How do we explain universal complexities?

[Timedial]

Not resorting to religion, how does apparent ordered structured complexity materialize in the universe?

I want to be honest here, so I will let it be known. I'm also interested to know how this forum, which is highly censored main stream view only, deals with a topic mainstream has little to say about. Is such a topic possible here under this circumstance?

 

[phyzguy]

The answer is Darwinian evolution. I recommend you read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

 

[rootone]

This Wiki article is worth looking at as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

 

[Khashishi]

One could subscribe to the Anthropic Principle: the universe is so complex because only a complex universe could generate beings that could ponder the question. I think it's philosophically invalid though, because it requires some sort of prior probability to generate universes which could potentially generate people, and I can't see where this prior probability could come from.

 

[Drakkith]

Not resorting to religion, how does apparent ordered structured complexity materialize in the universe?

I don't know the specific terminology to use, but I'd say it started with the subtle variations in density in the very early universe (thanks to quantum effects) and went from there. These variations in density, over time, led to matter clumping together into galaxies, stars, planets, etc under the influence of gravity. Other types of structure use different laws and have more to do with EM and nuclear forces than gravity, but the end result is similar.

I want to be honest here, so I will let it be known. I'm also interested to know how this forum, which is highly censored main stream view only, deals with a topic mainstream has little to say about. Is such a topic possible here under this circumstance?

If in doubt, ask a mentor. That's your best option.

 

[Timedial]

One could subscribe to the Anthropic Principle: the universe is so complex because only a complex universe could generate beings that could ponder the question. I think it's philosophically invalid though, because it requires some sort of prior probability to generate universes which could potentially generate people, and I can't see where this prior probability could come from.

Yes I'm with you on this one. To my mind the Anthropic Principle doesn't really solve anything, but rather just highlights the scale of the complexity issue, and conventional theories struggle to address it. Resorting to probability of vast numbers of multiverses existing, just so that one did chance to emerge suited for life and people. It shows a level of desperation for the situation.

 

[Timedial]

The answer is Darwinian evolution. I recommend you read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

Darwinian Evolution! I haven't read Dawkins book, but I've read something of Lees and his ideas on the subject. The new cosmos series touches on the concept of black hole fecundity in its third episode. You sound impressed by this idea. Have you formed an opinion? Well it is arguably the only process of nature we are aware of, with mechanisms which systematically drive towards ever higher levels of complexity.

Darwinian Physics can't be considered mainstream by any stretch. Are we allowed to discuss this concept on this forum? I'm new here, and my first two posts on the subject of time dilation were deleted without apology.

 

[Timedial]

I don't know the specific terminology to use, but I'd say it started with the subtle variations in density in the very early universe (thanks to quantum effects) and went from there. These variations in density, over time, led to matter clumping together into galaxies, stars, planets, etc under the influence of gravity. Other types of structure use different laws and have more to do with EM and nuclear forces than gravity, but the end result is similar.
.

I don't feel this addressed anything of the complexity issue. Atoms, molecules, solar systems and galaxies are highly articulated interactive systems. If you think in terms of all of them merely being composites of Quark, Electron and Photon interactions, then consider the nature of the interactions which make up these various layers of scale, and the processes like chemistry, heat etc etc that emerge from there process which just so happen to enable molecular and stellar structure and process. I think many people underestimate the level of complexity intrinsic to these systems, maybe because it has seamed such an intractable problem it eventually got swept under the rug. But maybe its the best clue we have to the greater goings on of the universe, so I'd rather not ignore it.

Consider for example, that every molecular interaction exploited by biological systems for the advancement of life, is a preexisting potential of the Atom. This places full credit of the complexity achievable by biological systems fairly within domain of atomic process. These systems are highly articulated, complex, dynamic, ordered, tuned. It seams there is no complement to flattering to credit to atomic systems.

 

[Drakkith]

Darwinian Physics can't be considered mainstream by any stretch.

I've never heard of Darwinian Physics before, so I can't really say either way. Do you have a good link to something on the topic?

I don't feel this addressed anything of the complexity issue. Atoms, molecules, solar systems and galaxies are highly articulated interactive systems. If you think in terms of all of them merely being composites of Quark, Electron and Photon interactions, then consider the nature of the interactions which make up these various layers of scale, and the processes like chemistry, heat etc etc that emerge from there process which just so happen to enable molecular and stellar structure and process. I think many people underestimate the level of complexity intrinsic to these systems, maybe because it has seamed such an intractable problem it eventually got swept under the rug. But maybe its the best clue we have to the greater goings on of the universe, so I'd rather not ignore it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by all this.

