So how can nature be this complex? — Thinking

Nature is not only amazingly complex but also amazingly well ordered. This implies purpose and design which suggests an intelligent designer.

The alternative would be blind chance which to me seems less probable, though not entirely impossible.

So, on the balance of probabilities, I would say intelligent creator. What kind of intelligent creator and how it created the universe is another question.

We do not know how complex this nature is. It may very well be that this nature (and life) is very primitive. And there is a much more complex life.
Simply put, we rolled a die with the number 1 and think this is super unique and the maximum win. And this is not a fact. :)

Sure, the one for whom it is nature. Now who or what would that be?

So how can nature be this complex? — Thinking

In my view even without living organisms the universe is quite complex. When you add to complex systems more complexity, that is what you get: more complexity, more complex systems.

Mods note: is almost an exact duplicate of this thread

Mods note: is almost an exact duplicate of this thread — Wayfarer

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? :-) No complaints from here.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? — Foghorn

Humility prevented me to say this earlier, but it seems you know all about it Right. You said it.

No, only a suggestion the threads be merged, which the mods sometimes do when they're very close in meaning. No big deal though.

Fractal patterns in both space and time are infinitely complex, yet don't need an intelligent originator. Natural phenomena include algae, coastlines, heart rates, proteins, river networks, etc.

What may have created these powers to be infinitely complex?

Do you think Nature was created by some sort of high intelligence? — Thinking

Nope!

So how can nature be this complex? Is there a fined tuned system that keeps it that way? — Thinking

Yes. It's called optimisation and requires no comprehension. As pre-genetics Darwin put it:
1. Characteristics are heritable
2. Mutation occurs
3. There exists a struggle for survival
4. Some characteristics benefit an individual in that struggle for survival.

This describes a naturally arising optimisation problem and a natural means of finding the best possible solution for it. Could it also be solved by an intelligent creator? Of course. Was it? It seems not.

When humans solve difficult optimisation problems, they do so typically without comprehension of how a particular solution was obtained, even if they understand the principles of the optimisation algorithm. One example of this is finding the minimum of some function, for instance the ground-state energy of a complicated, usually non-living system such as a novel semiconductor with defects.

The trouble we have in doing this is in knowing whether we've found the *global* minimum, or just a local one. Methods for finding global minima are typically of the brute force type and are only useful when the search space is compact.

If the problem could be solved with comprehension, one would expect to find the global minimum, rather than iteratively work toward a local minimum. A creationist God who is omniscient, omnipotent and inclined ought to find the best solution for whatever problem they're trying to solve. There is nothing to tell us that humans are such a solution, and pointing at our complexity is invalid: we are the most complex systems living on the planet; it does not follow that we are the most complex living system possible, or the optimal solution for living on this planet.

In addition, we would not expect an iterative solution at all. Why would a comprehending creator tie himself to his previous effort? Why do we resemble apes so much, rather than being a very different design?

Humans, as all lifeforms, bear all the hallmarks of iterative improvements achieved via an uncomprehending optimisation problem.

Could God have used natural law deliberately to create us specifically (as some IDers have it), in much the same way we use algorithms to find solutions to problems? Maybe, but then our complexity is still a product of natural law, and unless there's no natural means for the search to have taken place at all, a comprehending creator is a redundancy. Either way, the complexity is a sign of nothing at all, unless there is a) some reason to suggest that this complexity was unattainable or b) some reason to expect that this complexity was unconnected to simpler efforts. In both cases, we have no evidence for and much evidence against.

complexity in natural processes — Thinking

The immediate answer to the question "does complexity infer a high intelligence" is no, as complexity can derive from a mathematical equation as simple as that of the Mandelbrot fractal z (n+1) = z (n ) 2 + c

The subsequent question is more difficult: "is mathematics discovered or invented".

As Einstein said, “How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?”. If discovered, then the structure of mathematics is intrinsic to nature, and there are eternal mathematical truths in a Platonic sense. If invented, then mathematics is a human construct that serves our immediate purposes.

If mathematics was discovered, then the next question becomes "is mathematics evidence that nature was created by a high intelligence". If mathematics was invented, then the next question becomes "is human creative ability evidence that nature was created by a high intelligence"

As Kenosha Kid wrote, "complexity is a sign of nothing at all", in that complexity of itself is not evidence that nature was created by a high intelligence.

Leonardo da Vinci said that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. A really talented God would have created a less complex, convoluted, intricate and labyrinthine universe.

You should tell him.

:lol: I hope people realise that was a joke...

Occams razor states that the simplest solution is generally always the best solution

Occams razor states that the simplest solution is generally always the best solution — Thinking

Occam's razor applies to candidate explanations. It actually says: More things should not be used than are necessary.

