Theory of complexity

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

My theory of complexity in a way that cites physical laws and defines new terms used.

The law of conservation of mass states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed while the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant. According to Einstein’s Mass–energy equivalence, having mass has an equivalent amount of energy and vice versa and so mass and energy are related. Using these physics principles, I define complex natural systems as being a concentration of mass and energy held together by balancing forces such as gravity, the nuclear weak force, and the nuclear strong force. Greater complexity can be defined as an increase in concentration of mass and energy and balancing forces can be defined as the forces responsible for maintaining the concentration of mass and energy.
According to Aquinas, there must be a first mover because things do not move if there is no mover. In other words, how can something spontaneously appear out of nothing? Currently, there is no explanation as to why there is energy. The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but how is there energy if energy cannot be created. Also, 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. Therefore, chronic imbalance in my theory is the one innate and eternal property that the universe has.
Imbalance being the innate and eternal property creates mass and energy, or complexity according to my definition. Gravity holds this concentration of mass and energy in place, making it a balancing force in my theory, to create a complex natural system because there is a concentration of mass and energy being held together. If an increase in concentration of mass and energy does not get held together by a balancing force, the concentration of mass and energy will return to its original state and a more complex natural system will not be created.

Therefore, because of chronic imbalance, the universe is never in a state of equilibrium and so there is a chance that complex natural systems may concentrate to create complexity and if the right balancing force holds them together, more complex natural systems are created. More complex natural systems need stronger balancing forces to hold them together in threshold moments when the conditions are just right. Over time, imbalance creates complexity. Complexity gets held together by balancing forces in threshold moments when conditions are just right, to create even more complex natural systems till we have everything we see in the universe.

In summary, imbalance is the mechanism causing the increase in concentration of mass and energy into a closed system. Complexity is the increase in concentration of mass and energy in a system. Balancing force is the force holding mass and energy together. Complex natural systems are concentrations of mass and energy being held together by balancing forces to form a closed system.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Knowledge Enthusiast

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

I was hoping for more feedback. Wouldn't it cool to have a first forum generated theory proving the power of a global mind? Even the moderators aren't attacking the idea in hopes of putting it into speculations.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Knowledge Enthusiast

[Strange]

 

My theory of complexity in a way that cites physical laws and defines new terms used.

 

 

It is not a theory as it has not been tested against evidence.

 

It is not a hypothesis as it makes no testable predictions. So it cannot become a theory.

 

 

 

The law of conservation of mass

 

There is no such law.

 

 

 

the law of conservation of energy

 

There is no such law.

 

 

 

According to Aquinas, there must be a first mover

 

Argument from authority.

 

 

 

Currently, there is no explanation as to why there is energy.

 

Currently there is no explanation as to why there is anything. That is outside the scope of science. Only philosophy or religion can provide (invent) answers to those questions.

 

 

 

Complex natural systems are concentrations of mass and energy being held together by balancing forces to form a closed system.

 

Even is true, what use is this conclusion? Can you calculate anything? Can you explain anything that we don't currently understand? Does it tell us "why there is energy"? Does it tell us anything?

I was hoping for more feedback. Wouldn't it cool to have a first forum generated theory proving the power of a global mind?

 

How would it prove (or even explain) such a thing?

 

 

 

Even the moderators aren't attacking the idea in hopes of putting it into speculations.

 

Presumably because no one has noticed amor reported it yet. (They have now.)

 

Also, why is putting threads in the correct place an "attack"?

There is no physics here.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

I'm not using quotes because I can't do the quotes thing when I'm using my phone. I parked the idea here because I found a way to describe what I explained in the speculations section in terms of concentration of mass and energy, a big leap for me. Was hoping someone pointed out flaws in how it is wrong due to physical laws so I have more to build on.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

moved to speculations. If you would prefer philosophy then let me know.

 

[Lord Antares]

Honestly, you didn't say anything here, pretty much. It reads more like a rant, than a hypothesis. No offense, but there is no substance here. No propositions or mathematics, it's just a ''view'' on things. Hence, I agree with imatfaal that it's philosophy, rather than science.

Do you think these thoughts have some kind of relevance to physics? If so, how?

[Strange]

Was hoping someone pointed out flaws in how it is wrong due to physical laws so I have more to build on.

 

 

There isn't anything of substance to be wrong.

 

"Not even wrong" as Pauli used to say.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

I thought that my idea would link physics to chemistry and chemistry to biology, with science being the study of natural systems of different complexity, but philosophy it is then.

[Lord Antares]

It can't link anything to anything without mathematics and a model.

 

But there is nothing to link anyway. You call it complexity, someone else calls it physical forces. In essence, you are just introducing a word (complexity) into it. What other link to sciences do you see here?

[Strange]

I thought that my idea would link physics to chemistry and chemistry to biology, with science being the study of natural systems of different complexity,

 

 

You would need to show how it could do that. What does it tell us about chemistry -- either quantitatively or that we didn't know before?

