Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Mr. Scientist on 29/10/2009 05:14:51
-
Arguement 1 of 2
Irreducible Complexity of Quantum Initial Setup Conditions under Statistical Analysis:
The irreducible complexity is not of the biological inetrepretation. This irreducible complexity of the initial setup condition is by definition how the measure of the complexity due to statistics at the very instant of the big bang, where when reduced we find a plausible arguement to suggest that the complexity of the universe occured because it could not be reduced any more to these initial standards we see today, such as the dimensional freedom of three spatial dimensions and why the standard model has certain particular masses under the heirarchy problem, or even why the fundamental constants of c, G and ћ are jut specifically the way they are with no theoretical change in value.
What does it mean when i said ''the complexity due to statistics at the very instant of the big bang, where when reduced we find a plausible arguement to suggest that the complexity of the universe occured because it could not be reduced any more to these initial standards we see today''?
Basically, the complexity we see today was because according to this conjecture, due to the fact the universe had nothing else to do than to create the universe we see today. In effect, we usually associate the universe has a highly complex instant of time, where the laws where suddenly formed from a void of nothing - a maximal state of energy, but a peculiar state of low entropy. Relative to the standards we observe today secures us to believe that if big bang is comprehensibly correct, then the enrtopy today is at its most maximal form since t=1 (first instant of the big bang - aka. the first Chronon). The Complexity we associate to the beginning of time seems in a strange alliance with the complexity we see today. Whilst you can fundamentally and mathematically model a theory of existence where the complexity of the universe can be reduced due to enropy to the very first instant, we find equally many complexities that still exist. The irreducibility of the complexity of the big bang means that at t=1, the universe theoretically could not have been any more simpler. In a more suggestive comment it would inexorably mean that the universe could not have begun in an even simpler state if this universe was the specfic set of laws which did in fact persist into reality.
In another way to explain this thought-experiment, is to be aware that we associate the infinite complexities which arise in the singular past, but we relatively-associate it today with the counter-intuitive remark that entropy is now at its highest. So the complexity today to be at its highest would almost certainly require that the big bang is the most ground state formation of the universe at big bang could not be reduced mathematically any more simpler; to do so, entropy would need to cease to have any true description of disorder, for the lowest state of disorder would no longer apply because there would still persist more energy in a lowest state, which causes the paradox in general. This is why any universe that would desire to be more simpler, simply could not, because of use of the maximal entropic model we observe today.
It is true that any reality that can manifest, will (ref. can be given) - but what if that reality that can manifest, does because there is no other possible vacuum solution that would make sense out of the arguement given above?
(Second argument will be presented once i recieve some comments on the above)
-
''Odds that any special initial state of the big bang are less than 1 part in 10^10¹²³''
From a lecture by Penrose
-
The number above is massive - to give you some idea, it even massively outweighs the amount of statstical averages the universe is made from, which is about 10^88 particles.
-
I have several comments:
Firstly, your argument was incoherent and unintelligible enough to make my head hurt.
Secondly, how did you get the idea that any aspect of the universe is irreducibly complex?
Thirdly, to my knowledge, the apparent irreducible complexity of any natural entity or phenomenon has never been shown to be more than an illusion. Further, many things considered irreducibly complex by some, have positively been demonstrated to be reducible.
Fourthly, whatever the statistics supposedly may indicate, we already have an extremely accurate model of the evolution of the universe, and believe it or not, it is reductive towards very simple beginnings.
So why should we accept your argument? [8D]
-
Physicists are currently working towards reducing the complexity of the Universe to just one law. They haven't got there yet but, at the moment, there seem to be just 3 forces involved.
That's not very complex.
-
I have several comments:
Firstly, your argument was incoherent and unintelligible enough to make my head hurt.
Physics is hard to explain. Could you do any better?
Secondly, how did you get the idea that any aspect of the universe is irreducibly complex?
My idea of the irreducibility of the complexity was based purely on theoretical considerations on the current quantum-cosmological theory of entropy. The general acceptance of cosmologists and physicists alike state that the universe at the first instant of time yielded a peculiar low state of entropy - also known as a ground state - the lowest fundemental state you can get making the universe an efficient place. Since today the maximal amount of entropy is considered on the quantum and grand cosmological scales, then the minimum amount of entropy can be classed as reducing the entropy to a ground state (lowest entropy) but if one wanted another universe to begin fundementally in a lower state of entropy we have a paradox on what is allowed in any given universe. This would mean that the entropy in our universe is irreducibly-complex to state that no other universe could manifest in lower energy states.
Thirdly, to my knowledge, the apparent irreducible complexity of any natural entity or phenomenon has never been shown to be more than an illusion. Further, many things considered irreducibly complex by some, have positively been demonstrated to be reducible.
