Theory of complexity

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

So what would be a better way to describe how complexity builds?

Edited May 15, 2017 by Knowledge Enthusiast

[Lord Antares]

Whether there is a better way to describe it or not is irrelevant if what you are trying to say doesn't mean anything to physics.

[Mordred]

Well as this is in philosophy how about complexity of choice? Though mathematically this can also be broken down to degrees of freedom. ( Boolean logic per example,) not all forms of complexity is physics based.

 

Though mathematics is universal lol. Choices and decision making is added complexity without being based on the amount of mass nor energy (mass being part of your degrees of freedom) energy the ability to perform any degree of freedom.

 

Energy is a given requirement.

 

So mass /energy cannot define complexity these are just factors. Same on degrees of freedom, other factors include chemical reaction, (energy is usually replaced with temperature on global average),

 

Mathematically its feasible to reduce chemical reactions to degrees of freedom but I'm no chemist.

 

For choices ie decisions it also can be reduced to degrees of freedom. ie Yes no being two degrees.

 

The other consideration is degrees of freedom doesn't describe structure. Matter tends to be more orderly than a gas. etc.

 

Complexity covers a wide range of factors we can mathematically reduce and describe it though. The degrees of freedom covering a large portion.

 

Recall the above on mathematics modelling complexity. Here is a 865 page article covering just this

 

"Dynamics of complex systems"

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://fernandonogueiracosta.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/yaneer-bar-yam-dynamics-of-complex-systems.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjKh6zsv_PTAhUOS2MKHdvUAikQFggxMAQ&usg=AFQjCNG1tdJqxohINLSqEoM88orAfOJt8A&sig2=08TMx3bZ9J1Q07GNT-ZgoA

Edited May 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Itoero]

This might be a nice definition:

Complexity concerns order, patterns, and structure which appear in complex, apparently chaotic systems.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/complexity.html

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

Below is a further elaboration of what I posted regarding my theory of complexity
Imbalance and the theory of complexity
What is sustainable development if we do not understand the universe? Why is it about reality that has both given so much to us and also presented us with a difficult problem to solve? Well, for me the answer is in what I call imbalance and my general theory of evolution, which I call the theory of complexity. Why imbalance? Well, because we haven’t unified physics with absolute certainty to say we can unify everything in the whole universe in something more fundamental, or to put in a different way, we don’t know what the singularity the whole universe came out for looks like with absolute certainty but of course, for the purposes of the theory of complexity or the general theory of evolution, that is not necessary. Imbalance to be is just an increase in concentration in mass and energy. The universe according to experts has a total energy of zero because they proved that the universe is flat. The mass and energy came from the singularity but I already mentioned, we don’t know what the singularity looks like but we know we suddenly had mass and energy and they spread out after the big bang. The second law of thermodynamics says we move from ordered states to disordered states but it does not actually define which states are better or worse, which is understandable but we can define that states with a higher concentration are more complex than states with a lower concentration of mass and energy. Of course, it may lose the concentration but if the concentration gets held together by forces like gravity and the strong nuclear force, then complexity can keep increasing and increasing and at some point you get life, which ultimately has dna, which is the key factor that leads to the characteristics of the life in question and with time the characteristics we see change because dna also changes, it can lose and gain complexity in many different ways but the common factor is still dna and that it can gain and lose complexity in many different ways. The implications of my theory of complexity is that life is very complex because dna is very complex and that the dna is now understood to be capable of being manipulated to be more of less complex in many different ways. Of course, what about the implications of my theory on something like climate change? It can explain climate change also. The total energy of the universe is zero but the earth has positive net energy from the sun. The sun bombards the earth with energy, plants absorb the energy through photosynthesis and animals and humans can eat the plants. In the past, we had plenty of plants and plenty of animals eating the plants that have lived and died. And their corpses sometimes get preserved as fossil fuels. With the stored energy of the fossil fuels, we can do a lot of work but unleashing the potential energy of fossil fuels but one of a few bad byproducts of unleashing the energy is carbon dioxide which gets trapped in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is not the only bad byproduct, all the bad byproducts together we call greenhouse gases. Since I am going to unify everything in a single framework, I shall go on a slight detour to address something that has popped up and that will be explained further later. That topic is the morality involved in our primal need to eat. I address this topic using Kant’s philosophy which to be boils down to if it is ok for you, it is ok for me also. Animals may never understand us and so we cannot save them from their desires by getting them to understand and so what we allow them to do, we can do also. Our intelligence should not mean that we forsake our mission for progress to give animals that will never understand progress the power to have everything they want at our expense. That is the gist of my view on veganism but more on that later. I also feel the need to address capitalism and the view that it is greedy. I agree that it is greedy and that needs to change to something better. My view is that we do not just need more and more. More and more is never satisfactory. More and more is largely driven by dopamine and it knows no end. Very high levels of dopamine can be found in drugs and users of drugs often suffer and require rehabilitation so how is more and more dopamine progress? What we really need is meaning. Meaning in life is what will allow us to rest satisfactorily and also I argue give us the strength to face death, which no human at present can be saved from and will eventually have to face. I do not claim to know what is meaningful for everyone, everyone can decide for themselves but if people have meaning, they may not need as much, they just need enough to find meaning and then they can rest, hopefully live a long life and have strength to face death. The US is the king of capitalism and they do have many problems related to greed but it is hard to say they do not understand humanity because life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are what almost everyone wants, and to respect what people generally want, is respecting humanity. We can’t just give people everything they want, people’s ambitions can know no bounds, and their greed can know no bounds but we can still give them the ability to pursue their happiness and hopefully, the pursuit of happiness is enough. Sometimes the pursuit of happiness can be more meaningful than achieving the goal anyway, which is why in my unified theory that I will be talking about later, I only mention meaning and not material goods or fame as part of achieving progress because as argued above, dopamine may not be what people are after anyway, what they really want is meaning. Dopamine may give you a high and a high once in a while is perfectly fine but can you say progress is just more fun and excitement? Of course fame and money is a good insurance policy for the unpredictable nature of reality but meaning to me is more central to progress.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

