Let's start this discussion on a new page but some of what we talked about will be relevant to us.

What do you mean by:

1. Simplicity
2. Complexity

All that I offer are my own personal thoughts on the matter and they inform me that 1 and 2 have to do with the number of interactions under consideration which I vaguely remember has something to do with triangular numbers.

You probably wanted critique that by asking me if one black hole is simple or complex. The answer to this question would depend on which level of phenomena we're discussing. If it's black hole interactions then it surely can't get simpler than one black hole. However, if we're discussing black hole formation, structure, etc. - things that require information of stuff within black holes then it is, evidently, quite complex because now, loosely speaking, the juggler has more balls in the air.

When humans create art, they create an expression of reality that is more complex than the materials that constitute the artwork. Michelangelo’s David, for example, has a complexity to it that certainly wasn’t apparent in the stone before he got his hands on it.

Plus, ‘create’ is different from ‘evolve’. I think that humans also evolve into something at least marginally more complex than themselves all the time: other humans. — Possibility

We can create art but art can't create us and I'm quite sure you're not claiming we're simpler than the art we create.

You really need to look at the whole science of Complex Adaptive Systems. It puts the whole concept of teleology in an entirely new light.

The problem is this:

1. People believe that simplicity evolves into complexity

2. Humans can't create anything more complex than themselves

3. If 1 is true then 2 should be false. — TheMadFool

Let me try again. If 1 is true, it does not follow that 2 is false, because creating has nothing to do with evolving. So 3 is false.

Humans don’t need to create something more complex than themselves to demonstrate that simplicity evolves into complexity. Humans themselves have evolved into more complex organisms, and continue to evolve, particularly in relation to their capacity for more complex mental structures.

We can create art but art can't create us and I'm quite sure you're not claiming we're simpler than the art we create. — TheMadFool

No, of course not. But to create is not to evolve. ‘Create’ is a transitive verb - it’s an action exerted on an object. ‘Evolve’ is an intransitive verb - it is enacted by the subject.

The simplicity from which art has evolved is not the human creator, but the materials used. That which creates is NOT that which evolves.

What do you mean by:

1. Simplicity
2. Complexity

All that I offer are my own personal thoughts on the matter and they inform me that 1 and 2 have to do with the number of interactions under consideration which I vaguely remember has something to do with triangular numbers. — TheMadFool

I am not saying much, haha.

Just that "simplicity" or "complexity" can refer to a variety of factors. So a black hole would have the simplest composition (assuming our understanding of them as a "singularity" is correct - who knows how likely that is), but its immense gravity means that it interacts with far more other things making its interactions very complex.

Maybe definitions will help? This is the first one to pop up on google.

Simplicity:
1.the quality or condition of being easy to understand or do.
2. the quality or condition of being plain or natural.
3. a thing that is plain, natural, or easy to understand.

Notice 2 is quite different from 1. 3 tries to combine 1 & 2, but just ends up highlighting that simplicity could describe a thing that is "plain", or a thing that is "natural", or a thing that is "easy to understand". Notice that any one thing we call "simple" could be any one, or all 3. That is all I have been pointing out. There is nothing "simple" about trying to label things "simple". Similarly, to try and rank things in order from simplest to most complex would be nearly impossible unless we are comparing very similar items (a double decker bus is more complex than a single decker bus, but what is more complex, a piece of paper or a glass of water?).

When humans create art, they create an expression of reality that is more complex than the materials that constitute the artwork. — Possibility

Agreed but no art is more complex than the artist him/herself. That's what I mean.

Plus, ‘create’ is different from ‘evolve’ — Possibility

There is a difference between creativity and evolution but if one subscribes to Darwin's theory, the former evolved from the latter. We now ask which is a better tool in terms of ability to produce "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful", creativity or what has been termed blind evolution which is self-explanatory?

We have the following to go with:

1. The evident fact of simplicity evolving by what is a random process into complexity

2. Evolved human creativity and intelligence, arguably the dream team in the area of "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful"

So we have a situation which is simply that blind chance
has managed, against all odds, to evolve creative and intelligent humans yet humans endowed with these advantages have failed to produce anything that approaches such complexity.

It's akin to a blind man with zero skills creating a masterpiece while at the same time a man with 20/20 vision, trained in the arts, fails to even produce something that can be considered a poor counterfeit.

Of course there could be other reasons for this state of affairs like time and incomplete knowledge and so this argument is applicable only to the present.

