Is the human imagination -- and beyond -- the goal of evolution?

[Brian King of Trolls]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You were asked for a science discussion, not credentials 

You need to start addressing the points raised, and in a substantive way. Immediately.

 

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.

Edited October 8, 2021 by Brian King of Trolls

[studiot]

12 hours ago, studiot said:

I don't see anything funny in this.

I am glad you decided to take things more (scientifically) seriously though.

 

So your speculation is that increase of 'complexity' (depending upon how you define the term) is a driver of processes in a similar way to those of minumum energy or maximum entropy ?

How does this work with the Second Law maximum entropic 'hot death' of the universe ?

Maximum entropy is often aligned with minimum complexity.

I asked you two clear questions, both of which you have ignored.

When pressed for answers you resort to personal insults.

19 minutes ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

It is a sincere question that apparently is beyond your comprehension.

How is this not trolling ?

 

I find this a great pity since the development and meaning of complexity could be a very interesting and fruitful topic.

 

Good night all.

Edited October 8, 2021 by studiot

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

Complexification is an established fact. what is not is how to measure it.

If you don’t have an accepted definition and way to measure it, it can’t be an established fact.

Asserting that it’s a fact so you don’t have to deal with this problem isn’t going to fly.

[Brian King of Trolls]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you don’t have an accepted definition and way to measure it, it can’t be an established fact.

Asserting that it’s a fact so you don’t have to deal with this problem isn’t going to fly.

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.

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

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. 

1. How is that not measurable?

2. How does that actually equate to complexity? 

 

9 hours ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

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.

Where is the energy flow?

Atoms have less energy than the constituent particles, and molecules have less energy than the constituent atoms, so that suggests complexity decreases. If they're just sitting there, there is no energy flow, so by your definition they have equal complexity. An atom that absorbs and then re-emits a photon has energy flow, and somehow that atom is more complex than an atom not absorbing a photon. But the atoms are identical. How does that work?

A photon not being absorbed by an atom has a greater energy flow than a photon being absorbed by an atom. So not having the interaction results in a more complex system than having the interaction. That seems backwards.

If I have a device that converts gravitational potential energy to other forms and I move it to a new location where g is greater, the energy flow rate density will increase. Yet the device is identical. How did it become more complex?

[Brian King of Trolls]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

1. How is that not measurable?

2. How does that actually equate to complexity? 

 

Where is the energy flow?

Atoms have less energy than the constituent particles, and molecules have less energy than the constituent atoms, so that suggests complexity decreases. If they're just sitting there, there is no energy flow, so by your definition they have equal complexity. An atom that absorbs and then re-emits a photon has energy flow, and somehow that atom is more complex than an atom not absorbing a photon. But the atoms are identical. How does that work?

A photon not being absorbed by an atom has a greater energy flow than a photon being absorbed by an atom. So not having the interaction results in a more complex system than having the interaction. That seems backwards.

If I have a device that converts gravitational potential energy to other forms and I move it to a new location where g is greater, the energy flow rate density will increase. Yet the device is identical. How did it become more complex?

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 Φ_m, 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.

Edited October 9, 2021 by Brian King of Trolls

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

Read the linked article, which answers all your questions.

Interestingly, you answered none. Clever trick 

[StringJunky]

Complexifying or simplifying, it's all evolution... and nature is blind to the results.

[Brian King of Trolls]

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

Interestingly, you answered none. Clever trick 

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

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

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.

The rules say the discussion takes place here, without requiring anyone click links. (see 2.7 in the guidelines)

If you aren’t going to defend the idea or otherwise engage in discussion, this will be closed. Last chance.

[studiot]

31 minutes ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

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

No.

You offered a link to another website.

The rules here explicitly state that matters fundamental to the discussion (for example basic definitions) must be posted here.

Members should not have to go offsite to find information.

It is OK to provide links to further develop the subject for those interested enough, or a link to something like a table of scientific facts.

Such a table that for instance would tell me that there are two protons in a helium atom or the charge on the electron in coulombs.

 

Here are a couple of such scientific facts.

Our best estimate of the age of the universe is currently 14 billion years or 4.5 x 10¹⁷ seconds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

 

Our best estimate of the time after the initial detonation of 'the big bang' during which there may have been not even fundamental particles is 10^-43 seconds.

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

 

Note these 'facts' are less reliable than my first two examples, but let us run with them in relation to complexity.

In addition to scientific facts we have scientific observations.

One such is that, as far as we can see the Universe looks pretty much the same in all directions on average.

Now we know that because light takes time to reach Earth, the further away in distance we look the further back in time we are seeing the universe.

This tells us that all those atoms, molecules etc existed as far back as we can look in time.

So for the first insignificant time of 10^-43 seconds the universe had no atoms etc but for the rest of its history there has been little change in composition and therefore complexity.

 

I am only continuing this because there is a germ of a really interesting topic involved, but feel free to ask for more information.

That process is called discussion.

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2021 by studiot

[Brian King of Trolls]

Just now, swansont said:

The rules say the discussion takes place here, without requiring anyone click links.

If you aren’t going to defend the idea or otherwise engage in discussion, this will be closed. Last chance.

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

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

No.

You offered a link to another website.

The rules here explicitly state that matters fundamental to the discussion (for example basic definitions) must be posted here.

Members should not have to go offsite to find information.

It is OK to provide links to further develop the sunject for those interested enough, or a link to something like a table of scientific facts.

Such a table that for instance would tell me that there are two protons in a helium atom or the charge on the electron in coulombs.

 

Here are a couple of such scientific facts.

Our best estimate of the age of the universe is currently 14 billion years or 4.5 x 10¹⁷ seconds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

 

Our best estimate of the time after the initial detonation of 'the big bang' during which there may have been not even fundamental particles is 10^-43 seconds.

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

 

Note these 'facts' are less reliable than my first two examples, but let us run with them in relation to complexity.

In addition to scientific facts we have scientific observations.

One such is that, as far as we can see the Universe looks pretty much the same in all directions on average.

Now we know that because light takes time to reach Earth, the further away in distance we look the further back in time we are seeing the universe.

This tells us that all those atoms, molecules etc existed as far back as we can look in time.

So for the first insignificant time of 10^-43 seconds the universe had no atoms etc but for the rest of its history there has been little change in composition and therefore complexity.

 

I am only continuing this because there is a germ of a really interesting topic involved, but feel free to ask for more information.

That process is called discussion.

 

 

 

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.

[beecee]

22 hours ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

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.

Why should the universe have a purpose? Why does your "therefore" with regards to the human mind and imagination follow?...I would also pick you up on your use of the word "creation"...evolution is more correct. Your "assertion" of complexification, seems to simply be another way of saying that entropy always increases with time...but then that only applies to isolated or closed systems of which our observable universe is not one...not even sure about the whole universe in fact. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe#Opposing_views

 

[iNow]

I’m shocked… Shocked! I tells ya… that someone with a username like “king of trolls” is here simply trolling. I really did NOT see that one coming. I mean… Wow… Mind = Blown 

[beecee]

30 minutes ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

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 think your handle actually does more to arrogantly define you then anything else. Then we have you seemingly spitting the dummy in this post. 

[swansont]

On 10/9/2021 at 5:21 PM, Brian King of Trolls said:

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

Flattery will get you nowhere

 

On 10/9/2021 at 5:21 PM, Brian King of Trolls said:

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?

You told people ”read the article” and we have a rule against such laziness.

 

!

Moderator Note

Don’t bring the topic up again. On the one hand that’s too bad because it seems interesting, but on the other hand you weren’t engaging, so nothing lost except the trolling