Below is a further elaboration of what I posted regarding my theory of complexity

Your thoughts were not a theory 6 years ago and are still not a theory today.  Yelling does not make an idea a theory either.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

@BufofrogI did not yell. I just shared.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

@BufofrogI did not yell. I just shared.

Bold and ALLCAPS are used fr emphasis. When all of the text is presented that way, it’s considered yelling.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

@swansontI always look forward to a comment from you. You embody the scientist spirit very well. Break and doubt till you cannot break and doubt no more. That is how we get to the truth according to Karl Popper.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

Rewritten Theory of Complexity 

Introduction

The universe is a vast and intricate system governed by principles that shape its complexity. By examining the fundamental laws of physics and integrating philosophical insights, we can propose a theory of complexity that explains how complex natural systems evolve and persist.

Foundation in Physics

The laws of conservation of mass and energy state that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence further demonstrates the interrelatedness of mass and energy, suggesting that they are two forms of the same fundamental essence. In this framework, complex natural systems are concentrations of mass and energy, maintained by balancing forces such as gravity and the nuclear strong force.

Defining Complexity

Complexity can be understood as an increase in the concentration of mass and energy. Balancing forces are essential for maintaining these concentrations, preventing them from dissipating into less ordered states. The universe's tendency to form complex structures is driven by these forces working to sustain concentrations against the backdrop of entropy.

Role of Imbalance

A central tenet of the Theory of Complexity is the concept of "chronic imbalance." Unlike equilibrium, where systems remain static, imbalance allows for the continuous transformation and emergence of new forms. This imbalance is not a defect but an innate property of the universe that drives the creation of complexity. It provides the dynamism needed for systems to evolve from simple to more complex configurations.

Philosophical Insights

Philosophical ideas, such as Descartes' emphasis on the existence of something rather than nothing, reinforce the notion that the universe is an active, evolving system. The existence of mass and energy suggests that there is always "something" rather than a void, allowing complexity to develop over time.

Evolution and Biological Complexity

In biological systems, complexity is exemplified by DNA, a highly concentrated form of mass and energy that encodes the potential for life's diversity. DNA evolves through mutations and natural selection, allowing life to adapt and thrive in changing environments. This process mirrors the broader principle of increasing complexity through balancing forces that sustain and refine these biological systems.