Simplicity:
1.the quality or condition of being easy to understand or do.
2. the quality or condition of being plain or natural.
3. a thing that is plain, natural, or easy to understand.

Notice 2 is quite different from 1. 3 tries to combine 1 & 2, but just ends up highlighting that simplicity could describe a thing that is "plain", or a thing that is "natural", or a thing that is "easy to understand". Notice that any one thing we call "simple" could be any one, or all 3. That is all I have been pointing out. There is nothing "simple" about trying to label things "simple". Similarly, to try and rank things in order from simplest to most complex would be nearly impossible unless we are comparing very similar items (a double decker bus is more complex than a single decker bus, but what is more complex, a piece of paper or a glass of water?). — ZhouBoTong

I agree that my definition is incomplete but it does reflect a general view or even intuition on the subject of simplicity and complexity. You listed some lexical definitions and all of them have a common denominator in being expressible/transmissible as information in fewer numbers than things that are considered complex.

Let's take everyday examples to see what people's intuitions are about simplicity and complexity. When we read a novel we see differences in characters that can be expressed in terms of simplicity and complexity. A simple character in a novel is what people call one-dimensional -
having a small inventory of emotions, views, whatnot. These characters are easy to understand.

On the other hand, a complex character will be one with a large repertoire of emotions, views, relationships, etc. Such characters are difficult to understand.

It seems the generally accepted view on simplicity-complexity for a character in a novel can be rephrased in terms of a numerical difference in views, relationships, emotions, etc.

I only extend this general view to the whole of the simplicity-complexity issue.

Agreed but no art is more complex than the artist him/herself. That's what I mean. — TheMadFool

Ok, I agree with this, but I maintain that your argument as stated doesn’t follow.

There is a difference between creativity and evolution but if one subscribes to Darwin's theory, the former evolved from the latter. We now ask which is a better tool in terms of ability to produce "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful", creativity or what has been termed blind evolution which is self-explanatory?

We have the following to go with:

1. The evident fact of simplicity evolving by what is a random process into complexity

2. Evolved human creativity and intelligence, arguably the dream team in the area of "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful"

So we have a situation which is simply that blind chance
has managed, against all odds, to evolve creative and intelligent humans yet humans endowed with these advantages have failed to produce anything that approaches such complexity.

It's akin to a blind man with zero skills creating a masterpiece while at the same time a man with 20/20 vision, trained in the arts, fails to even produce something that can be considered a poor counterfeit.

Of course there could be other reasons for this state of affairs like time and incomplete knowledge and so this argument is applicable only to the present. — TheMadFool

I think I see where you’re going now. Personally, I’m working towards a third option that incorporates both processes. It involves looking at it the other way around: a theory that natural selection evolved from creativity/intelligence.

Darwin’s theory, for me, is not a motivating but a limiting process on a more fundamental creative impetus that exists beyond space, time, value or meaning. It only requires a vague awareness of interaction to begin. But it’s language that limits our capacity to approach a shared understanding of this more than anything.

I agree that my definition is incomplete but it does reflect a general view or even intuition on the subject of simplicity and complexity. — TheMadFool

I did not mean to harp on your definition, but more suggest that all definitions would be similarly flawed.

You listed some lexical definitions and all of them have a common denominator in being expressible/transmissible as information in fewer numbers than things that are considered complex. — TheMadFool

Except words like "easy" and "natural". Easy is a relative word. Is it easier to do 1 push-up or 2? Obviously, 1. However, is it easier to do 100 push-ups or write 100 pages? It suddenly depends on the person. What if one push-up equals one page? One push-up equals one letter? Maybe one push-up equals one word? As soon as we are not comparing like for like, words like simple and complex require further qualifiers to be meaningful. And obviously a tiger is "natural", does that make it simpler than a calculator?

Let's take everyday examples to see what people's intuitions are about simplicity and complexity. When we read a novel we see differences in characters that can be expressed in terms of simplicity and complexity. A simple character in a novel is what people call one-dimensional -
having a small inventory of emotions, views, whatnot. These characters are easy to understand.

On the other hand, a complex character will be one with a large repertoire of emotions, views, relationships, etc. Such characters are difficult to understand. — TheMadFool

Notice that here, you are comparing like for like (characters in a story). However, which is more complicated, the character or the setting? Surely there is more to their "complication" than the number of words the author uses to describe them?

