Richard Dawkins: Dawkins Complexity Argument

[Philip Rand]

Richard Dawkins writes:

A designer god cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any god capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us escape.

Let's think about this:

1/  If we use an holistic interpretation then when Dawkins writes "designer god" it can also mean "Maximally Great Being".

2/  It follows then then one attribute of a Maximally Great Being would be Maximally Great Complexity.

3/  Maximally Great Complexity can be interpreted as Infinite Complexity.

The interesting characteristic of all complexity computer simulations is that as complexity grows in the simulation all variables converge to a stable value, i.e. they do not deviate.

Now, what is interesting here is to consider the Fine Tuning Argument, i.e. there are no analytical relationships that allow us to know one fundamental physical constant uniquely in terms of the others.

The absence of analytical relationships suggests statistical relationships: i.e., that the constants are a random sample of the independent numbers from some master probability law.

If this is the case then Richard Dawkins comment on the "designer god" explains why the constants we see in the universe are what they are.

For if the "designer god" is indeed infinitely complex as Dawkins says then if we use computer complexity models as a bench mark then it suggest that the constants created at the moment of the Big Bang were in fact a deterministic result of the infinite complexity of the designer god... for at its limit infinite complexity means a stable universe being created, i.e. the master probability law of the physical constants are a direct result of the infinite complexity of the "designer god".

[Brian_G]

I'm not sure if there can be a maximum complex being.  It seems you could always increase complexity by adding parts.  If the designer has a neural network of a trillion neurons, it's complexity could be increased by simply adding neurons.  It seems that you have to say that infinity is an actual number of neurons.  I'm not sure that there can be an actual infinite number of neurons. Furthermore, even if there could exist an infinity complex being, wouldn't such a being require a cause for it's existence -- some explanation as to why the infinite number of parts got arranged in the correct order?

[ArtD]

IMHO, the concept of Maximally Great Being is naive and incoherent.
Is that being maximally just or maximally forgiving?
Maximally evil or maximally good?
Maximally wise or maximally ignorant?
Etc.

[apophenia]

It assumes the possible objective existence of positive and negative properties. Properties themselves exist, but they are neither objectively positive or negative. In short, there is no objective, natural ordering of any set of properties such that for any P(i) and P(j) in the set, under all possible worlds, P(i) is more positive than P(j), or vice versa. You can say nothing about the ordering of properties in all possible worlds, therefore it is impossible to postulate a being that is essentially positive.

So yes, I would agree.  A maximally great being is incoherent.

[Language-Gamer]

IMHO, the concept of Maximally Great Being is naive and incoherent.
Is that being maximally just or maximally forgiving?
Maximally evil or maximally good?
Maximally wise or maximally ignorant?
Etc.

Dang, those are some deep points that I'm not sure have ever been consider by philosophers of religion.

[Philip Rand]

apophenia.... you write:

So yes, I would agree.  A maximally great being is incoherent.

Here, your prejudice against the argument is the cause of this conclusion...

The unprejudiced conclusion must be that a qualitative great being is coherent.

The Anselm Ontological Argument has been computer simulated with the result that it is valid (perhaps, not necessarily sound but valid non the less).

One can even compare the argument to the existence of the "Perfect Chess Game" (this example directly deals with your positive & negative property idea)... and indeed the Perfect Chess Game does in fact qualitatively exist... so this too is coherent.

Clearly, the quantitative is different... with regards to the Perfect Chess Game being quantified we get drawn into the N=NP mathematical problem...

However, bottom line... if one is not prejudiced then the body of evidence points to the fact that Ontological Argument is valid, i.e. coherent.

What is interesting apophenia is the method of criticising the Ontological Argument you use, i.e. delimiting Reason... this I find interesting.

[igr]

Philip Rand #5,  if you have any IT knowledge you will know that a computer simulation is as useful as the algorithm, assumptions and data. 

A computer program will do whatever it is programmed to do.  The validity of the output obtained in running the program is consistent with the algorithm, assupmtions and data.  Whether or not the output is correct in terms of the actual world in which we live is an entirely separate matter. 

Short answer - don't necessarily believe that "whatever the computer says is correct".

[Rostos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nEqa-Ccd50

[Philip Rand]

igr...

If you read my post you will see that I did mention "sound", i.e. one whose axioms are true and whose rules of inference preserve truth... it has nothing whatsoever to do with IT knowledge!

So why you made a redundant comment is beyond me?... most probably because you saw "sound" but did not "observe" sound....

We are speaking of qualitative coherence NOT quantitative!!!!!

[igr]

Philip Rand #8,  I was commenting about (and only about) your reference to "computer simulation" and its results. 

You said "The Anselm Ontological Argument has been computer simulated with the result that it is valid (perhaps, not necessarily sound but valid non the less)."

[confused]

Richard Dawkins is a philosophical abomination.

[Emuse]

Richard Dawkins is a philosophical abomination.

Then it should be trivially easy for you to point out the flaw in his reasoning.  What is it?

[Emuse]

I'm not sure if there can be a maximum complex being.  It seems you could always increase complexity by adding parts.  If the designer has a neural network of a trillion neurons, it's complexity could be increased by simply adding neurons.  It seems that you have to say that infinity is an actual number of neurons.  I'm not sure that there can be an actual infinite number of neurons. Furthermore, even if there could exist an infinity complex being, wouldn't such a being require a cause for it's existence -- some explanation as to why the infinite number of parts got arranged in the correct order?

Indeed.  A being who is one Googolplex persons is more complex than a being who is only three.

[Philip Rand]

Complexity ∝ Stability

The greater the complexity the greater the stability.

Infinite complexity would then be infinite stability, i.e. eternal

[confused]

Richard Dawkins is a philosophical abomination.

Then it should be trivially easy for you to point out the flaw in his reasoning.  What is it?

See post #7.