Implications for Climate Change

The theory can be applied to contemporary issues like climate change. The Earth receives energy from the sun, driving ecological and atmospheric processes. Human activities, particularly the use of fossil fuels, have altered the balance of greenhouse gases, affecting the planet's energy concentration. Understanding these dynamics through the lens of complexity can guide efforts to restore balance and mitigate adverse effects.

Philosophical and Social Considerations

The pursuit of complexity extends beyond physical and biological systems to human society. While capitalism often emphasizes material accumulation, true progress lies in seeking meaning and balance. Philosophical perspectives, such as Kant's ethics, suggest that our actions should be guided by universal principles that respect both humanity and the natural world.

Conclusion

The Theory of Complexity offers a framework for understanding the universe's intricate tapestry. By acknowledging the role of imbalance and the interplay of mass, energy, and balancing forces, we can appreciate the dynamic processes that give rise to complexity. This understanding can inform our approach to global challenges, emphasizing the need for sustainable practices that align with the universe's inherent drive toward complexity.

[exchemist]

53 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

Rewritten Theory of Complexity 

Introduction

The universe is a vast and intricate system governed by principles that shape its complexity. By examining the fundamental laws of physics and integrating philosophical insights, we can propose a theory of complexity that explains how complex natural systems evolve and persist.

Foundation in Physics

The laws of conservation of mass and energy state that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence further demonstrates the interrelatedness of mass and energy, suggesting that they are two forms of the same fundamental essence. In this framework, complex natural systems are concentrations of mass and energy, maintained by balancing forces such as gravity and the nuclear strong force.

Defining Complexity

Complexity can be understood as an increase in the concentration of mass and energy. Balancing forces are essential for maintaining these concentrations, preventing them from dissipating into less ordered states. The universe's tendency to form complex structures is driven by these forces working to sustain concentrations against the backdrop of entropy.

Role of Imbalance

A central tenet of the Theory of Complexity is the concept of "chronic imbalance." Unlike equilibrium, where systems remain static, imbalance allows for the continuous transformation and emergence of new forms. This imbalance is not a defect but an innate property of the universe that drives the creation of complexity. It provides the dynamism needed for systems to evolve from simple to more complex configurations.

Philosophical Insights

Philosophical ideas, such as Descartes' emphasis on the existence of something rather than nothing, reinforce the notion that the universe is an active, evolving system. The existence of mass and energy suggests that there is always "something" rather than a void, allowing complexity to develop over time.

Evolution and Biological Complexity

In biological systems, complexity is exemplified by DNA, a highly concentrated form of mass and energy that encodes the potential for life's diversity. DNA evolves through mutations and natural selection, allowing life to adapt and thrive in changing environments. This process mirrors the broader principle of increasing complexity through balancing forces that sustain and refine these biological systems.

Implications for Climate Change

The theory can be applied to contemporary issues like climate change. The Earth receives energy from the sun, driving ecological and atmospheric processes. Human activities, particularly the use of fossil fuels, have altered the balance of greenhouse gases, affecting the planet's energy concentration. Understanding these dynamics through the lens of complexity can guide efforts to restore balance and mitigate adverse effects.

Philosophical and Social Considerations

The pursuit of complexity extends beyond physical and biological systems to human society. While capitalism often emphasizes material accumulation, true progress lies in seeking meaning and balance. Philosophical perspectives, such as Kant's ethics, suggest that our actions should be guided by universal principles that respect both humanity and the natural world.

Conclusion

The Theory of Complexity offers a framework for understanding the universe's intricate tapestry. By acknowledging the role of imbalance and the interplay of mass, energy, and balancing forces, we can appreciate the dynamic processes that give rise to complexity. This understanding can inform our approach to global challenges, emphasizing the need for sustainable practices that align with the universe's inherent drive toward complexity.

OK, there is a basic, and actually very common, misunderstanding at the start. Neither mass nor energy are entities. You can't have a jug of mass or a jug of energy. Both are properties of physical systems. Systems have mass and have energy. You can't say they "are" mass or energy. To do so is Star Trek, not science. So complex systems are not what it says here. 

