Knowledge Enthusiast

Well, there must be at least one innate and eternal property that the universe has because even if one is as skeptical as Descartes, the ability to think means that there is something rather than nothing, and something cannot spontaneous appear out of nothing if nothing doesn't have at least one innate and eternal property.

According to the law of conservation of energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. If that is so, then how is it the case that there is energy in the universe? Is the reason because the big bang led to the creation of an imbalanced amount matter and anti-matter that annihilated until there was only matter left in the universe? According to Einstein, anything with mass curves space creating a force we describe as gravity. Gravitational force creates potential energy that transforms into kinetic energy until equilibrium is reached. Therefore, the curvature of space caused by the mass of particles is fuelling the universe with energy. Can anyone tell me what I am missing or misunderstanding? I only have a college level physics and mathematics background.

Right. Finally someone who agrees that I may be on to something. My idea is not a huge paradigm shift in any way and I lack in-depth knowledge about all natural systems to claim comprehensive understanding about the imbalances and balancing forces in all natural system but I feel my idea explains complexity in a way that is original and logical. I feel my idea is an improvement of current understanding which states that goldilocks conditions are the reason for greater complexity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History Saying that conditions must be just right is more general and vague than saying that there must be an imbalance and balancing forces. I'm saying that if there is no imbalance in the number of matter and anti-matter, we will not be having atoms and planets which are things that are of greater complexity.

I know this much, imbalance creates complexities and complex natural systems are imbalanced allowing for even more complexities. The initial imbalance is the big bang and the subsequent imbalance is the amount for matter and anti-matter in the universe. Though I haven’t properly defined what I mean by imbalance. Evolution and life is very complicated and may not fit in to my idea. Still working on it.

I just realized that throughout the discussion of my idea, I have made one glaring contradiction, which is to state that the purpose of evolution is to balance out sudden shortcomings due to changes in the environment and proceed to state that there is no purpose to evolution. To clarify, natural systems do not have purposes because it came about through natural phenomenon. My argument is that all these natural phenomena have something in common which is they all started in an imbalanced state and with the help of balancing forces, they became a self-sustaining system. Evolution occurs because DNA is imbalanced and creates a large diversity of organisms but not all different types of organisms survive because the environment cannot support all types of organisms and so the environment is the balancing force determining which organisms survive. Therefore, complex ecosystems are present because the environment, involving other organisms, prevent life from spiraling out of control. Hope that clarifies things. Fitting evolution into my idea is complicated and I needed a clear head.

Ridiculous questions to ask and bordering on being racist. The differences between races are so minuscule. How many smart kids a race might conceive is random and tests for intelligence do not determine if an individual will end up successful.

Why would you speculate on something so complex and deep with theory? You haven't made an observation, you didn't offer an explanation and there is no prediction.

I said "Sound as speculations go" and not sound scientifically but I should have made that part more clear. My position is that there is no purpose to evolution. I was just stating what I believed was popular understanding. How is my idea far more different than Darwin's theory of evolution? I made observations, came up with an explanation for those observations and made a prediction. I'm not saying my idea is of equal merit to Darwin's theory but the process is similar, isn't it?

I am not claiming that it is sound, I'm claiming that it is interesting and original. Specific citations are difficult to find for things as general as mine but I'm giving logical arguments coupled with some thought experiments, so it isn't really something that deserves to be in the bin, if that is what you are implying.

Normal squirrels appeared because it could take advantage of the environment, I don't know if the older version squirrel died off because it could not compete with the normal squirrel but that is irrelevant. The normal squirrel now despite being able to take advantage of its environment evolves into a flying squirrel and the flying squirrel survives because it's able to take advantage of its environment equally well, but this time the normal squirrel did not die off because it could still compete with the flying squirrel. Both the normal and flying squirrel are able to survive because the environment had the necessary resources and few enough predators. Now let's say there are a lot of land predators and the resources were scarce, the normal squirrel would die off but there is still a flying squirrel giving the illusion of advantage building, when the flying squirrel just lucked out that the ability to fly did not impeded its ability to survive. The system now in question is the food chain. An extinct species would mean less food, which causes imbalance, allowing a different species to thrive. If genetic mutations did not occur, there is no complexity because there is no different species that can thrive and so less and less food is in the food chain till we have a simple food chain. Therefore, genetic mutations keep the food chain in balance.

Ok, I agree. It's a speculative explanation for why matter is able to organize in complex ways but it explains past observations and makes the prediction that in absence of natural imbalances, natural systems will not become more complex. Pretty sound as speculations go don't you think? I feel it deserves at least 2 stars. The comment section makes my argument seem like a crackpot theory.

Why must living creatures have a purpose to survive and leave offspring? Other natural systems are able to survive millions of years and we don’t attribute that to a purpose to survive and leave offspring. My view is because environments change all the time, things that survive are things that have balancing forces such as DNA that can mutate. The reason for complexity is therefore due to chronic imbalance in complex systems being acted on by balancing forces. I know balancing force is a vague term but the law of physics allows for matter and energy to seek balance, it does not however explain a natural predisposition to survival. Survival is coincidental; complexity is because the universe is highly imbalanced and there are natural forces that seek balance. I am making a long argument because it is excruciating to wait before one can reply and having the last reply being laughablestuff feels like a great insult but I understand that my arguments were not of high quality as I was impulsive and not letting myself go through everything before commenting. There are many examples of greater complexity arising out of imbalance because natural system don’t get complex on its own or as I’ve said “have a need for increasing complexity”, the only thing that the universe does on its own is create imbalance and seek balance. I would like to hear counter-arguments if there are any, I have found the questions to be interesting.

I voluntarily put this in under speculations becaause I know there are holes but it's an interesting thought don't you think? What is the purpose of evolution but to balance out sudden shortcomings due to changes in the environment?

For evolution to occur, there must be an imbalance in the environment. For life to exist, earth needed to be in a state of imbalance. For there to be stars, there must be areas where there are more rocks than in other area. Forces turned these imbalances into working natural systems. Therefore, complexity arises because forces bring balance in times of imbalance. Everything else is speculation.

I'm just saying if there is no imbalance, there will be no pressure for more complexities to form. Why would life just spontaneously appear out of nowhere? The title was written without much thought, it just confuses the reader and myself.

I think people who feel grateful and are very content with how well things have gone in their lives will generally give more. However, as Trump has illustrated, America is generally angry with what is going on so maybe it is because Americans generally want to be liked by other countries?

Every complex natural system has a self-checking mechanism. The solar system is in balance because of gravity, the earth has trees, a water cycle and an atmosphere, living creatures all have regulatory systems. What if life started forming to create balance on turbulent earth and living creatures developed consciousness and the ability to think to keep their instincts in balance? It could be argued that in order to have a complex system, there needs to be some sort of balancing agent and so through random chance complex systems form and survive because the conditions were right but it does not explain the need for increasing complexity. What if imbalance followed by the right balancing forces is the reason for complexity and not random chance?