Only in the biological sense. I made this clear in the OP
Fourthly, whatever the statistics supposedly may indicate, we already have an extremely accurate model of the evolution of the universe, and believe it or not, it is reductive towards very simple beginnings.
I don't know what you have been reading but the evolution of the universe now depends on an unseen force called dark energy which pervaids 74% of all the matter in the universe. If anything, we don't have any accuracy on cosmological scales, only local scales, such as our solar system
So why should we accept your argument? [8D]
You weigh what i have written.
Bolded by me above are my responses
-
Physicists are currently working towards reducing the complexity of the Universe to just one law. They haven't got there yet but, at the moment, there seem to be just 3 forces involved.
That's not very complex.
Not complex? Ever heard of M-Theory? It's the most mathematically-complex and obsurd theory which is currently in the hot heat. And if it where so simple as you suggested, is a bit of an oxymoron in itself, since we have yet to unify the forces. Its anything but simple.
-
Physics is hard to explain. Could you do any better?
I don't know if I personally could because I don't generally write about physics. But it is definitely possible to write better about physics.
My idea of the irreducibility of the complexity was based purely on theoretical considerations on the current quantum-cosmological theory of entropy. The general acceptance of cosmologists and physicists alike state that the universe at the first instant of time yielded a peculiar low state of entropy - also known as a ground state - the lowest fundemental state you can get making the universe an efficient place. Since today the maximal amount of entropy is considered on the quantum and grand cosmological scales, then the minimum amount of entropy can be classed as reducing the entropy to a ground state (lowest entropy) but if one wanted another universe to begin fundementally in a lower state of entropy we have a paradox on what is allowed in any given universe. This would mean that the entropy in our universe is irreducibly-complex to state that no other universe could manifest in lower energy states.
This seems to me to be a non-sequitur: "but if one wanted another universe to begin fundementally in a lower state of entropy we have a paradox on what is allowed in any given universe. This would mean that the entropy in our universe is irreducibly-complex to state that no other universe could manifest in lower energy states".
It is not consistent with the rest of your comment.
Only in the biological sense. I made this clear in the OP
Biology is of course highly organised and intricate physics and chemistry. The examples of falsified irreducible complexity in biology are also generalisable to abiological concepts.
Consider a biological structure that is composed of several parts. The structure may be completely nonfunctional if any of its parts are modified or absent. However, because we know that the structure and its parts have evolved (changed) over time, we can show that at some time in the past, the structure and its parts were different and the structure was not nonfunctional in the absence of some parts. Eventually the parts evolved to be completely dependent on each other for proper function.
A simpler, more purely physical/mechanical example is this: Build an arch out of bricks. This is how arches are made, and its a very reducible process:
http://www.diyinfo.org/wiki/How_To_Build_A_Brick_Arch,_Ringed-Curved_Style
http://www.diyinfo.org/images/f/f7/Brickarch_C.jpg
The bricks in the arch are at first supported by a wooden scaffold. Once the arch is complete, the scaffold is removed and the arch supports itself. Some of these arches do not even require cement, for example if the bricks are wedged, because all the bricks are being forced down and push against each other so there is no way for them to fall.
But what happens if you remove the key brick? The structure collapses.
Does that mean that either the arch or the biological structure were irreducibly complex? No. Extreme co-dependence for function does not equal irreducible complexity. Neither do complex present conditions equal irreducibly complex past conditions.
I don't know what you have been reading but the evolution of the universe now depends on an unseen force called dark energy which pervaids 74% of all the matter in the universe. If anything, we don't have any accuracy on cosmological scales, only local scales, such as our solar system
That information is not inconsistent with current theories about the reducibility of the universe.
-
Theories can be very complex. Theories can be wrong. Reality can be very simple. Reality will always be real.
-
Physics is hard to explain. Could you do any better?
I don't know if I personally could because I don't generally write about physics. But it is definitely possible to write better about physics.
I never said it couldn't. It was you being critical of something you could not do better yourself, as you admitted.
My idea of the irreducibility of the complexity was based purely on theoretical considerations on the current quantum-cosmological theory of entropy. The general acceptance of cosmologists and physicists alike state that the universe at the first instant of time yielded a peculiar low state of entropy - also known as a ground state - the lowest fundemental state you can get making the universe an efficient place. Since today the maximal amount of entropy is considered on the quantum and grand cosmological scales, then the minimum amount of entropy can be classed as reducing the entropy to a ground state (lowest entropy) but if one wanted another universe to begin fundementally in a lower state of entropy we have a paradox on what is allowed in any given universe. This would mean that the entropy in our universe is irreducibly-complex to state that no other universe could manifest in lower energy states.