Secondly, complexity emphatically cannot be said to correlate with a high concentration of mass or energy. What that would mean is that complexity is proportional in some way to density, which seems a fairly silly thing to say. Which is more complex: an amoeba or a lump of lead?   

I agree the idea of "imbalance" driving increased complexity in nature has some merit. For examples, living organisms thrive on inputs of lower entropy energy from various sources such as light from the sun, and outputs of higher entropy energy in the form of low grade heat, or the release of higher entropy substances int the environment.

On the other hand DNA absolutely does not have a high concentration of either mass or energy. What it arguably does have, is a comparatively low entropy in relation to its molecular weight.  Rather as @Mordred has commented before on your postings, I wonder if you would do better to focus on entropy increase as the driving force.  There is guy called Jeremy England who proposed some years ago that complexity is driven by dissipation of energy: https://www.yalescientific.org/2014/07/origins-of-life-a-means-to-a-thermodynamically-favorable-end/.

I wonder if you may possibly be groping towards something like that. 

 

 

Edited August 1 by exchemist

[joigus]

Mass is not conserved.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

28 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK, there is a basic, and actually very common, misunderstanding at the start. Neither mass nor energy are entities. You can't have a jug of mass or a jug of energy. Both are properties of physical systems. Systems have mass and have energy. You can't say they "are" mass or energy. To do so is Star Trek, not science. So complex systems are not what it says here. 

Secondly, complexity emphatically cannot be said to correlate with a high concentration of mass or energy. What that would mean is that complexity is proportional in some way to density, which seems a fairly silly thing to say. Which is more complex: an amoeba or a lump of lead?   

I agree the idea of "imbalance" driving increased complexity in nature has some merit. For examples, living organisms thrive on inputs of lower entropy energy from various sources such as light from the sun, and outputs of higher entropy energy in the form of low grade heat, or the release of higher entropy substances int the environment.

On the other hand DNA absolutely does not have a high concentration of either mass or energy. What it arguably does have, is a comparatively low entropy in relation to its molecular weight.  Rather as @Mordred has commented before on your postings, I wonder if you would do better to focus on entropy increase as the driving force.  There is guy called Jeremy England who proposed some years ago that complexity is driven by dissipation of energy: https://www.yalescientific.org/2014/07/origins-of-life-a-means-to-a-thermodynamically-favorable-end/.

I wonder if you may possibly be groping towards something like that. 

 

 

That reply is more fitting for a forum. Why would anyone want to share anything if people just absorbed what was shared and did not contribute or just asked questions that did not tackle what was shared? 

33 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Secondly, complexity emphatically cannot be said to correlate with a high concentration of mass or energy. What that would mean is that complexity is proportional in some way to density, which seems a fairly silly thing to say. Which is more complex: an amoeba or a lump of lead?   

 

 

 

I think you are mistaking beauty for complexity. It is a simplified framework that does not discriminate between the amoeba and the lump of lead. If a lump of lead has a more concentrated structure of mass and energy then it is more complex despite it not having aesthetic properties or the properties to move and reproduce. It just goes to show that a less complex thing can be more beautiful and sophisticated if it is more multifaceted than a more complex thing that is less multifaceted.

41 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK, there is a basic, and actually very common, misunderstanding at the start. Neither mass nor energy are entities. You can't have a jug of mass or a jug of energy. Both are properties of physical systems. Systems have mass and have energy. You can't say they "are" mass or energy. To do so is Star Trek, not science. So complex systems are not what it says here. 

Fair enough. My lack of background means I worded it wrongly, if that is the case then fine.

 

 

44 minutes ago, exchemist said:

On the other hand DNA absolutely does not have a high concentration of either mass or energy. What it arguably does have, is a comparatively low entropy in relation to its molecular weight.  Rather as @Mordred has commented before on your postings, I wonder if you would do better to focus on entropy increase as the driving force.  There is guy called Jeremy England who proposed some years ago that complexity is driven by dissipation of energy: https://www.yalescientific.org/2014/07/origins-of-life-a-means-to-a-thermodynamically-favorable-end/.

