Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is complexity an argument against design?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 16 of 142 (304593)
04-16-2006 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by DominionSeraph
04-15-2006 2:42 AM


Re: signs of (intelligent) life
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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-15-2006 2:42 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 04-16-2006 11:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 17 of 142 (304596)
04-16-2006 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by arachnophilia
04-16-2006 11:00 AM


Re: signs of (intelligent) life
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by arachnophilia, posted 04-16-2006 11:00 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2006 12:36 PM jar has not replied
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 04-18-2006 3:53 AM jar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 142 (304613)
04-16-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
04-16-2006 11:32 AM


Re: signs of (intelligent) life
... 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, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 04-16-2006 11:32 AM jar has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 19 of 142 (304889)
04-18-2006 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
04-16-2006 11:32 AM


Re: signs of (intelligent) life
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 04-16-2006 11:32 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2006 4:57 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 20 of 142 (304895)
04-18-2006 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by arachnophilia
04-18-2006 3:53 AM


Re: signs of (intelligent) life
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 04-18-2006 3:53 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2006 9:12 PM cavediver has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 142 (305373)
04-19-2006 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by cavediver
04-18-2006 4:57 AM


Re: signs of (intelligent) life
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, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2006 4:57 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Philajnjjj
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 142 (306761)
04-26-2006 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Alasdair
02-02-2006 12:48 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Alasdair, posted 02-02-2006 12:48 PM Alasdair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John 10:10, posted 05-29-2006 1:02 PM Philajnjjj has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 23 of 142 (315996)
05-29-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Philajnjjj
04-26-2006 3:13 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Philajnjjj, posted 04-26-2006 3:13 PM Philajnjjj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Wounded King, posted 05-29-2006 3:09 PM John 10:10 has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 24 of 142 (316031)
05-29-2006 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by John 10:10
05-29-2006 1:02 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John 10:10, posted 05-29-2006 1:02 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by John 10:10, posted 05-30-2006 8:16 AM Wounded King has replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 25 of 142 (316205)
05-30-2006 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Wounded King
05-29-2006 3:09 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Wounded King, posted 05-29-2006 3:09 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Wounded King, posted 05-30-2006 9:43 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 27 by ramoss, posted 05-30-2006 10:18 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 28 by Parasomnium, posted 05-30-2006 3:37 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 26 of 142 (316237)
05-30-2006 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by John 10:10
05-30-2006 8:16 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John 10:10, posted 05-30-2006 8:16 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 27 of 142 (316251)
05-30-2006 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by John 10:10
05-30-2006 8:16 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John 10:10, posted 05-30-2006 8:16 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 28 of 142 (316329)
05-30-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by John 10:10
05-30-2006 8:16 AM


Simple parts ...
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John 10:10, posted 05-30-2006 8:16 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Shh
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 142 (316840)
06-01-2006 11:39 AM


Lo all..
quote:
So essentially you are saying that complexity is useless in the detection of design since both simple and complex systems could indicate design.
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:
is simply your own assumption. Do you have any actual evidence to support the contention?
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.html
This 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by AdminWounded, posted 06-01-2006 12:50 PM Shh has replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 142 (316850)
06-01-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Shh
06-01-2006 11:39 AM


Welcome!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Shh, posted 06-01-2006 11:39 AM Shh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Shh, posted 06-01-2006 1:33 PM AdminWounded has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024