This means if there are several possible ways something might have happened, the way which uses the fewest guesses is probably the correct one. However, Occam's razor only applies when the simple explanation and complex explanation both work equally well. If a more complex explanation does a better job than a simpler one, then you should use the complex explanation.

Applied to explaining creation - physicalism versus theism what does O.R. tell us? Is the simplest explanation a god? Yep. But the more complex explanation does a better job here since we have evidence for it and using god to explain creation is using a mystery to explain a mystery.

And don't even start on abiogenesis... :razz:

and don't even start on autogenisis. Say, which book from Occam do you recommend to read?

Any order we find in nature is beautiful and does not need a cause which is uncaused. Kant spoke of purpose with purposelessness in nature and this makes a lot of sense. Any object is fully actual as itself, its potentiality being its actuality which can change into something else. Potentiality is not a feature of anything. A thing is all it is in relation to its moment. Time itself may be circular, with objects in it appearing just to disappear. This is the world of samsara.

The natural world contains so much information and yet it is able to systematically organize that information to create a kind of cohesion. Take a single human cell for example the nucleotides that compose its DNA and RNA sequence are composed and organized in way to perpetuate the entire life in the cell. There is also epigenetics that provide feedback to each individual cell so randomness of the event of perfect organization is reduced dramatically. Nature is like a system that constantly tries to perfect and learn about itself. such a perfect perpetual system of growth isn't likely to be random. And by not likely it is REALLY unlikely like 1/1x10^8867 kind of likely

Matter is not stupid. It has laws within it

Nature is like a system that constantly tries to perfect and learn about itself — Thinking

Starting with an analogy. If I am on a golf course and hit a golf ball, the probability of final result depends on prior intention. If I want a hole-in-one and I achieve a hole-in-one, then the probability is one in 12,500. If I am just passing the time of day and don't care where the ball lands, the probability of the ball landing somewhere is one in one.

On primordial earth were free molecules such as oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen
and today there are single human cells, proteins and other complex forms of life.

If during primordial earth the prior intention was the creation of single human cells, etc at a future date by blind interactions of chemistry undirected by natural processes, then the probability of success could well be 1/1x10^8867

If, however, during primordial earth there was no prior intention as to a future situation, then the probability of there being something in the future would be one in one.

The question is, during primordial earth, in what body did prior intention exist ?

There are four possibilities:
1) There is a high intelligence external to the molecules who determines evolution, in which case the probability of proteins, etc happening is one in one
2) There is a high intelligence external to the molecules who intends for the creation of proteins, etc but allows the blind interactions of chemistry, then the probability could well be 1/1x10^8867
3) There is a high intelligence intrinsic within the molecules having a purpose and goal.
As the protein is the goal, then if the goal was achieved the probability would be one in one. This is teleology of Aristotle who claimed that the acorn's intrinsic telos was to become a fully grown oak tree. However, even Kant, who wrote about teleology in his Critique of Judgement , did not believe that teleology was a mechanism but rather a useful narrative to explain a complex situation.
4) There is no high intelligence and only the blind interactions of chemistry, then the probability of there being something is one in one.

Then what can we deduce from the existence today of complex proteins, etc ?

IE, the probability of the existence of complex proteins, etc would only be 1/1x10^8867 if there had been a high intelligence prior to evolution who intended for the existence of proteins, yet allowed the blind interactions of chemistry. Otherwise the probability of complex proteins, etc today would be one in one.

well spoken. Which of these four possibilities is the most likely one? Trick question?

Which of these four possibilities — Thinking

First, comparing 1 and 3 (where evolution is continually being directed by a high intelligence) to 2 and 4 ( where things evolve without being directed other than by the natural laws).

The evidence around us points to a constancy of the laws of nature, in that we expect the sun to rise in the east each morning and would be surprised if next Monday the sun rose in the west, indicating 2 and 4 are more likely that 1 and 3.

Next, comparing 2 (where there is a high intelligence) to 4 (where there isn't).

As in neither case is evolution directed once it is underway, the question then becomes what determined the natural laws in the first place, in that why is the speed of light 1,079,252,849 km per hour and not 1,079,252,850 km per hour. Totally mysterious to me.

However, if the natural laws were determined by a high intelligence, the obvious next question is what determined this high intelligence, a higher intelligence possibly, thus leading to an infinite regress. By Occam's Razor, as possibility 4 is the simpler of the two, I choose possibility 4.

IE, as possibility 4 is for me the best working hypothesis (that there is no high intelligence), my belief is that possibility 4 is most likely to be the truest and where evolution means the evolving by blind interactions of chemistry.