In my simplified framework, evolution is focused on changes in the DNA. I'm not saying that people do not study evolution looking at the DNA but this framework makes it so that DNA is the critical thing we are looking at and I think looking at it from the point of DNA has benefits. It is a theory of complexity because it does not exclude the evolution of life also. The details I am not a master of.

 

 

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

That reply is more fitting for a forum. Why would anyone want to share anything if people just absorbed what was shared and did not contribute or just asked questions that did not tackle what was shared? 

I think you are mistaking beauty for complexity. It is a simplified framework that does not discriminate between the amoeba and the lump of lead. If a lump of lead has a more concentrated structure of mass and energy then it is more complex despite it not having aesthetic properties or the properties to move and reproduce. It just goes to show that a less complex thing can be more beautiful and sophisticated if it is more multifaceted than a more complex thing that is less multifaceted.

 

 

Haha, you got a better reply from me this time because this theory has a lot less of the pompous bullshit. I can actually understand what you are saying, for the most part. My guess is you wrote this one yourself, whereas on the other thread you allowed a chatbot to have a go at writing it. Chatbots always seem to write like a weak student, trying to pad out his poor essay with grandiose circumlocutions to make it seem more impressive. We've seen it so many times on this forum since chatbots appeared. In fact, the best essays and papers are written with succinctness and clarity.

But now to the content of your post. You seem to be redefining "complexity" in a way that is far from intuitive. I think you will need to justify the basis on which you associate complexity with concentration of mass or energy. I did not have any concept of beauty in mind, as it happens. I was thinking of the thousands of biochemical substances and reaction processes required for a single celled organism to function, compared to the relatively simple and inert structure (face-centred cubic) of a crystal of lead.   

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

4 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Haha, you got a better reply from me this time because this theory has a lot less of the pompous bullshit. I can actually understand what you are saying, for the most part. My guess is you wrote this one yourself, whereas on the other thread you allowed a chatbot to have a go at writing it. Chatbots always seem to write like a weak student, trying to pad out his poor essay with grandiose circumlocutions to make it seem more impressive. We've seen it so many times on this forum since chatbots appeared. In fact, the best essays and papers are written with succinctness and clarity.

But now to the content of your post. You seem to be redefining "complexity" in a way that is far from intuitive. I think you will need to justify the basis on which you associate complexity with concentration of mass or energy. I did not have any concept of beauty in mind, as it happens. I was thinking of the thousands of biochemical substances and reaction processes required for a single celled organism to function, compared to the relatively simple and inert structure (face-centred cubic) of a crystal of lead.   

The Theory needs even more elaboration for sure but it is such a monumental interdisciplinary undertaking to get all the details right. I posted a clearer version so that the ideas are clearer but I cannot claim to have filled in all the details yet. Filling in the details will take work that will span over a decade I estimate so as of now I cannot claim to be an expert on this philosophical theory. 

[exchemist]

36 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

The Theory needs even more elaboration for sure but it is such a monumental interdisciplinary undertaking to get all the details right. I posted a clearer version so that the ideas are clearer but I cannot claim to have filled in all the details yet. Filling in the details will take work that will span over a decade I estimate so as of now I cannot claim to be an expert on this philosophical theory. 

Yes, but the claim I am challenging is not a "detail". It is the core of your idea. If you want to change the meaning of "complexity" to something so far removed from most people's understanding, you need to have a solid argument, otherwise the whole idea collapses.

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes, but the claim I am challenging is not a "detail". It is the core of your idea. If you want to change the meaning of "complexity" to something so far removed from most people's understanding, you need to have a solid argument, otherwise the whole idea collapses.

I think this is the basic flaw with analogy, that definitions need to be "looser" in order to facilitate the comparison. The universe is often said to be "evolving", so of course some folks are going to misinterpret that as biological evolution and notice how similar the two can be made to seem.

And in this case, "complexity" is being used subjectively to fill the gaps in an idea (definitely not a theory) that has no real substance. The behavior of inorganic matter in the universe is NOT comparable to biological evolution. 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

If you want to change the meaning of "complexity" to something so far removed from most people's understanding, you need to have a solid argument, otherwise the whole idea collapses.