Consider for example, that every molecular interaction exploited by biological systems for the advancement of life, is a preexisting potential of the Atom. This places full credit of the complexity achievable by biological systems fairly within domain of atomic process. These systems are highly articulated, complex, dynamic, ordered, tuned. It seams there is no complement to flattering to credit to atomic systems.

All structure and complexity can be boiled down to interactions between fundamental particles and radiation within spacetime. But so what?

 

[Timedial]

I've never heard of Darwinian Physics before, so I can't really say either way. Do you have a good link to something on the topic?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by all this.

All structure and complexity can be boiled down to interactions between fundamental particles and radiation within spacetime. But so what?

Darwinian physics? That is the implication if nature of the universe owes something to Darwinian principles. I think the best qualified thought on the subject would be Lee Smolin and Richard Dawkins. A google search will show their work for you.

My earlier meaning? There is a very wide variety of opinion on the universal complexity issue, but I wonder how many have given it the attention it deserves. A few years ago I started delving deeper into it, but before hand I had barely skimmed the subject and not realized its significance. So I can relate to those who haven't yet delved. Before Charles Darwinian's insight became known, nobody conceived there was a complexity issue regarding biology, because there was a ready God solution at hand. Complexity within Cosmology and physics in this day and age is a slightly different circumstance, because there is no preconceived solution that might disguise the issue. But still, people have a really hard time trying to determine if there even is a complexity issue, and an even harder time trying to conceive a solution. So ok, is there a complexity issue? Biology is an example of a type of complexity that absolutely needs a driving process. Is the complexity within physics and cosmology the same type of complexity or not? How do you determine such a thing?

All the complexity boils down to particle interactions you say. But if that was a soup you had served me, I think I would want to add some flavor enhancer.

 

[phyzguy]

Darwinian Evolution! I haven't read Dawkins book, but I've read something of Lees and his ideas on the subject. The new cosmos series touches on the concept of black hole fecundity in its third episode. You sound impressed by this idea. Have you formed an opinion? Well it is arguably the only process of nature we are aware of, with mechanisms which systematically drive towards ever higher levels of complexity.

Darwinian Physics can't be considered mainstream by any stretch. Are we allowed to discuss this concept on this forum? I'm new here, and my first two posts on the subject of time dilation were deleted without apology.

I assumed in your OP that the phrase "ordered structured complexity" referred to living things, and based my answer on that assumption. To what else are you referring? Stars and planets? I'm not sure I would consider them "ordered structured complexity". The formation of stars, planets, and the other structure of the universe is adequately explained by the laws of physics, so I'm not sure what other explanation you are looking for. Is your question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

 

[Drakkith]

Darwinian physics? That is the implication if nature of the universe owes something to Darwinian principles. I think the best qualified thought on the subject would be Lee Smolin and Richard Dawkins.

I haven't read anything on all this (and I don't have time thanks to my school schedule), so I think I'll leave it to others for now.

 

[Khashishi]

z |-> z^2 + c
Infinite complexity from one simple formula.

 

[Timedial]

I haven't read anything on all this (and I don't have time thanks to my school schedule), so I think I'll leave it to others for now.

Ok, but if you find yourself with a spare minute, anyone of these links is an interesting read. Even a year ago, performing a google search on "cosmological natural selection" only showed up a couple of search results. But now google is crowded with speculations on the subject.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...and-beauty-of-cosmological-natural-selection/
https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0205/0205119.pdf
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2013-05-04-did-universe-evolve-make-black-holes

 

[Timedial]

z |-> z^2 + c
Infinite complexity from one simple formula.

Are you able to summarize this formula please?

I am aware extraordinary complexity can emerge from very simple processes, principles. Like snow flake patterns, and fluid dynamics etc. However there are types of complexity which cannot arise through a repetitive simple dynamic. As complexity within biological systems are testament. I'm not telling people what they should or shouldn't believe, but rather just posing the question. Given what we know about particle physics and cosmology, does it seam the type of complexity that emerges from very simple processes? or does the character of the physical universe require something of a more dynamic explanation?

 

[Drakkith]

I am aware extraordinary complexity can emerge from very simple processes, principles. Like snow flake patterns, and fluid dynamics etc. However there are types of complexity which cannot arise through a repetitive simple dynamic. As complexity within biological systems are testament. I'm not telling people what they should or shouldn't believe, but rather just posing the question. Given what we know about particle physics and cosmology, does it seam the type of complexity that emerges from very simple processes? or does the character of the physical universe require something of a more dynamic explanation?

What is a "dynamic explanation"? Are you expecting the rules of physics to somehow change over time?

 

[Timedial]

What is a "dynamic explanation"? Are you expecting the rules of physics to somehow change over time?

That would be the implication. That there are no such things as fundamentals in physics, that the physics we have come to observe and know, are part of an overall system which is one of many potentials, but has been the most proficient system at perpetuating itself.

