Joined: June 2007
|Quote (Missing Shade of Blue @ Dec. 22 2008,21:35)|
|Then you haven't reduced the complexity, you've simply shifted it from the software to the hardware.|
But this just begs the question. In what sense is the second UTM more complex than the first one? Is this sense language-independent?
|How do you think this helps you, particularly if you're trying to establish an analogy with natural selection?|
I wasn't trying to argue from analogy here. I was trying to argue that in principle there is no description language-independent notion of simplicity. This was supposed to be an argument against those who were saying that green really is simpler than grue in some objective sense.
I moved the discussion up to the complexity of the computers themselves in the first post I made on this thread. This was in response to those who were suggesting that although green may not be simpler than grue in purely linguistic terms, green-computers would be simpler than grue-computers.
It seems to me you are falling subject to the "spherical cow" story - abstracting to the point there it becomes a hindrance and not a help.
You are using binary sequences to claim that a color filter and a photon detector is not simpler than a color filter, a photon detector, a biological timer that is set to go off at some distant point in the future, and an input inverter. Think about it.
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris