I think I see where we got off on the wrong foot on page one. You were talking about the very beginning before matter and molecules existed and I was talking about matter and molecules after they initially came into existence after the big bang and after helium and hydrogen were around before stars up until now...
They HAVE existed since AFTER the Big Bang. Prior to atomic formation there were just particles. Then atoms, then stars, molecules, etc... so on andso forth. By your very own offered evidence the universe started out with less complex form and now we have, according to you, MORE complex forms. I just wanted to retain your admission of you not understanding what you wrote several times over so that, when you once again didn't understand what you wrote, we would your own words showing you're not really grasping what you write. I would be sorry if that seems harsh, but I'm not. Once you decide to take up the mantle of science, it's a brutal and harsh world."
Ummm what did I say about hydrogen that was scientifically wrong?. We obviously were not on the same page in time of the universe. I never said that the first particles to come into existence right at the big bang didn't add complexity. I have been speaking from a post-bang perspective the whole time, nice try though.
“Also, you have it exactly backwards. Elements include sub-atomic matter, not the other way around. That can go on the list of things you were scientifically wrong about.”
A misread into my statement. I was not implying that elements make up sub atomic matter, i was mentioning elements specifically as well knowing they are composed of particular arrangements of particles because a mention of heavier elements coming into existence was previously brought up so i tagged it along for emphasis that I wasn't only concerned with particles yet more concerned with elements coming from stars. You took an unintended perspective on that one ;)
“Clearly you must mean "nothing is false other than the several things I have recently admitted to being wrong about".
I was refering to the scientific claims within that one post up until that point and that still holds true.
“Someof the elements in ahuman body come from other places that exploding stars.”
Which elements in our body aren't released from stars? I'm eager to learn so please enlighten me. See what I did there, with light in enlighten, in a science/philosophy thread about stars hehe.
I have been using the word information to mean the smallest building blocks of matter. In the analogy of humans to apes that would involve the components that make the building blocks of DNA, more specifically the atoms that make up each of the ACTG nucleotides. I felt I made it clear that two objects could be considered where one can be viewed as more complex MEANING "intricate" in capabilities or appearance than the other and yet they are identical on an atomic scale and atomically are not more complex or INTRICATE than the other in composition. There, I more clearly defined it and gave two "senses" in which "complexity" can be applied. I hope that answers your statement "Which makes me wonder why you will not say in what sense you mean it." Even though I feel I already established the senses in which I mean because I have already stated analogies of things being more complex in appearance or abilities but not more complex in atomic structure.
“So things are not more complex, but they are?”
Consider two snowflakes of the same mass where one has a simple shape and the other has an intricate shape, you could consider the more intricate shape to be more complex in appearance. However is that more intricate appearing snowflake more complex in atomic composition yes or no? If you say "no," as you should, then there is a simple example where something is more complex in one sense, but isn't more complex in another sense.
Another way to look at it is this: Lets say we take Viviane, we disassemble her by breaking off each atom one by one and discarded them. We then took the exact same amount and types of elements from the cosmos and brought it back and then reassembled her back to exactly who she was. She is more intricate/complex in visible appearance and abilities than individual atoms floating in space but she is not structurally on an atomic level any more complex because she consists of the same atoms whether assembled into a viviane or just floating in star dust. The atoms complexity is not affected. It's like comparing puzzle pieces before and after the puzzle is built. The complexity of the whole puzzle remains the same before and after you put it together in a fundamental sense so long as the puzzle is in a container. I like to view the universe since the formation of hydrogen as one giant dynamic puzzle in a container that's stretching out.
This thread is titled "science and philosophy" so its expected to contain abstract ideas and applications. I never claimed to be right as you say I insist that i do, i didn't, I also apologized where i am corrected to be wrong, because i'm here to learn and I'm not omniscient unfortunately and I hated science as a kid but enjoy learning it now. I also, now due to your close criticism of my statements (which i respect and appreciate), have been trying to make sure not to state anything scientifically false and I don't believe I have in the last two posts I made previously unless you can teach me what elements that compose the human body are not emitted by stars when I said, "And yes NDT's quote is relevant in that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in a human body." If i'm not wrong on that then everything else I said over the previous two posts falls under philosophy-perspective, and opinion :)
