Hypothesizing aside, if a given universe (or any system) has a complexity value of u and a creator has a complexity value of c, adding them together is larger than either indivdual unit, increasing the total complexity. The only way that would decrease complexity is if somehow a creator could have a negative complexity, meaning is has a value of interrelating and connected parts of less than zero.
Viviane
JoinedPosts by Viviane
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Viviane
I am not a scientist
Or particularly educated on science.
and only an armchair cosmologist.
No. No you aren't.
I have come to see, that these people, Krauss, Penrose, Davis, Krauss, Feynman et al seem to be very vague when it comes to the beyond, the before, the void of the future, the cosmos.
Anyone who claims to know more than those you listed (such as yourself) is either a liar or a fool.
I see a world picture trying to incorporate all this, and am stuck with a model where there was always time, a given, part of an unfathonable, eternal 'ueber', or 'Ur" dimension, a void beyond our capacity to mesure, understand.
You pretend to, while claiming to be only a casual observer, to know more than the finest minds ever to study the subject. You are either a liar or a fool. Or both, I suppose. You present your ramblings as fact when in fact they are at best comic book quality science.
As a compulsive worker and deliberate 'out-of-the-box thinker' with tangible patent, $, results
Yeah, that means exactly nothing. Literally, nothing.
When people charactarize what I say with these ideas as a base, as babbel, as rambling, it is, because they must have a better model, they are not trying to see my consistency.
Consistently babbling and rambling in no way lends credence to that babbling or rambling.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Viviane
It seems that the dictionary definition is simply "having many parts".
It seems that is completely made up to suit your argument. Note that not a single definition listed below, nor any in the context we are discussing, means at all what you are claiming.
adjective adjective: complex ˌkämˈpleks , kəmˈpleks , ˈkämˌpleks / 1. consisting of many different and connected parts. " a complex network of water channels "
synonyms: compound, composite, multiplex " a complex structure " adjective
1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system. 2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.
The reason why I proposed this alternate definition is that I wanted to encourage you guys to think about the information conveyed by parts.
Wait, you just said that seemed like the dictionary definition, now you are admitting you are making it up!
You can accuse me of making up my own definitions, but I don't believe I'm actually doing that.
You just admitted it. Your attempt to deflect that reality has nothing to do with it.
To restate my assertion one more time using the precise dictionary definition of the word, "A brain does not increase in 'the number of parts it has' when it is thinking about something complex."
It still actually does, your incorrect and made up definition having nothing to do with it, however. I generally agree with you on that count, but I thought I would bring up an alternative viewpoint as a basic philosophical exercise.
Philosophy is understanding why we thing what we do and trying to discover if there is a better way to think. You are starting from the position of trying to re-define words, admitting that's what you are doing and then denying doing that thing.
Understanding words is the first step before you attempt philosophical exercises. Learn to crawl before you try to run a marathon.
-
26
Parousia (again)
by leaving_quietly ini noticed this during the wt study on sunday.. 1 cor 15:23: "but each one in his own proper order: christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the christ during his presence.
"the greek word for presence is "parousia", which needs no explanation here as to how wtbts views this word versus the rest of the world.. what i noticed was the striking contradiction made just a few verses later.. 1 cor 15:51,52: "look!
i tell you a sacred secret: we will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.
-
-
Viviane
check out my youtubechannel there are over 70 videos showing you how Christ is in you.
That sounds rapey.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Viviane
I'm sorry if you feel this is all unfalsifiable, but that's not really my problem. I'm simply commenting on probability, not feasibility for scientific experiments.
It is your problem since you are proposing it. Also, you aren't commenting on probablity, but simply arguing from incredulity.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Viviane
Complexity - The amount of information in a certain volume.
That's not any definition of complexity ever.
Information - Any set of values that can be read from some arrangement of material.
That's not any definition of information ever.
I see your problem. You're using not actual definitions of words.
You're defining information as "something meaningful to humans".
I most certainly did NOT do that.
If you want some citation of a work that agrees with my definition, then we can simply look at the lede of the "Information" article from Wikipedia, which supports both of our definitions (mine is underlined):
It most certainly does NOT do that. Let's look and see why:
"Information (shortened as info or info.) is that which informs, i.e. that from which data and knowledge can be derived (as data represents values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of real things or abstract concepts).
In the portion you underlined which you claim supports your non-definition of "any set of values that can be read from some arrangement of material", you ignore the crucial parts you didn't underline, such as "that which informs", that from which data and knowledge can be derived", etc. You are cherry picking out of context sentence fragements without considering the context and the whole.
