Random thoughts regarding how matter can create complexities

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

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?

Edited May 8, 2017 by Knowledge Enthusiast

[swansont]

Why do you cite a "need" for increasing complexity? Wy are you insisting that complexity comes about by random chance?

[Phi for All]

Why is life a form of balance for "turbulent earth"? Life is actually much more efficient at using light from the sun than non-life is, so it really doesn't balance anything.

 

Why is thinking a form of balance for instincts? Again, intelligence seems to be a property that's been evolved from instincts, a more efficient form rather than some kind of balancing influence.

 

Actually, many natural reactions couldn't happen without an imbalance.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

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.

[Phi for All]

Why would life just spontaneously appear out of nowhere?

 

Because life is better at using energy from the sun, and can develop and repeat and improve and refine processes that non-life can't. I also think you're confusing yourself with the idea of "appear out of nowhere". Appear? Nowhere? Not the words I would use to describe any of the situations present in a young Earth.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

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.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Knowledge Enthusiast

[Phi for All]

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 think you're trying to force some importance on balance it may not have.

 

You'd have to explain why you think evolution relies on imbalance. What we observe is that it relies more on selecting advantageous adaptations over time within a population.

 

Also, because of the way chemistry works, your comments about complexity are wrong. "Forces bring balance in times of imbalance" is simplistic to the point of meaninglessness, yet you seem to be using like an axiom. Your knowledge seems full of holes to be speculating based on it.

 

There is balance in having oxygen around flammable carbon in wood, and balance in the resulting chemistry of fire when heat is added. But there are imbalances as well, and the same forces that can create a complex life form also dictate when simplicity is best. Unfortunately, your concept of balance assumes one thing is equal to another in terms of balance, which is hardly supported and seems more like wishful thinking as opposed to reasoned speculation.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

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?

[Mordred]

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?

Ease of survivability. Evolution change is only sucessful if it leads to greater survivability. However not all evolution changes are beneficial.

 

If I recall correctly wisdom teeth is a good example its an evolutionary change that causes problems rather than giving greater survivability.

 

With regards to the this thread this is one example of change that doesn't involve environmental change.

 

Change occurs naturally regardless of the environment. It is natural selection (survivability that decides which changes stick around through reproduction)

Edited May 9, 2017 by Mordred

[Laughablestuff]

We can't even prove what gravity is....

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

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.

[swansont]

Why must living creatures have a purpose to survive and leave offspring?

 

Why indeed? I don't see anyone offering up this as a given, except you. As with my earlier questions, you seem to be taking certain things to be true, without any support for those positions.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

 

Why indeed? I don't see anyone offering up this as a given, except you. As with my earlier questions, you seem to be taking certain things to be true, without any support for those p

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.

[Phi for All]

What is the purpose of evolution but to balance out sudden shortcomings due to changes in the environment?

 

Sudden shortcomings? That's not how it's usually viewed. Evolution selects for advantages over time, things that make a species more successful at surviving to procreate.

 

The species of squirrel that would eventually lead to flying squirrels didn't have a shortcoming that needed balance. It gained an advantage slowly over time that gave it better odds at escaping predators and competing for food. There's really no "balance" there unless you either push or stretch the definition to fit your concept.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

 

Sudden shortcomings? That's not how it's usually viewed. Evolution selects for advantages over time, things that make a species more successful at surviving to procreate.

 

The species of squirrel that would eventually lead to flying squirrels didn't have a shortcoming that needed balance. It gained an advantage slowly over time that gave it better odds at escaping predators and competing for food. There's really no "balance" there unless you either push or stretch the definition to fit your concept.

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

 

You should be backing up your claims with some evidence. Otherwise no, it's not sound at all.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

 

 

You should be backing up your claims with some evidence. Otherwise no, it's not sound at

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

 

You were claiming it was sound, just one post further back.

 

The thing is that when you ask "Why must living creatures have a purpose to survive and leave offspring?" you are implying that this is true but without having provided any support for it. You can't proceed to reason as if it were true.