I felt the need to remind myself how we got started:

If this idea that simplicity evolves into complexity is true then what explains the quite obvious fact that humans when engaged in creative acts can never produce something more complex than humans themselves? All our inventions no matter how advanced are but cheap imitations of nature. — TheMadFool

I am basically saying that we CANNOT determine whether humans have ever created something more complicated than themselves, because the words "simple" and "complex" are loaded with semantic and cultural baggage that means they almost never mean the exact same thing.

I would tend to believe we can (and have) created things more complicated than ourselves, but it would be very debatable and depend heavily on people's understanding of "simple" and "complex".

For example, society must be more complicated than people as it is made of people (same for a government, a business, a sports team, etc), but I doubt you find that very convincing...?

So we have a situation which is simply that blind chance
has managed, against all odds, to evolve creative and intelligent humans yet humans endowed with these advantages have failed to produce anything that approaches such complexity. — TheMadFool

Just wondering what ‘against all odds’ might mean here. Is there some objective truth to the idea of us being creative and intelligent humans? More than most animals, but more than whatever produced us? If we’ve failed to produce anything ‘that approaches such complexity’ then we're less than what produced us. Are we as complex as we imagine?

I think I see where you’re going now. Personally, I’m working towards a third option that incorporates both processes. It involves looking at it the other way around: a theory that natural selection evolved from creativity/intelligence.

Darwin’s theory, for me, is not a motivating but a limiting process on a more fundamental creative impetus that exists beyond space, time, value or meaning. It only requires a vague awareness of interaction to begin. But it’s language that limits our capacity to approach a shared understanding of this more than anything. — Possibility

Which is easier, evolving creativity or creating evolution?

At present the arrow of truth seems to be pointing toward the former, evolving creativity. The surest evidence I can think of is us - evolved creative beings who have difficulty creating evolution.

So I'm inclined not to believe your statement that:

It involves looking at it the other way around: a theory that natural selection evolved from creativity/intelligence — Possibility

Just wondering what ‘against all odds’ might mean here. Is there some objective truth to the idea of us being creative and intelligent humans? More than most animals, but more than whatever produced us? If we’ve failed to produce anything ‘that approaches such complexity’ then we're less than what produced us. Are we as complex as we imagine? — Brett

All I'm saying is that the simple fact that humans, endowed with intelligence + creativity which you'll agree are advantages when it comes to creating something, haven't managed to create evolution and all this while chemistry, with nothing more than chance, has produced life and humana. Isn't it at least ironic that intelligence can't compete with chance in the creativity department? Of course if we examine the situation carefully, random chance uses a brute force technique that surpasses any intelligence through sheer numbers.

Brute force and numbers. What a combination.

Which is easier, evolving creativity or creating evolution?

At present the arrow of truth seems to be pointing toward the former, evolving creativity. The surest evidence I can think of is us - evolved creative beings who have difficulty creating evolution. — TheMadFool

I think you might be limiting your thinking here by looking at it as either/or. We are evolved beings who are most aware of the underlying creative impetus in the universe. The ‘creativity’ I have is simply a capacity to be aware of, connect to and collaborate with unrealised capacity to be aware of, connect to and collaborate with unrealised capacity, etc.

Evolution, at base, IS this creative impetus. ‘Natural selection’ impacts only on life: those systems that are open to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration beyond a vague awareness of that, there and then. But the process is actually more fundamental. It is a limiting process defined by its opposition to this creative impetus in each interaction: by ignorance, isolation and exclusion. At a more fundamental level, this negation defines the periodic table, the planets, etc. But at the level of life, it defines the diversity of that life, setting limitations on what survives.

humans when engaged in creative acts can never produce something more complex than humans themselves? — TheMadFool

This what you stated and called as obvious, is actually a false sentence and a false proposition. Humans have created much more complex things than humans themselves are.

Examples: hydroelectric dams, car factories, space research tools, aviation systems.

Your first and foremost premise is false.

This what you stated and called as obvious, is actually a false sentence and a false proposition. Humans have created much more complex things than humans themselves are.

Examples: hydroelectric dams, car factories, space research tools, aviation systems.

Your first and foremost premise is false. — god must be atheist

In what way are these, I think, machines, more complex than humans?

Brute force and numbers. What a combination. — Brett

Yes.

There's nothing complex about that. But look what came out of it.

Humans have created much more complex things than humans themselves are. — god must be atheist

Examples: hydroelectric dams, car factories, space research tools, aviation systems.[/quote]

They don't look like very good examples to me for obvious reasons.

I think you might be limiting your thinking here by looking at it as either/or. We are evolved beings who are most aware of the underlying creative impetus in the universe. The ‘creativity’ I have is simply a capacity to be aware of, connect to and collaborate with unrealised capacity to be aware of, connect to and collaborate with unrealised capacity, etc.