The laws of physics have a way of appearing fundamental to us humans. As exampled by our sense that up and down are somehow fundamental, and so much so that perhaps our early ancestors never even thought to question its reality. But actually up and down is just a localized gravity thing, and has no meaning within a universal context. Like so, perhaps all laws of physics are non fundamentals, and owe their character and parameters to a progressively changing, evolving circumstance.

 

[Drakkith]

That would be the implication. That there are no such things as fundamentals in physics, that the physics we have come to observe and know, are part of an overall system which is one of many potentials, but has been the most proficient system at perpetuating itself.

While we can't outright dismiss such a possibility, observations put great limits on the amount of change that could have happened within the past 13 billion years. Any such changes would be very gradual and very subtle. There are no observable abrupt changes at this time.

The laws of physics have a way of appearing fundamental to us humans.

Of course they do. They are our "best guess" up to that point, built on all of our preceding knowledge and explaining our most accurate predictions and models. But a "best guess" is exactly what they are. We have no way of knowing whether our current laws are truly fundamental. For example, classical gravitation was a "fundamental" law until it was superseded by General Relativity. Fundamental simply means: a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.
By definition you will never be able to get away from fundamental laws, as they will always form the core of your body of knowledge on physics, unless such laws are changing in a manner that is truly random and non-predictable. However, given that the laws of physics haven't undergone any observable change in the last 13 billion years, that doesn't seem likely.

Like so, perhaps all laws of physics are non fundamentals.

In the context of what I just wrote, you can bet your behind they are. Useful laws, perhaps, but limited in scope and applicability. I don't see this changing.

 

[Timedial]

While we can't outright dismiss such a possibility, observations put great limits on the amount of change that could have happened within the past 13 billion years. Any such changes would be very gradual and very subtle. There are no observable abrupt changes at this time.

Of course they do. They are our "best guess" up to that point, built on all of our preceding knowledge and explaining our most accurate predictions and models. But a "best guess" is exactly what they are. We have no way of knowing whether our current laws are truly fundamental. For example, classical gravitation was a "fundamental" law until it was superseded by General Relativity. Fundamental simply means: a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.
By definition you will never be able to get away from fundamental laws, as they will always form the core of your body of knowledge on physics, unless such laws are changing in a manner that is truly random and non-predictable. However, given that the laws of physics haven't undergone any observable change in the last 13 billion years, that doesn't seem likely.

In the context of what I just wrote, you can bet your behind they are. Useful laws, perhaps, but limited in scope and applicability. I don't see this changing.

I would suggest though, if we were to consider such a radical inquiry as cosmological natural selection, you might relax conventional preconceptions to some degree. There is no doubt the data and observations of mainstream science are good and real. But that's not the same thing as having perfect faith in current interpretations. I don't think anybody has suggested the final conclusions are firmed, so it doesn't make sense to have solidified preconceptions.

 

[Drakkith]

I would suggest though, if we were to consider such a radical inquiry as cosmological natural selection, you might relax conventional preconceptions to some degree.

Which preconceptions do you mean?

 

[Timedial]

Which preconceptions do you mean?

I'm just encouraging open mindedness, and each person has there own preconceptions. Be willing to second guess, and reconsider anything you prefer

 

[rootone]

That would be the implication. That there are no such things as fundamentals in physics, that the physics we have come to observe and know, are part of an overall system which is one of many potentials, but has been the most proficient system at perpetuating itself.

An infinite variety of snowflakes can arise given just one universe, unchanging laws of physics, and the characteristic shape of water molecules.
The differences probably arise because of random variables in play when the first few molecules stick together.
(like wind flow, temperature, even quantum effects like brownian motion of molecules in the rest of the nearby air)

 

[bapowell]

z |-> z^2 + c
Infinite complexity from one simple formula.

Depends on how you define complexity. This infinite series of numbers (I presume you're suggesting Mandelbrot here) is no more complex than the number of bits needed to define the equation.

 

[Timedial]

An infinite variety of snowflakes can arise given just one universe, unchanging laws of physics, and the characteristic shape of water molecules.
The differences probably arise because of random variables in play when the first few molecules stick together.
(like wind flow, temperature, even quantum effects like brownian motion of molecules in the rest of the nearby air)

Yes absolutely. The most interesting thinker I've come across on the subject of complexity emergent from simplicity is Stephen Wolfram. An inspired man, and I recommend this youtube video

However, and I return to my earlier question. Is the emergence of variety within snow flake populations an adequate analogy of universal physics, or is there something more needed to explain its particular type of complexity. I'm referring to the discussion which has been going on for a while now, how there are numerous measures we refer to as constants, that appear to be precariously finely tuned values. If they should have been slightly different, the universe basically falls into unrecognizable disarray. There are not many prospective variations of these constants that result in an ordered structured scenario like our universe, so the argument goes.

