Irreducible Complexity

I went to lunch with a colleague of mine this week and decided to run a few ideas by him. We started off talking about Big Bang Theory and moved into discussing Intelligent Design (ID). More specifically, we discussed the major supporting idea of irreducible complexity (IC). The problem with IC is there still needs to be a scientific explanation of how we go from atoms and molecules to complex proteins and a functional system within a cell. Without one, we are back to the fundamentalist creationism way of thinking of God creating everything ex nihilo, which I do not support per se (I’ll save my argument that the sum of the universe = zero for another post). I suggested that there had to be some sort of ‘DNA’ at the sub-atomic level. That is to say that atoms, within themselves, must have a set of instructions to follow to explain something as complex as a flagellum motor.
Then the idea of Cymatics occurred to me and it offered itself as a probable explanation. So how could something complex come from something relatively simple? First take a look at Cymatics in action, and then listen to one of its proponents. Now, I do not outright agree with everything stated nor do I blindly propose that this is the answer to how God spoke the universe into existence. However, I certainly do propose that some similar mechanism may be at work. These patterns are created because of the natural path of least resistance. As such I am interested in identifying what design can be created by using the lowest frequency possible, then using a scale of pitch where the intervals strictly following the Golden Ratio. I am also interested in other energy waves or fields (e.g. electromagnetic). If anyone can find some correlation between all this and fractals, I’m interested.
Published
Topic(s): ,

3 comments:

  1. DeterministNovember 12, 2008 at 4:22 AM

    "I suggested that there had to be some sort of ‘DNA’ at the sub-atomic level. That is to say that atoms, within themselves, must have a set of instructions to follow to explain something as complex as a flagellum motor."

    Atoms are like soap bubbles, there doesn't have to be a subatomic DNA for them to arrange the way they do, or connect together. They will naturally attach to each other in complex patterns.

    Atoms are waaaay too small for you to consider them when discussing a flagellum motor. You are discussing proteins and they are far, far larger than atoms. There can be dozens or more amino acids per protein. At that size, molecules don't act like the atoms they are made of and have their own chemical properties.

    Cymatics could be related to self organizations, but just as likely are things like crystallization or vortices or any other self-organizing systems.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousNovember 18, 2008 at 8:18 PM

    "I suggested that there had to be some sort of ‘DNA’ at the sub-atomic level. That is to say that atoms, within themselves, must have a set of instructions to follow to explain something as complex as a flagellum motor."

    Consider this: an idea that I've had for the better part of 11 years is that all interactivity in the universe--from the subatomic level to the gravitational interactions between galactic clusters--is mirrored by human behavior. While nobody outside of the individual can explain a single persons motives, it is relatively easy to predict and explain how people (and subsequently friends, cliques, ethnic/religious groups, nations, etc...) will interact with each other. How do you feel about this?

    -The Ensign

    ReplyDelete
  3. samtunesNovember 19, 2008 at 10:20 AM

    http://samueltunes.blogspot.com/2008/11/irreducible-complexity-response-to.html

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)