Complexity propensity
I’m reading Stephen Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science. I’m about one-fifth the way through this 1200-page tome. He has studied cellular automata and found that complexity can be generated by very simple rules — complexity that appears to ‘come from nowhere’. It feel consonant with Simon Conway Morris talking at the Faraday Institute about convergence in evolution. Convergence is evolution finding similar solutions to design problems in disparate organisms. Sonar in bats and dolphins, for instance, evolved independently (there is no common ancestor with sonar), but their implementations share many features. SCM says that that shouldn’t really be surprising – for any given design problem there may be only so many solutions. There are only a few different ways two-legged creatures could possibly walk, for instance. So he thinks that if you were to ‘rerun the tape’ of evolution, you’d get similar creatures emerging. One interesting implication of convergence is that it suggests there is a sort of structure built into the universe. To someone like me who grew up with six-day creationism, but has let it fall away, that is helpful — that structure, combined with the mysterious fecundity of the universe (its propensity to complexity, life, intelligence, self-awareness) hint at, suggest, or allude to a God ‘behind’ everything-that-is.
One response to “Complexity propensity”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yeah, the “built-in structure” had to come from somewhere. But doesn’t that (your last sentence) just push the debate further back in time? Instead of debating whether God created the heavens and the earth 6k years ago, we have to debate whether he kicked it off 14 billion years ago — and the time-frames are 7 orders of magnitude more fuzzy.
Or perhaps he created it 6k years ago, but 14 billion years old.