Skip to main content

Complexity and relevant description

Complexity has to do with the way in which something can be described mathematically.  Something describable in a simple equation is, well, simple.  Something describable in a complex one is, more complicated than the other one (obviously I've forgotten the details, but that'll probably do for now).

Thesis: isn't our description is always in part a function of how we interpret what we are looking at?

Suppose someone thinks that the brain is a radiator: wouldn't he or she think that its mathematical description is simpler than would someone who recognizes the brain for what it is?  Yes, By several orders of magnitude!

Suppose you were shown a tin bucket full of sand and asked to compare its complexity to that of  a human brain:   What if you found out later that each pebble in the tin bucket is actually (as long as you don't move it) shaped and situated precisely (to the nearest nanometer) in order to convey (in an ET language that you don't know) the history of the whole cosmos?  Wouldn't the same bucket look much more complex than it did before?  Possible more complex than the brain? (think of how every nanometer counts...)

Conclusion:  quantification is subsequent to the recognition of form, with the latter being teleological!   We need to know what a brain and what a bucket of sand are FOR before we can know how to describe and compare them mathematically.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here....
Post a Comment
Read more

continuing the discussion with Tim in a new post

Hi Tim, I am posting my reply here, because the great blogmeister won't let me put it all in a comment. Me thinks I get your point: is it that we can name and chimps can't, so therefore we are of greater value than chimps? Naming is something above and beyond what a chimp can do, right? In other words, you are illustrating the point I am making (if I catch your drift). My argument is only a sketch, but I think adding the ability to name names, as it were, is still not enough to make the argument seem cogent. For one can still ask why we prefer being able to name over other skills had by animals but not by humans. The objector would demand a more convincing reason. The answer I have in mind is, to put it briefly, that there is something infinite about human beings in comparison with the subhuman. That "something" has to do with our ability to think of the meaning of the cosmos. Whereas one might say"He's got the whole world in His han...
2 comments
Read more