 

Being interesting and original is great for cocktail parties, but for science it's a matter of what models accurately describe nature. These models are often interesting and original, but that's not the metric by which we measure them.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

 

 

You were claiming it was sound, just one post further back.

 

The thing is that when you ask "Why must living creatures have a purpose to survive and leave offspring?" you are implying that this is true but without having provided any support for it. You can't proceed to reason as if it were true.

 

Being interesting and original is great for cocktail parties, but for science it's a matter of what models accurately describe nature. These models are often interesting and original, but that's not the metric by which we measure them.

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?

Edited May 9, 2017 by Knowledge Enthusiast

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

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.

[Phi for All]

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.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors guessing about evolution. It's one of the most evidenced theories we've ever had, and with all the empirical observations available, if something as simple as "balance" was a generalized effect it would be heavily noted, and it isn't.

 

If it helps, stop thinking in terms of balance and start thinking equilibrium. Equilibrium isn't a goal so much as a standoff. If you think of walking only in terms of balance, you'd never move. Establishing equilibrium between balance and off-balance is how walking works, and many other things as well.

 

But even equilibrium isn't appropriate for the way you're discussing evolution. When traits are selected for, they don't necessarily reflect environmental changes, nor do they have to balance anything else, or even achieve some sort of equilibrium. The only thing that matters is that a trait improves the ability to survive until those genetic markers are passed on. The environment isn't a "balancing force" determining which species survive, since it's undirected and entirely capricious. A cold-snap that wipes out a population doesn't do so to balance available resources, or "prevent life from spiralling out of control" (there is ample evidence that animal populations have spiralled out of control before, and it's not the environment that stops or controls it).

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

 

I'm sorry, but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors guessing about evolution. It's one of the most evidenced theories we've ever had, and with all the empirical observations available, if something as simple as "balance" was a generalized effect it would be heavily noted, and it isn't.

 

If it helps, stop thinking in terms of balance and start thinking equilibrium. Equilibrium isn't a goal so much as a standoff. If you think of walking only in terms of balance, you'd never move. Establishing equilibrium between balance and off-balance is how walking works, and many other things as well.

 

But even equilibrium isn't appropriate for the way you're discussing evolution. When traits are selected for, they don't necessarily reflect environmental changes, nor do they have to balance anything else, or even achieve some sort of equilibrium. The only thing that matters is that a trait improves the ability to survive until those genetic markers are passed on. The environment isn't a "balancing force" determining which species survive, since it's undirected and entirely capricious. A cold-snap that wipes out a population doesn't do so to balance available resources, or "prevent life from spiralling out of control" (there is ample evidence that animal populations have spiralled out of control before, and it's not the environment that stops or controls it).

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.

[Phi for All]

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.

I still fail to see the benefit of viewing complexity in terms of balance/imbalance. Aren't you simply saying that without an imbalance in the matter/antimatter ratio, we wouldn't exist?

 

Though I haven’t properly defined what I mean by imbalance.

Or "complexity", or "initial". It would be so much better if you used accepted definitions instead of interpreting what you think they should mean wrt your idea.

 

Evolution and life is very complicated and may not fit in to my idea.

Who knew, right?

[Itoero]

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 havent 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 like how you relate complexity to imbalance. You might describe evolution to be an imbalance that strives towards balance.

Striving towards balance is I think what causes evolution..(including chemical evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution )

Edited May 10, 2017 by Itoero

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

I like how you relate complexity to imbalance. You might describe evolution to be an imbalance that strives towards balance.

Striving towards balance is I think what causes evolution..(including chemical evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution )

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 still fail to see the benefit of viewing complexity in terms of balance/imbalance. Aren't you simply saying that without an imbalance in the matter/antimatter ratio, we wouldn't exist?

 

Or "complexity", or "initial". It would be so much better if you used accepted definitions instead of interpreting what you think they should mean wrt your idea.

Who knew, right?

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.