How does Complexity demonstrate Design

Complex just means (whatever) "we dont understand" but you asked WHY this observed did it infer, imply or induct Design"" yes?Well I guess the first thing to be sure of is that this is NOT a univocal word for the science of complexity physics though I dont doubt that some creationists might ONLY be using it in that sense. Any way using only that use of the word would make the explanation I give below not sufficient even if necessary to the extant extent I consider.One answer might be that they are able to conclude the sublime in that pattern and then THINK to a beauty that it is not and from there guess it IS THUS designed but I would have thought there is not this much sophistication but rather from a moral position instead ANY practical reason might grant that no matter how nature is traced the invention of it (in any human terms) could apirori have been and if it was then it will at least by will be by design should the thinker have a head on their shoulders. If you are asking why evos might not agreee with this thought process then I would need to go a different route with the wordings but the conclusion at least philosophical can have the same logic in the crass vulgar sense.I hope that helps. Best, brad.

Then UNDERSTAND THIS-I TOLD SIMON LEVIN (now of Princeton then @CU)to SEE the COMPLEX as SIMPLE. HE could NOT! Look it might not be possible that a thermostat is beautiful. I for one dont think so. I told him that shit holes or words to the same effect are not part of his "spatial" understanding but still he is cited and quoted as if this has ANY bearing on the nature of the designed nature by GOD.It is GOOD that you are understanding. It means what I have always meant, that there is not much of difference between the rejection of some kinds of science AND creationism from the study by the elite. The issue is only that unlike schools we can ACTUALLY DISCUSS both or any sides here in cyberpoof space but the poop hits the fan if one had this questioned or at best Simon simply said I got TOO philosophical for his applied math taste- WELL...Is that any reason to have be s-canned because I go to Church on Sunday and HAD NOT HAD Gladyshev's IDeas to use at the time. OF COURSE NOT. And it also pretty much means that the PSYCHOLOGICAL advice was mistaken but if you understand then THAT is what we are finally getting flushed thanks to I-net. Best and God Luck.

we are constantly messing up the the relation of math vs logic for any math and logic when it comes to possible empiric sentences that may or must discriminant algebra and geometry. Much threading the eye of a needle would not exist in English if there was some way to use words such but it is very hard to figure this out without using "inference" or induction etc (ie to use BOTH kinds of deductions that Kant did but keep the non apriori descriptively OUT of it). I tried to do so by indicating the difference of the beauty and the sublime but in evo thinking branching processes often dominates ones thought that figureing out where a pile of something is instead of two of them is often difficult (same problem often of figureing out in which thread to post etc etc etc ...).

It all depends on if one follows with Kant practically that perhaps indeed substance (UNLIKE OBJECTS) is apriori SEATED in our facutly of cognitionsThe deed however willed by Gladyshev may not be "with" this as I new now see how it could be that via Lehn(supramolecular chemsitry via mixed instruction noncompound purity) he had sided with Penrose algorithmically.I think that Gould and Mayr use "FINAL CAUSE" in Aristotle's and not KANT's Sense
(paying rent and buildings in UPSTATE NY that are dependent on the final effect of RENT CONTROLS in NYC are not the same OBJECT let alone elementally substances that vary...)
but I might be mistaken academically on that.

Do you admit that it is because you have INFErED something that it is better than a bald claim "It's just not possible"? Agassiz did say, "It's just not possible!" but he also said that when he enounters something that appears to be able "to think" he-would-assume, there was an intelligence behind this appearence. I dont think we would ever say that two asteriod rocks with GohstBuster SLIME (of Kant say or any Soup of Miller or Fox fried eggs let us have) think etc., but you/one can certainly infer something indeed.That is my question to you sir.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-26-2004 11:51 AM

Can you say what you think of this without a long dissertation on Russel's view of more recent Kantian philosophers (on the topology of calculus philosophy) then on page 229#1;

quote:

---

"In all judgements I am the determining subject of that relation which constitutes a judgement. But that the I which thinks, must be considered as in thought always a subject, and as a thinkg which cannot be a predicate to thought, is an apotuctuc abd identical proposition. But this proposition does not signify, and I, as an object, am, fir myself, a self-subsistent being or substance. This latter statement - an ambitious one - requires to eb supported by data which are not to be discovered in thought; and are perhaps (in so far as I consider the thinking self merely as such) not to he discovered in the thinking self at all."

---

???????
Critique of Pure Reason by I. Kant Barnes&Noble2004 copy Translated by JMDMeiklejohn.