It doesn't work that way. In your version "+ 4 2 = 2" and "224+=" contain the same information as "2+2 = 4". Clearly that is a nonsensical postion but what logically your incorrect definition of information would lead to.
As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example)
Your arguing against a claim no one but you erronously made about someone else.
At its most fundamental, information is any propagation of cause and effect within a system."
All arrangements don't produce propogation, further evidence that your incorrect definition isn't an actual definition.
No analogy is perfect, so if you delve deeply enough into the subject of computer engineering you can probably find a flaw in my analogy, but that will only detract from the validity of my analogy, not the validity of my original proposition.
Your analogy wasn't just imperfect, it was demonstrably wrong. You even proved it with your Wikipedia quotes, although I highly doubt you realized that.
Once again, the reason I say this is that a brain has constant complexity on the physical level regardless of what it is being used for.
Demonstrably false. Your wikipedia quotes can be used to prove this also.
The next step in my argument was going to be that, if the creator is using any part of himself to produce the universe, then the complexity is the same
See above.
I think the issue is that you are using not-actual definitions of things apart from any standard or derivative use. You really just don't seem to understand the terms you are using and the implication of the things you are reading.
Seriously, you seem like a smart cookie, but the way you are using "complexity" and "information" are just way way way off.
-
38
2 Faced JWs and Thanksgiving
by minimus inmany jws enjoy turkey on thanksgiving day and are often discreet about their indulgences.
why be two faced?
why try to excuse it?.
-
-
Viviane
You'd be surprised how many JW's have turkey on Christmas day too.
Turkey is cheap around thanksgiving....so are excuses of those that say they arent celebrating.
Two words... Heritage Turkey. You can thank me later. It's worth the money to try at least once.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Viviane
Physical complexity. The arrangement of molecules in the computer or the brain.
Complexity refers to interconnectness and intereaction of systems. The more connected, the more complex.
The amount of information a network contains is constant if all nodes in that network have a value regardless of whether those values have meaning to a human or other intelligence.
How are you defining information? The amount of information most certainly can and does change, otherwise, no one would ever learn anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
You keep bringing up "interaction". If it's essential for you to know where the interaction is, it's between the molecules making up a compound and between the atoms making up the molecules, and between the sub-atomic particles making up the atoms.
I am referring to the definition of "complex" which you keep avoiding. Of course it's essential for me to know that. That's precisely why I do, in fact, know it. It's also essential for you to know what complexity and information are, because it's clear you don't. I provided some handy URLs above to get you started.
Those interactions will of course change when data passes through them, but the number of interactions between particles, the complexity, is not increasing. In order for this to be the case, the network would have to develop new nodes.
Yes it is. Let's go back to your CPU example, or even that of a hard drive example. There are more interactions happening at various states of energy and as more and less work is being done. Obviously, powered off is a less complex state. Even less is disassempled. Even less would be the atoms that make up those parts floating millions of years apart in deep space. Same particles but clearly with different numbers of interactions happening and different rates of information, contrary to your assertion. CPUs can be off, idle except for the most bare work to remain powered up or at various percentages of activity. Same thing for a hard drive. The actuator arm can be idle or thrashing, interacting not at all or a lot or somewhere in between, changing the atoms on the platter or not. A CPU can be manipulating signals and changing the values of memory or opening and closing logic gates... or not.
Developing new nodes on a network is irrelevant to your CPU example.
You still seem to be saying complexity and information can't change, that it's simply a measure of how much material is in a given space. The question remains, how are you defining complexity? While you're at it, information also.
-
116
Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly
by Coded Logic inchris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
-
-
Viviane
We are the fringes of the universe, all we see is the past of the rest. look at the deep space pictures of 12 billion years ago/distant it is packed with galaxies, because the universe was smaller then. smaller than now.
You are babbling.
-
26
Parousia (again)
by leaving_quietly ini noticed this during the wt study on sunday.. 1 cor 15:23: "but each one in his own proper order: christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the christ during his presence.
"the greek word for presence is "parousia", which needs no explanation here as to how wtbts views this word versus the rest of the world.. what i noticed was the striking contradiction made just a few verses later.. 1 cor 15:51,52: "look!
i tell you a sacred secret: we will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.
-
-
Viviane
They could have been caught up around 70 c.e.. These verses are definitely speaking of a changing of corrupt mortal humans to incorrupt immortal humans. Then they are speedily snatched up to the spirit realm with Christ. Not modern at all,but plain as the nose on your face,with all due respect.
Sure, maybe they were, but there is no evidence for it. And yes, the modern reading of the rapture is a modern invention. If it were as plain as you say, Christians wouldn't argue so much over it and it would have existed as a concept prior to ~250 years ago.