Can something create something more complex than itself?

Post Reply New Topic

You clearly have no understanding of the history of philosophy OR science. Science is just a form of philosophy, and it was bad back then due to a combination of the philosophy behind it being underdeveloped (the Islamic philosophers came up with the modern scientific method, which they based on Greek ideas) and just from a lack of knowledge, modern science is dependent on years and years of accumulated knowledge. Anyway, philosophy requires deeper thinking that just running the scientific method, and I'm glad to see there has now been some deeper thinking in this thread.

Perhaps I am not smart enough for this topic. I will admit that:

My thoughts though:

To try to understand complexity you must understand something very simple things very deeply. What is a boson? What is a fermion? Why do bosons exist? What is an atom? Why do atoms exist? Why do fermions exist? If you can explain to me all these things in rigorous detail you will amaze me. I'm not at that level atthough some people may be. If you are at that level I apolgoize.

When I said that DNA was simple I was being a little facetious. I know it's not simple. I don't understand DNA very well- nor do I think DNA understands itself.

A human being is not capable of understanding everything in the universe.

I wish I could understand the atom, how it came to be, why it exists, what it is . More and more, I actually do believe in a God concept. Just not the Christian God or the Muslim God or any other specific God.

"You can live your life as miracles happen - or you can live them as they don't.

I choose the former.

Me
Still too old to know it all

In general, all orders of information are said to derive from a higher order, the tendency over time being disorder and decay.

According to Ilya Prigogine entropy in dissipative systems far from thermodynamic equilbrium -creates order-.

Use https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gsb-cmis/g ... uth/311391
to down load Prigogen's paper.

This is where I think you are playing a game with yourself. If you define the question in such a way that god is the only possible answer, then take that question and answer as tending to indicate that god must exist or be a necessary answer to some question posed by the universe, you are far down the path of self-delusion, I think.

You ask what certain things are, though they are fairly well defined. I hazard a guess that you don't really want an answer framed in terms integer or fractional spin values, but that is what they are. You might also be asking about other properties, which are force carriers, which are atomic particles, and so on--but I think you are asking some more metaphysical question and I wonder if that question is well defined enough to be meaningful.

You ask why certain things are and get into very thorny territory.
One possible answer is mechanistic: why is it this way? Because elements that have this state as a property of their interaction interacted. If you mean why in terms of what human-like motive is there for things having been arranged, I don't there is any reason to suppose that such a motivation or purpose exists. A "reason why" beyond the description of interacting forces/particles is neither a necessary nor sufficient explanation for anything observed, so it doesn't seem like a particularly fruitful line of questioning.

I don't agree that answers to how and why questions are necessary to understand complexity, unless by "understand complexity" you mean something that I don't understand at all.

What organizes the structures and the arrow of time. By this terminolgy, nature's dog or an apple tree is an open system, not limited by genetics or environmental conditions.

He uses interesting words, like amplifier and regime, but without naming specific examples, that can be observed or reproduced. In all fairness, should I name examples of decay?



These are systems, orders of information, and complexity.

You acknowledge a world of time, cause, and effect, yet baffle and procrastinate, when asked about first cause.

Nope.

No one asked me about a first cause, I volunteered that I don't see God as reasonable hypothesis to explain observed phenomena.

Kindly refrain from attributing bad arguments of your own design to me.

I like that idea. What color is the hair of the king of the US? Obviously, the only acceptable kind of answer is one specifying a color, so it must confirm that there is a king of the US.

(That was your cue.)

when asked about a first cause...

noone asked me...



As the concept of the singular atom first appeared in occultic mystery schools, as well as it's orbit, evolution to different kinds of material, and higher life, is it even a scientific theory.

Is this something I can see and replicate for myself, or have you taken the matter on faith.

I don't understand this at all. It seems we share a language but you are using in it a way that seems foreign to me.

I am not interested in rehashing the weak and uninteresting cosmological argument. What caused the first cause? Why did the first cause begin to make the universe? God is an answer that only leads to the same question in an infinitely dull and unproductive loop.

All this has been done to death by great minds and it's a road to nowhere.

As for mystery schools and what you can see for yourself, I am sure you are trying to express something, but I have no idea what it is.