There are principles of energy minimisation, least action, entropy, etc. that sound vaguely like what you are suggesting. But they can be quantised and so they are useful.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Ok - so moved again, this time to Philosophy. This is not permission to forget about rigor

 

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

I made a mistake in typing. Complexity is the concentration of mass and energy. Greater complexity is the increase in concentration of mass and energy.

[Strange]

I made a mistake in typing. Complexity is the concentration of mass and energy. Greater complexity is the increase in concentration of mass and energy.

 

 

That is an ... "unusual" definition of complexity.

 

Does it have any connection to any of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity#Topics ?

 

But if it is accepted, what use is this definition? Can you calculate anything? Can you explain anything that we don't currently understand? Does it tell us "why there is energy"? Does it tell us anything?

[Mordred]

Lets replace complexity with entropy shall we this is in essence what your describing above. Though I will now show that greater complexity arises with lower concentrations of mass/energy. Rather than the opposite that you posted.

 

The second law as you mentioned previous states entropy never decreases, lets assume this is true

 

So lets start with the Big Bang at [latex]10^{43}[/latex] seconds. This is as far back as our understanding reaches, we do not know the origin of energy etc previous to this point. As I'm showing a cosmology example we need a comoving volume (expanding)

 

the entropy in a comoving volume is given by the equation

 

[latex]S=\frac{\rho+p}{T}R^3[/latex]

 

[latex]\rho[/latex] is the energy density, p is the pressure, T the temperature, R the radius.

 

now at this time all particles are in thermal equilibrium, they become indistinguishable with one another, at high enough density they all look and behave like photons. The photon has spin of one which has 2 degrees of freedom. (degree of freedom corresponds to their interactions) loosely put. As the universe expands we get the other particles dropping out of thermal equilibrium.

 

photon= 2 degrees of freedom, w boson=4, z boson= 2, gluons= 16, Higgs =4, For the leptons. electron=4, electron neutrino=2, muon =4,muon neutrino=2,tau=4, Each quark has 12. degrees of freedom.

 

so greater complexity of our system arises as our universe expands, more particles drop out of thermodynamic equilibrium and our system gains a greater number of degrees of freedom ( added complexity).

Edited May 13, 2017 by Mordred

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

@Mordred Now that is an answer I was hoping to receive. Will look into that. Thank you.

[Mordred]

The above is described under Bose-Einsten, Fermi-Dirac statistics. There is considerable details chapter 3 and 4 here

 

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdfParticle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

Edited May 13, 2017 by Mordred

[Itoero]

Lets replace complexity with entropy shall we this is in essence what your describing above. Though I will now show that greater complexity arises with lower concentrations of mass/energy. Rather than the opposite that you posted.

I think I have a simple real-life example of this.

 

A big piece of stone contains a lot of mass/energy. When you make a statue out of the piece of stone then you increase the complexity while decreasing mass/energy.

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

@Iteoro I will argue that the piece of stone became more complex because there was an increase in concentration of mass and energy but there was no balancing force holding the mass and energy broken off by the increase in energy in place.

I have my definition of complexity. What is yours?

[KipIngram]

Off the cuff I would say that a system that requires more information to specify is more complex than one that requires less. So perhaps complexity <--> information content?

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

@KipIngram What is the criteria for something being adequately specified? Describing things based on their content of mass and energy may not be aesthetically pleasing but it is objective rather than subjective.

My idea doesn't explain the abstract so if you ask me how complex Einstein's paper are? I will not have an answer.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Knowledge Enthusiast

[Knowledge Enthusiast]

Here is a revision. Information is the concentration of mass and energy. Complexity is when smaller closed systems interact with each other to form a larger closed system. Greater complexity is when there are a lot of interactions between smaller systems to form a larger system. The system may be simple but the components complex. A system may have a lot of information but is not complex.

[Strange]

My idea doesn't explain the abstract so if you ask me how complex Einstein's paper are? I will not have an answer.

 

 

Does your idea explain anything?

[Itoero]

@Iteoro I will argue that the piece of stone became more complex because there was an increase in concentration of mass and energy but there was no balancing force holding the mass and energy broken off by the increase in energy in place.

I have my definition of complexity. What is yours?

When you remove stone to form a statue...aren't you then removing mass/energy?

Complexity can mean many things, I think it's difficult to make a definition.

A painting can also be called to be complex.

The structure can cause complexity and structure can reduce the concentration of mass/energy while increasing complexity.

Look to the difference between graphite and diamond. They are both made of carbon but the inner structure causes the concentration of mass/energy to be higher in diamond. And you can call the crystal structure of graphite to be more complex then diamond.

[Mordred]

Or due to being in a more orderly arrangement the crystalized structure can be shown as less complex

[KipIngram]

"Adequately" means unambiguously. The amount of information required for the specification is the amount that lets you reconstruct the system as precisely as it is possible to do. Like Mordred alluded, some systems could have many, many degrees of freedom and yet still be "simple" if those degrees of freedom can all be specified with a small amount of information.