Speed of Light and Age of Universe

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You cannot measure whether these values increase or decrease because you have not defined the units that one would measure them by. Therefore all your babbling about whether "functional complexity" can increase or decrease or neither under XXX circumstance mean nothing.

Do you think a piece of dirt is functional?
Do you think a piece of dirt is complex?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you think a piece of dirt is functional?
Do you think a piece of dirt is complex?
Kelly

What are the units of complexity? You may as well ask, is X beautiful. Sure each person can decide for themselves but as there is no defined unit there can be no definate answer.

Also, are you claiming that your usage of 'functionally complex' is the same as 'functional' and 'complex'?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you think a piece of dirt is functional?
Do you think a piece of dirt is complex?
Kelly

A piece of dirt is both functional and non-functional. The term is relative and without measurement units, therefore unless you specify what you are realting it too it is without meaning.
Dirt is also both highly complex and very simple. Again relative.
For example compared to a crystal which has a regular patern, dirt could be seen as complex ie a mixture of grains with diferent chemicals etc. Then again you could say that the crystal is the complex one as it consists of order instead of the disorder of the dirt. Now compare the dirt to an atom or to a house and you again get different answers depending on your comparison and also your point of view.
Now the chalenge is for you to give any concise definition an measurement terms for 'functional', 'complex' and 'functional complexity' and we will gladly supply countless examples of all three of these increasing without either life or brains or intelligence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A piece of dirt is both functional and non-functional. The term is relative and without measurement units, therefore unless you specify what you are realting it too it is without meaning.
Dirt is also both highly complex and very simple. Again relative.
For example compared to a crystal which has a regular patern, dirt could be seen as complex ie a mixt ...[text shortened]... s examples of all three of these increasing without either life or brains or intelligence.

According to AThousandYoung you cannot know that, but I'm in
agreement with you. It does indeed matter on how we are looking
at it. Can you without insulting your brain, describe the functional
part of dirt and the complexity of dirt? Just the reader digest version
would be enough? Can you also talk about the non-functional part
of dirt and its simplification as well, all that is really required is
a high over view of the both?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
According to AThousandYoung you cannot know that, but I'm in
agreement with you. It does indeed matter on how we are looking
at it. Can you without insulting your brain, describe the functional
part of dirt and the complexity of dirt? Just the reader digest version
would be enough? Can you also talk about the non-functional part
of dirt and its simplification as well, all that is really required is
a high over view of the both?
Kelly

Good God you just don't get it do you. What you are asking for is impossible unless some standardized set of measures exist.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Good God you just don't get it do you. What you are asking for is impossible unless some standardized set of measures exist.

If you do not follow the questions and answers why bother responding?
He said that dirt is both nonfunctioning and functioning, it is both
complex and not complex. I asked for him to clarify, if you don’t get
it, that isn’t my fault. You seem to be simply stuck not wanting to
understand my point and refuse to acknowledge there may be
another way to look at this stuff that may not fit your neat little world
view! That too isn’t my fault!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
According to AThousandYoung you cannot know that, but I'm in
agreement with you. It does indeed matter on how we are looking
at it. Can you without insulting your brain, describe the functional
part of dirt and the complexity of dirt? Just the reader digest version
would be enough? Can you also talk about the non-functional part
of dirt and its simplification as well, all that is really required is
a high over view of the both?
Kelly

According to AThousandYoung you cannot know that

Know what? My problem is when you refer to some sort of laws about whether "functional complexity" can increase or decrease. Whether twhitehead thinks dirt is complex is irrelevant.

Originally posted by KellyJay
According to AThousandYoung you cannot know that, but I'm in
agreement with you. It does indeed matter on how we are looking
at it. Can you without insulting your brain, describe the functional
part of dirt and the complexity of dirt? Just the reader digest version
would be enough? Can you also talk about the non-functional part
of dirt and its simplification as well, all that is really required is
a high over view of the both?
Kelly

You missed my point altogether. You cannot describe the functional part of dirt unless you define what you are relating it to and what functions you are talking about. For example when used in a sandblaster the stonger pices of dirt are decidedly more funtional. When used to put out a fire then I supose the non-flamable material is the most functional, when used to soak up spilt oil then the most absorbant bits are more funtional. Functionality only has meaning when a funtion (use) is mentioned.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You missed my point altogether. You cannot describe the functional part of dirt unless you define what you are relating it to and what functions you are talking about. For example when used in a sandblaster the stonger pices of dirt are decidedly more funtional. When used to put out a fire then I supose the non-flamable material is the most functional, wh ...[text shortened]... rbant bits are more funtional. Functionality only has meaning when a funtion (use) is mentioned.

No, I understand it isn’t much different if we used a rock as a
paper weight, the function is performed by doing nothing.
The rock however is being manipulated by something else for
purposes that have nothing to do with the rock outside of its
usefulness to an outside entity. Just as your dirt being used to
put out the fire, that requires a purpose from the outside to
achieve a function; the dirt itself isn’t changing as the rock
doesn’t when it is used as a paper weight.

The issue arises when you are telling me something along
lines where it chemicals bind themselves together to form
something that starts to actively become more and more
complex achieving more and more complicated tasks. The
usefulness of dirt or a rock depends on an outside force
making it useful since neither the rock or dirt are changing
to do the functions assigned to them, a chemical reaction
will run its course just like fire on wood, but when you tell
me that in the face ever thing we see that shows us processes
over time start to degrade, you believe in a process that
does just the opposite. You even try to deny it is a matter of
faith, though supposedly the changes are only recognizable
if you live to be a couple of billion years old.

A more functionally complicated task would be like
getting a heart, brain, circuitry system, and all the
necessary pieces to cause these things to work in
harmony as they are being developed without creating
energy or resourse issues and a like.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I understand it isn’t much different if we used a rock as a
paper weight, the function is performed by doing nothing.
The rock however is being manipulated by something else for
purposes that have nothing to do with the rock outside of its
usefulness to an outside entity. Just as your dirt being used to
put out the fire, that requires a purpose fro ...[text shortened]... rmony as they are being developed without creating
energy or resourse issues and a like.
Kelly

You write a lot of words and yet say nothing about anything. You should write a book.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
You write a lot of words and yet say nothing about anything. You should write a book.

He should become the next pope too.