Evolution, at base, IS this creative impetus. ‘Natural selection’ impacts only on life: those systems that are open to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration beyond a vague awareness of that, there and then. But the process is actually more fundamental. It is a limiting process defined by its opposition to this creative impetus in each interaction: by ignorance, isolation and exclusion. At a more fundamental level, this negation defines the periodic table, the planets, etc. But at the level of life, it defines the diversity of that life, setting limitations on what survives. — Possibility

An interesting point of view to consider creativity as a limitation. In my humble opinion creativity is about stepping beyond limits.

There's nothing complex about that. But look what came out of it. — Brett

Yes, I know. Computers win at chess games not because they're intelligent but because they can find checkmates through brute force techniques. This raises the question, "Is having the capability to spit out an extremely large number of possibilities not intelligence?"

Are you suggesting that a barrage of possibilities is just brute force?

Are you suggesting that a barrage of possibilities is just brute force? — Brett

Yes.

That’s very interesting. I’d agree with that. So where would that leave intelligence? Or do we think, or mistakingly believe, that the outcome of the barrage of possibilities is the result of intelligence? And I’m sure there’s a reason for that given our grasp of things.

If this idea that simplicity evolves into complexity is true then what explains the quite obvious fact that humans when engaged in creative acts can never produce something more complex than humans themselves? — TheMadFool

From this I’m guessing that you mean each evolving stage should be more complex than the last. That the next step makes the previous look simple. But it occurred to me that this could only happen once, simplicity then complexity, then that thing is set in motion. There is no more complexity for us or from us.

New York City? Civilization? Liverpool FC? Surely anything that is made up of humans is more complex than just humans? — ZhouBoTong

Why is this so? In what way is society more complex than humans?

For example, society must be more complicated than people as it is made of people (same for a government, a business, a sports team, etc), but I doubt you find that very convincing...? — ZhouBoTong

ZhouBoTong

New York City? Civilization? Liverpool FC? Surely anything that is made up of humans is more complex than just humans?
— ZhouBoTong

Why is this so? In what way is society more complex than humans? — Brett

Unfortunately, although I'd love to believe it, social entities, despite appearing distinct from the individual, is still structured around the basic body plan of an animal, the head being the most visible of all body-parts in social entities e.g. president, prime minister, king, emperor, etc. If social entities were more complex than humans then we'd see something like consciousness in it - a true complexity.

An interesting point of view to consider creativity as a limitation. In my humble opinion creativity is about stepping beyond limits. — TheMadFool

I think you misunderstand me, here. I agree with you that creativity is the capacity and courage to step beyond limits, to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. What I meant here by ‘evolution’ IS the underlying process of creativity - but NOT Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

‘Natural selection’ is an evolutionary theory, but in my view it is not evolution. Rather, it provides a key limiting factor to the diversity of life that evolves from an underlying creative impetus. What has been termed ‘natural selection’ is not actually a process of selection: it is an explanation of how elements of the universe ignore, isolate and exclude each other - and the NEGATIVE impact this has on diversity.

The creative process is often understood as the making of specifically useful products - but creativity is broader and more fundamental than that. It is an interaction with potential, where one increases awareness, connection and collaboration with what can be made. The ‘specifically useful’ factor is a limitation imposed on creativity during the creative process, as is the availability of material, tools, etc.

What has been termed ‘natural selection’ is not actually a process of selection: it is an explanation of how elements of the universe ignore, isolate and exclude each other - and the NEGATIVE impact this has on diversity. — Possibility

What do you mean by ‘negative impact’?

Just wondering what ‘against all odds’ might mean here. Is there some objective truth to the idea of us being creative and intelligent humans? More than most animals, but more than whatever produced us? If we’ve failed to produce anything ‘that approaches such complexity’ then we're less than what produced us. Are we as complex as we imagine? — Brett

All I'm saying is that the simple fact that humans, endowed with intelligence + creativity which you'll agree are advantages when it comes to creating something, haven't managed to create evolution and all this while chemistry, with nothing more than chance, has produced life and humana. Isn't it at least ironic that intelligence can't compete with chance in the creativity department? Of course if we examine the situation carefully, random chance uses a brute force technique that surpasses any intelligence through sheer numbers. — TheMadFool

This is interesting, because I don’t agree that chemistry has done the creating here. This is what I mean by the difference between creating and evolving. Chemistry has evolved, but it didn’t create - not by itself, anyway.