Exactly, because complexity has been defined, redefined, and refined in its definition, and studied for many decades now, so it's quite inane to try to define it all over again on one's own while ignoring decades and decades of study. And I mean the contemporary notion of it. I'm sure the Greeks thought about it too.

5 hours ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

[...]

Say what?

Oh, yes, I must have forgotten to say: Mass is not conserved.

Conserved in chemical reactions, not conserved in nuclear reactions. So not conserved.

(nuclear or non-nuclear; any reactions involving number of particle change)

Edited August 1 by joigus
minor addition

[swansont]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Oh, yes, I must have forgotten to say: Mass is not conserved.

Conserved in chemical reactions, not conserved in nuclear reactions. So not conserved.

I’ve seen this phrasing before and it annoys me, since it sounds like it’s referencing a scientific principle rather than an allowable approximation. It’s just that the difference is so small it can be ignored. You’re releasing or absorbing energy on the scale of eV instead of MeV, and c^2 is of order GeV per amu. So it’s nanograms per mole. Don’t need to account for it.

Mass isn’t a conserved quantity. Full stop.

[joigus]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Mass isn’t a conserved quantity. Full stop.

That was my original phrasing,

6 hours ago, joigus said:

Mass is not conserved.

There's your full stop.

But It was ignored, so I dumbed it down.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

I’ve seen this phrasing before and it annoys me, since it sounds like it’s referencing a scientific principle rather than an allowable approximation. It’s just that the difference is so small it can be ignored. You’re releasing or absorbing energy on the scale of eV instead of MeV, and c^2 is of order GeV per amu. So it’s nanograms per mole. Don’t need to account for it.

Mass isn’t a conserved quantity. Full stop.

The total mass and energy of the system of the universe are conserved. And so it is an imbalance, one area having more and one area having less that leads to complexity. It is not just one area having more and one area having less alone that leads to something being its own thing. It needs to be held, and when held energy is released and concentration is increased. That is the premise of the framework.

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think this is the basic flaw with analogy, that definitions need to be "looser" in order to facilitate the comparison. The universe is often said to be "evolving", so of course some folks are going to misinterpret that as biological evolution and notice how similar the two can be made to seem.

And in this case, "complexity" is being used subjectively to fill the gaps in an idea (definitely not a theory) that has no real substance. The behavior of inorganic matter in the universe is NOT comparable to biological evolution. 

On what grounds are you to define it your way? The traditional way is to look at characteristics and then categorize the characteristics but complexity is to my knowledge something that is subjective when defined. The framework includes the axioms of mass and energy, imbalance, and balancing forces and says these things create the conditions for complexity.

[joigus]

@Knowledge Enthusiast, for someone with the nickname of "knowledge enthusiast" you display very little enthusiasm in accepting hard-won knowledge from others.

Ironic.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Complexity

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Algorithmic_information_theory

Oh, I almost forgot.

22 hours ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

The total mass and energy of the system of the universe are conserved.

Mass is not conserved.

Energy is not conserved in cosmology either for the universe as a whole. It is true though that for a "small" object (eg, Mercury) falling in a static gravitational field, an analogue of Newtonian energy can be derived that is conserved. That is because a static gravitational field has a time-like Killing field and you can do that for that particular case. Actually, energy is quite a schizophrenic concept in general relativity, because the most you can do is to define 3 different energies. One of them is the matter-radiation energy on the right hand side of Einstein's equations. The other is some kind of "geometric energy" that people normally place on the LHS. Those two almost perfectly balance each other out, were it not for a 3rd --and weirdest of all-- kind of "energy" that we call vacuum energy.

You need to learn some physics if you're going to talk about it.

Put this in your pipe and smoke it:

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

As a university professor once said, "if you want to learn to write Chinese poetry, it seems like a good idea to start learning Chinese." 

 

Edited August 3 by joigus
added link

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

@Knowledge Enthusiast, for someone with the nickname of "knowledge enthusiast" you display very little enthusiasm in accepting hard-won knowledge from others.

