Posted: Jul 28, 2010 2:04 am
by hackenslash
AMR wrote:Interesting talk by Krauss, years ago I enjoyed his Physics of Star Trek, thanks for the link.

But of course a cosmos in which "nothing is unstable" presupposes something doesn't it? Namely a cosmos in which nothing is unstable. . . which is, in fact, something. Touché.

Errr, no. That nothing is unstable (actually, it's worse than that, it's impossible) is a proven fact, and stems from one of our most successful and accurate scientific principles. The uncertainty principle isnt a though experiment, it's a categorical feature of the universe, and beyond any serious questioning.

As for the OP, and the intervening arguments, I agree completely with JustATheory, but I also have other issues with it, and with Dawkins' argument as well, and it stems from use of the word 'complex'. Dawkins is actually misusing the word in his argument. Certainly, Kolmogorov complexity is a useful concept in information theory, but it mustn't be confused with complexity which, in this instance, is actually being treated as synonymous with complicatedness, when synonymous it isn't. Complexity describes emergence. Complicatedness describes the interdependence of many parts. As an example, a car is complicated. The behaviour exhibited by a car and a human combined is complex. How this applies to a deity (should such a ludicrous entity actually exist) is unclear, and it can't be stated which term would apply until such time as a deity is observed to make the distinction.