How dense of you. The chemical reactions in both cases are way more complex than the results.
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. How are you measuring the change in complexity? Or are you just making an assumption>
When somebody has found a way to track all the electrons, protons, and neutrons in a chemical action, plus all the energies involved in the reaction, you might get the answer to your question. Nobody tracks it. We can't, although we might track a little of it sometime. Just because we have figured out how it works, doesn't mean that we can track the parts as they are doing their thing.
So, In summary:
Either the examples I gave -- Copper sulphate solution precipitates copper sulphate crystals and wood burning to create smoke -- have the following unmeasureable pathways:
Complex material -> Complex reaction -> Simple material or;
Simple material -> Complex reaction -> Complex material
So using your explanation, in at least one of the cases something complex comes from something simple.
Didn't I say something about measuring all the particles and energies? Ah, yes, I did. But I also meant measuring their every relationship to each other. If you attempt to do this, you will find that the energies, the particles, their conversions molecularly, their relational positions, inside the conversion process, are way more complex than the end result that they produce.
Attempts to make measurements like this have been attempted for years using microcalorimetric functions. But it still is way beyond our reach because of the complexity involved.
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to test it, because you state that this concept of complexity is (as yet) unmeasurable. Unless you meant the "calorific measurements"? Measurement of heat is not measurement of complexity.
Do you have any other suggested measures of complexity that actually *do* exist?
Which is more complex, ice or water?
