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.