Brian King of Trolls

Lol alright Let me tell you something swansont, before you close the thread for no reason. You are one of the worst thinkers I've encountered. I've seen you're pretty active on this forum, but all your comments are basically condemning threads for arbitrary reasons which justifies you closing them. You rarely, if ever, offer any intelligent or creative thoughts to a discussion. You seem to enjoy wielding your mod power more than having proper scientific discourse. Shameful. Scienceforums.net would be a better place without you, sadly. You have no idea how to moderate, and thus the forum suffers from your incompetence. Thanks for nothing dork I have quoted the necessary passages, and have also written my own definition and explanation of energy rate density as the complexity metric. Multiple times. I was asked for a source. I presented a source. Then I'm told I can't rely on the source for my definitions. What? As far as your above description, that is simply one perspective if the universe. Another scientifically valid perspective is complexification, which is easily observed, has been defined many times and a metric for measuring it given. You even doubted that one of the excerpts was even from the cited article! What the fuck bro, am I lying or something. You could've confirmed it in 2 seconds, but you couldn't even do that much.

I did, if you read my previous responses to swansont. I defined complexity and offered a metric, which is Chaisson's energy rate density.

Read the linked article, which answers all your questions. At least read enough to properly understand energy rate density. Right now, you are completely lost on these concepts. Here is a helpful excerpt: To characterize complexity objectively, that is, to normalize all such structured systems in precisely the same way, a kind of energy density is judged most useful. Moreover, it is the rate at which (free) energy transits complex systems of given mass that seems especially constructive (as has long been realized for ecosystems [50, 60, 61]), thereby delineating energy flow. Hence, “energy rate density” (also termed power density), symbolized by Φm, is a useful operational term whose expressed intent and plain units are easily understood; indeed, whose definition is clear, the amount of energy passing through a system per unit time and per unit mass. In this way, neither new science nor mystical appeals to nonscience are needed to explain the impressive hierarchy of complex systems in the cosmic-evolutionary narrative, from quarks to quasars and from microbes to minds. If at this point, you still don't understand the definition and the metric, the subject might be too difficult for you.

I believe the following offers both a definition and a method of measurement: Complexification is an established fact. what is not is how to measure it. The article offers the concept of energy rate density, the amount of energy that flows per unit time and per unit mass. I find this measurement system acceptable. As far as defining complexity itself, that's very simple. In the beginning there were no atoms, just elementary particles. Then came atoms, then molecules, then life, human beings, then culture/technology. This is the complexification we speak of.

The quote was called into question, as well as the content called "misguided". In response, I clarified that it indeed was a single quote, and from someone who is certainly a credible source on this subject. And we are having the scientific discussion right now haha. Which is going well I think. Complexification is an established fact. what is not is how to measure it. The article offers the concept of energy rate density, the amount of energy that flows per unit time and per unit mass. I find this measurement system acceptable. As far as defining complexity itself, that's very simple. In the beginning there were no atoms, just elementary particles. Then came atoms, then molecules, then life, human beings, then culture/technology. This is the complexification we speak of.

This is not a troll. It is a sincere question that apparently is beyond your comprehension. My definitions are the same as Mr. Chaisson's, and his work is heavily sourced with 50+ citations. The only original contention I have is there is purpose to the universe, which I acknowledge Mr. Chaisson does not support. However, this has been a question in science/natural philosophy for thousands of years, therefore it is a valid pursuit.

My question is the title of the OP: Is the human imagination -- and beyond -- the goal of evolution? The question is based on the fact that nature complexifies through time, and it ascends into higher dimensions of expression and experience. From cosmic, to biological, to cultural/psychological/imaginational. The article establishes these as scientific facts. My assertion goes further than the articles, claiming the creation of the human imagination, and other phenomena like it, is the purpose of the universe. This is because complexification is a fundamental movement of the universe, since the Bang itself. Therefore, the most complex object at any given moment is the center of the cosmic manifestation. This complex object is the human mind and the imagination contained therein.