Ironic.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Complexity

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Algorithmic_information_theory

Oh, I almost forgot.

Mass is not conserved.

Energy is not conserved in cosmology either for the universe as a whole. It is true though that for a "small" object (eg, Mercury) falling in a static gravitational field, an analogue of Newtonian energy can be derived that is conserved. That is because a static gravitational field has a time-like Killing field and you can do that for that particular case. Actually, energy is quite a schizofrenic concept in general relativity, because the most you can do is to define 3 different energies. One of them is the matter-radiation energy on the right hand side of Einstein's equations. The other is some kind of "geometric energy" that people normally place on the LHS. Those two almost perfectly balance each other out, were it not for a 3rd --and weirdest of all-- kind of "energy" that we call vacuum energy.

You need to learn some physics if you're going to talk about it.

Put this in your pipe and smoke it:

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

As a university professor once said, "if you want to learn to write Chinese poetry, it seems like a good idea to start learning Chinese." 

 

The idea is not fully fleshed out yet but it definitely sits at the creating level of Bloom's taxonomy. The point is not to spit out knowledge but to show understanding to a level that you end up creating a framework. I have much work ahead to fill in details but you can't deny that I am showing that I know enough to be able to create a framework.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

you can't deny that I am showing that I know enough to be able to create a framework.

In fact, I both can and do 

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

In fact, I both can and do 

But can you teach ChatGPT to do the below?

A General Theory of Universal Evolution: A Short Summary
The evolution of complexity in the universe, from the Big Bang to modern human societies, is governed by universal mechanisms that operate across cosmic, chemical, biological, and cultural domains. This general theory of universal evolution outlines these mechanisms, offering a comprehensive framework for understanding how complexity arises and develops throughout the history of the universe.

Emergence Through Variation
The first mechanism is emergence through variation, which introduces diversity at every level of complexity. In the early universe, quantum fluctuations created variations in matter density, leading to the formation of stars and galaxies. Similarly, chemical processes within stars produced a variety of elements and molecules, setting the stage for complex chemistry.

In biological systems, genetic mutations and recombination generate variation within populations, providing the raw material for natural selection. In human societies, cultural variation emerges from differences in ideas, technologies, and practices, driven by human creativity and innovation.

Selection and Optimization
Selection and optimization are the processes by which systems evolve toward increased stability and efficiency. In the cosmos, gravity acts as a selective force, organizing matter into stable structures like galaxies and planets. Chemical selection favors reactions that lead to more stable and complex molecules, facilitating the emergence of life.

In biological evolution, natural selection favors traits that enhance survival and reproduction, leading to the adaptation of species to their environments. Similarly, in cultural evolution, successful ideas and technologies are adopted and spread, shaping human societies and their development.

Increasing Complexity Through Synergy
The mechanism of increasing complexity through synergy describes how individual components combine to create systems with emergent properties. Cosmic synergy is seen in the formation of planets and elements from stellar processes, providing diverse environments for chemical interactions.

In biology, cells combine to form tissues, organs, and complex organisms, allowing for specialization and greater complexity. In cultural systems, collaboration and knowledge sharing create cultural and technological advancements beyond the capabilities of individuals.

Feedback Loops and Iteration
Feedback loops and iteration are processes that allow systems to self-regulate, adapt, and evolve. In cosmic evolution, feedback mechanisms like supernovae recycle materials and influence new star formation. Chemical feedback drives the emergence of complex networks in prebiotic chemistry.

Biological systems create dynamic feedback loops through interactions among organisms and their environments, driving evolutionary change. In cultural evolution, societies continuously refine and improve ideas and practices, leading to continuous cultural advancement.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the general theory of universal evolution provides a framework for understanding the emergence and development of complexity in the universe. By examining the mechanisms of variation, selection, synergy, and feedback, we gain insights into the interconnected processes that have shaped the cosmos from the Big Bang to the present. This perspective highlights the dynamic nature of evolution as a universal force, driving the continuous unfolding of complexity and connecting all domains of existence. Through this understanding, we appreciate our place within the grand narrative of the universe, recognizing evolution as a central force in shaping our past, present, and future.