speak. They could theoretically start at the big bang and have it play out from there, but that would require a much more robust simulation environment, and tons more computing power and time. As well as being not guaranteed to produce 'life' to test with.

But the question is still valid when pushed back further to address the 'initial programmed conditions' of a hypothetical simulated universe; its real life equivalent essentially being "Why are laws of the universe the way they are?".

Good question, I hear Hawking has some interesting stuff to say on it, but I haven't looked into it too much.