The previous quote is a section from the article The Natural Science Underlying Big History, written by Eric J. Chaisson. His credentials are as follows: Chaisson graduated in physics from University of Massachusetts Lowell in 1968 and earned his PhD at Harvard in 1972. He has held professorial appointments at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Space Telescope Science Institute, and Tufts University, where he was for 20 years director of the Wright Center for Science Education while holding research professorships in the department of physics and in the school of education. He is now back at the Harvard College Observatory and also serves with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard, where he teaches an annual undergraduate course on the subject of cosmic evolution that synthesizes the essence of astrophysics and biochemistry. Chaisson has published nearly 200 papers in professional journals and written a dozen books, several of which have won awards, such as the B.J. Bok Prize[1] (Harvard) for astronomical discoveries, the Smith-Weld Prize (Harvard) for literary merit, and the Kistler Award for increasing understanding of subjects shaping the future of humanity. He has also won scholarly prizes from Phi Beta Kappa and the American Institute of Physics, a Certificate of Merit from NASA for work on the Hubble Space Telescope, as well as fellowships from the Sloan Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences. you called this man's work "misguided". Haha certainly not. Read the article, and if you can comprehend it, it answers all your questions.

Great questions. This section of the previously linked article addresses these concerns, (and obviously you can read the article itself for more info: Recent research, guided by huge new databases detailing a multitude of complex systems, offers rational answers to some of the above questions. Growing order within “islands” of complexity such as galaxies, stars, planets, life, and society is outpaced by great “seas” of increasing disorder elsewhere in the environments beyond those systems. All such complex systems quantitatively obey the valued precepts of modern thermodynamics, especially frontier nonequilibrium thermodynamics. None of Nature’s organized structures, not even life itself, is a violation (nor even a circumvention) of the celebrated 2nd law of thermodynamics. Both order and entropy can increase together, the former locally (in systems) and the latter globally (in surrounding environments). Thus, we arrive at a central question lurking in the minds of some of today’s eclectic thinkers (e.g., see [26–30]). Might there be a kind of essential Platonism at work in the Universe—a general principle, a unifying law, or perhaps a surprisingly simple process that naturally creates, organizes, and maintains the form and function of complex systems everywhere?

I agree, he doesn't support my telelogical proposition. What the article illustrates is that the study of complexity and cosmic evolution are serious scientific fields. So although the OP is avant garde and somewhat inappropriately mystical, it is nonetheless a valid question.

This question is the central pursuit of both orthogenesis and teleology. These were the fields of the past, now re-emergent and represented by the new fields of big history and cosmic evolution. The link below is a great article written by Harvard astrophysicist Eric Chaisson concerning the subject: "In turn, we can learn a great deal about cosmic evolution in general by studying the principal complexifying stages and its underlying processes that created us in particular." https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/384912/ I believe this justifies the existense of the thread. To be fair, I discovered this article just now, while searching for scientific support of my idea. I didn't know such a trove of information concerning The Complexifier existed! I guess I don't need you guys anymore haha jk

How can you be sure? Biology is an miraculous array of creativity and complexity, how can we know anything definitive about it?

Isn't the quantum realm a strange place to look for answers about free will? The mind is a better place. Quanta is so small, it is so distant from significant human experience. It's like looking in the trash for the moon.

Lol considering WE are a product of nature, anthropomorphization is not only inevitable, it already happened.

A crazy question. This is the idea: Nature complexifies itself through time, and at an accelerating rate. This complexification is the fundamental evolution of reality. This evolution also ascends into higher dimensions of experience/expression as time rolls on, meaning: First, it expresses itself as the evolution of space and cosmic matter: stars, galaxies, planets. Next, through biology: the self-evolution of a physical body, and a higher dimension of experience. This Complexifier is always going faster. Its evolution is toward the form or dimension in which it can change the fastest: from space, into biology, and now through intelligence and imagination, the most free and liquid dimension in the universe. This implies that mankind, expressing itself using his/her mind and imagination -- and making imagined things into 3-dimensional objects -- is somehow the purpose of biology; the purpose of the universe itself.