|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Is complexity an argument against design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
If I remember correctly, there's something about Lagrange points that forms an equilateral triangle. i thought there were only two lagrange points per orbit? i might be wrong...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yup, wrong. Here is a map for the Lagrange Points for a two body system. What you were likely think of was that two are stable while three are unstable.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... and the stable ones are at the apex of equilateral triangles for the two main bodies.
Surely a product of design eh? Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Yup, wrong. Here is a map for the Lagrange Points for a two body system. are the three on the actual orbit still equilateral with real-world elliptical orbits?
What you were likely think of was that two are stable while three are unstable. probably. i think i only remember the two stable ones...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
are the three on the actual orbit still equilateral with real-world elliptical orbits? Good question I've never much thought about Lagrange points so now's a good time! [edit - removed while checking a possible significant mistake!] [edit - restored having checked] Ok, a quick look at the maths and some sketches... Yes! On an elliptical orbit of the primary masses, the third body will have a different orbit constructed from the first, using the construction of the equilateral triangle. It appears that the semi-major axes of the Lagrange orbits are 60 degrees either side of the primary orbit, but the same size. Very cool It should be pointed out that this is all an approximation, with the third mass negligible and the second mass significantly smaller than the first (probe <<<< Earth << Sun). Three body problems are in general unsolvable and highly chaotic... [ABE] I should have remembered this... we are in a special case of Lagrange's Solution to the three body problem. If the three bodies form an equilateral triangle , each equation of motion decouples and you get three elliptical orbits of the same period and same common focus. In our case, one body is so large that it's orbit is actually just a wiggle, and it essentially sits on the common focus while the other two bodies orbit elliptically, with an angle of 60 degrees as mentioned. Very very cool This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-18-2006 05:36 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Gosh, it must have been designed just that way ... the odds of it happening by chance ... the fine tuning of universal constants necessary to make it happen ... ... must get to a nunnery ... um, Isn't that why those orbits are stable while the other 3 aren't? The minor perturbations result in restoring {forces\corrections}? Edited by RAZD, : . by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philajnjjj Inactive Member |
Interesting example Alasdair. Personally I am confused as to why complexity or simplicity should signify anything in terms of design or evolution. I also get lost as to what can be considered complex and what can be considered simple. Is the argument of ID supporters that if the world was "simple" in construction, whatever that word "simple" means, then there would be no ' designer' . Perhap if those of us who don't accept ID could somehow argue that the universe is "simple" then a cornerstone of ID would be lost. Could an ID proponent explain what is meant by "simple" and "complex" in terms of the ID debate, and also how "complexity" supports the presence of a designer, but the existence of "simplicity" does not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Complex - Consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts.
Simple - Having or composed of only one thing, element, or part. Complexity and simplicity both support the presence of a Designer because simple parts have essentially no ability to interconnect and interweave themselves into complex parts. Edited by John 10:10, : No reason given. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
So essentially you are saying that complexity is useless in the detection of design since both simple and complex systems could indicate design.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
What I'm saying is that even single elements show evidence of great design complexity. The ability of single elements to form themselves into complex systems show much much greater evidence that a Designer is the cause behind both the simple and the complex.
The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
The problem is that...
simple parts have essentially no ability to interconnect and interweave themselves into complex parts. is simply your own assumption. Do you have any actual evidence to support the contention? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
What I'm saying is that even single elements show evidence of great design complexity. The ability of single elements to form themselves into complex systems show much much greater evidence that a Designer is the cause behind both the simple and the complex.
Why? it seems to me your assumption and your conclusion are the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
John 10:10, in message 23, writes: simple parts have essentially no ability to interconnect and interweave themselves into complex parts John 10:10, in message 25, writes: The ability of single elements to form themselves into complex systems show much much greater evidence that a Designer is the cause behind both the simple and the complex. Do they or don't they have that ability? You seem to be contradicting yourself. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shh Inactive Member |
Lo all..
quote:That depends complexity is something you try to remove when designing, so efficiency is a better measure, than simplicity, without a stated, or apparent purpose, reality can't be said to be either. Eyes are pretty inefficient tho, if they were designed, so are ears. Spines aren't great, and you'd need to be an idiot to think two sets of teeth was enough!!! Complexity is often given as something that infers design in nature, but I don't think it does, or that if it does then we must infer that the designer didn't really care about us overmuch. To decide if something is complex or not, in this context, we have to look at the purposes which we can see. Design, particularly good design is efficient, it gets the job done, with a minimum of effort. Designing an entire reality just to give us somewhere to live is bad design unless it's entirely neccesary. The exact same goal could be achieved with just our solar system, according to Creationist belief, so the rest of Creation was a waste of time. The purpose of the design is not apparent, thru the design itself, If we take another design, with humans central to it, then place someone unaware of technology nearby, how long would it take to figure out it was made? Say a car. Or even better, the shuttle. How long to figure out that this was made to contain people? While a truly alien technology might be hard to see purpose in, God is not considered to be Alien to us in this way, (created in His image), and we are supposed to be central to the design. The brief amount of time for which man has existed, suggests again, that if Creation were intended for us, then it was badly made. There is no benefit in the universe existing, which can affect anything "outside" of it. The universe is a closed thermal system, nothing goes in nothing goes out. Nothing. All of nature's systems are what is called "self-organising" systems, this means, that their own internal conditions allow them to exist, as long as nothing interfere's with these conditions too much, the system continues, and increases in complexity. Evolution is one such system, but only one. Evolution can be challenged as a theory (although I don't believe succesfully), but the existence of such systems is a fact which cannot be disputed. Creation as described in Genesis, is a unique, one time event which cannot be observed. This means Evolution is far more likely. quote:This was addressed to someone who was stating the opposite view to mine, but it's still a fair question, so evidence for complex undesigned self-organised systems..... http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/archive/sosfaq.htmlThis is pretty well referenced, but you could also check out the works of Dr. Edward DeBono, who uses the theory for psychological research, which also supports the idea of mind as an emergent property of matter, some cool stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Welcome to EvC, Shh. Why not drop into the [forum=-14] and tell us a little bit about yourself and your particular area of interest. Is your user name connected to that perennial favourite of developmental biologists, Sonic hedgehog?
TTFN, AW
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024