 

[Timedial]

Depends on how you define complexity. This infinite series of numbers (I presume you're suggesting Mandelbrot here) is no more complex than the number of bits needed to define the equation.

Accept that as Stephen Wolfram points out, sometimes its impossible to predict the interplay and outcome of even very simple dynamics. He makes examples of very simple computer programs, and the only way to determine the patterns that result from them is to let their programs run. So if there are patterns you cannot predict from the equations simplest expression, then it might be argued the sum of the infinite series is by far more complex than its simplest expression. I have a feeling I'm just confusing the issue, so I suggest watching Stephens video and allow him to make this point.

 

[julcab12]

...Mathematica is great tool but the New science thingy is only 'moderately good' if your a loopy guy or fond of dynamics/relational-- loop quantum gravity literature. But in the standard idea that a deterministic, relativistically invariant, causal invariant model underlies quantum mechanics-- it fails.

 

[Filip Larsen]

I have not read this entire thread, but searching through it I found no mentioning of the mechanism of self-organization [1], i.e. the inherent ability for some systems to form structures "by themselves", for instance as those often encountered in chemical reaction-diffusion systems [2]. Self-organization seems to be a likely "seed" mechanism at least for macroscopic spatio-temporal structures such as life (as opposed to the more fundamental structures like those dictated directly by physical laws on the atomic scale).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction–diffusion_system

 

[bapowell]

What about crystals?

 

[Vanadium 50]

This thread has gone two pages and I still have no idea what a "universal complexity" is. Could this be a solution in search of a problem?

 

[Chronos]

Complexity is nothing more than a natural consequence of the tendency to increase entropy.

 

[Timedial]

This thread has gone two pages and I still have no idea what a "universal complexity" is. Could this be a solution in search of a problem?

I'm not the inventor of this question to universal complexity, and so I'm working on the assumption people have been exposed to it for the most part. The discussion about the apparent fine tuned parameters of the constants of nature etc. Do you feel I should present details which have been historically discussed on the subject?

 

[Timedial]

Complexity is nothing more than a natural consequence of the tendency to increase entropy.

That’s a popular view. Entropy being a property of thermal dynamics which has been extrapolated to considerations of pretty much everything universal moving from orderly, to a disorderly state. I wonder if that extrapolation beyond thermodynamics is warranted?

It is often said that life is able to harness the entropy of energy to work for it, and achieve a momentary reprieve of entropy as ordered systems of life are assembled and maintained. But this implies that universal order only exists within biological systems, and that couldn’t be further from the truth. Life is clearly a continuation of an ordered system that begins at the level of fundamental particles, Quarks and Electrons order themselves as 118 variety of elements, which come together in countless variety of very orderly minerals and molecules, and large variety of very orderly chemical interactions. Darwinian systems entirely exploit the pre-existing potentials of very very very orderly elemental and molecular chemistry. Under this circumstance, why has the notion of universal all-encompassing entropy been taken so far?

If entropy rules supreme over the universe as people like to think, then what of the condensation of matter out of the early hot BB plasma? It seems to me, the large amount of energy contained within the extraordinarily small volume of an atomic nuclei’s, and that this energy is so remarkably stable over time. Its hard to envision a bigger contradiction of the notion of entropy’s universal rule, that would otherwise suggest that big bang radiation should just have spread out featureless over space, not coming to form the condensed material universe.

 

[PeterDonis]

It is often said that life is able to harness the entropy of energy to work for it, and achieve a momentary reprieve of entropy as ordered systems of life are assembled and maintained.

I think you're misstating this. Living organisms are open systems--they are constantly exchanging matter and energy with their environment. So you have to take into account their environment when you're looking at entropy. When you do that, you see entropy increase, not entropy decrease; there's no "reprieve".

Its hard to envision a bigger contradiction of the notion of entropy’s universal rule, that would otherwise suggest that big bang radiation should just have spread out featureless over space, not coming to form the condensed material universe.

Do you have any actual math or references to back this up? Please bear in mind the PF rules on personal theories.

 

[Grinkle]

If entropy rules supreme over the universe as people like to think, then what of the condensation of matter out of the early hot BB plasma?

What of it? The early universe was a relatively much lower entropy than the modern universe. The condensation of matter increased the entropy of the universe.

Entropy ruling supreme to me means a belief that what we perceive as the arrow of time is an objective reality, not just a subjective human perception. Is that what you mean by it?

 

[Dotini]

Not resorting to religion, how does apparent ordered structured complexity materialize in the universe?

One way to account for our universe with such highly ordered and structured complexity is randomness - just pure luck. In other words, there are many other universes in which there is no such order or complexity. Too bad there's not much evidence for other universes.