This seems to me to be a non-sequitur: "but if one wanted another universe to begin fundementally in a lower state of entropy we have a paradox on what is allowed in any given universe. This would mean that the entropy in our universe is irreducibly-complex to state that no other universe could manifest in lower energy states".
It is not consistent with the rest of your comment.
I don't think you've understood the comment. If you understood it, you would see the connection. Last time, different way of explaining: If there are parallel universes, then the laws of physics state that each universe will have exactly the same amount of particles in each universe, which is around 10^80, give or take a few tens. Now, if our universe began in a ground state, it means that you cannot get a universe any more simpler than a ground state. To expect that our universe out of so many arises to be the most simplest way for reality to form (and knowing that the simple-nature cannot be reduced any more) means that none of the other universes (an infinite amount of them) can have begun in a lower state of energy.
Now... this is true. What part of it do you argue?
Only in the biological sense. I made this clear in the OP
Biology is of course highly organised and intricate physics and chemistry. The examples of falsified irreducible complexity in biology are also generalisable to abiological concepts.
Not for this topic it isn't. We are talking about entropy, not biological systems - we are talking about the cosmological make-up, not animals.
Consider a biological structure that is composed of several parts. The structure may be completely nonfunctional if any of its parts are modified or absent. However, because we know that the structure and its parts have evolved (changed) over time, we can show that at some time in the past, the structure and its parts were different and the structure was not nonfunctional in the absence of some parts. Eventually the parts evolved to be completely dependent on each other for proper function.
Wrong talk
A simpler, more purely physical/mechanical example is this: Build an arch out of bricks. This is how arches are made, and its a very reducible process:
http://www.diyinfo.org/wiki/How_To_Build_A_Brick_Arch,_Ringed-Curved_Style
http://www.diyinfo.org/images/f/f7/Brickarch_C.jpg
The bricks in the arch are at first supported by a wooden scaffold. Once the arch is complete, the scaffold is removed and the arch supports itself. Some of these arches do not even require cement, for example if the bricks are wedged, because all the bricks are being forced down and push against each other so there is no way for them to fall.
But what happens if you remove the key brick? The structure collapses.
You are talking about devices. This is not a proper arguement to the conjecture being exampled. You cannot associate that therefore, with a quantum mechanical aspect of the universe.
Does that mean that either the arch or the biological structure were irreducibly complex? No. Extreme co-dependence for function does not equal irreducible complexity. Neither do complex present conditions equal irreducibly complex past conditions.
Doesn't matter.
I don't know what you have been reading but the evolution of the universe now depends on an unseen force called dark energy which pervaids 74% of all the matter in the universe. If anything, we don't have any accuracy on cosmological scales, only local scales, such as our solar system
That information is not inconsistent with current theories about the reducibility of the universe.
Not my point. My point is is that you believe we have an accurate model of the evolution of the universe. This is not true, and there are many holes for error.
Again, bolded by me.
-
Physicists are currently working towards reducing the complexity of the Universe to just one law. They haven't got there yet but, at the moment, there seem to be just 3 forces involved.
That's not very complex.
Also, there are actually four forces.
-
I never said it couldn't. It was you being critical of something you could not do better yourself, as you admitted.
It doesn't change the fact that it has taken you until this post to clearly explain what your argument is. My own skills are irrelevant; you are the one making the argument.
I don't think you've understood the comment. If you understood it, you would see the connection. Last time, different way of explaining: If there are parallel universes, then the laws of physics state that each universe will have exactly the same amount of particles in each universe, which is around 10^80, give or take a few tens. Now, if our universe began in a ground state, it means that you cannot get a universe any more simpler than a ground state. To expect that our universe out of so many arises to be the most simplest way for reality to form (and knowing that the simple-nature cannot be reduced any more) means that none of the other universes (an infinite amount of them) can have begun in a lower state of energy.
Now... this is true. What part of it do you argue?
So all you are saying is that other universes would start off with similar characteristics to this universe?
Why do you you think that would be the case?
Why do you need to use "irreducible complexity" in your argument? All it does is obstruct more explicit explanation. "Complex" isn't even a good adjective for what you are saying.
Not for this topic it isn't. We are talking about entropy, not biological systems - we are talking about the cosmological make-up, not animals.
You are talking about devices. This is not a proper arguement to the conjecture being exampled. You cannot associate that therefore, with a quantum mechanical aspect of the universe.
Entropy is something that changes (increases) over time. Those biological and mechanical systems also change over time. The point was that you can't consider past and present states in the same way.
Not my point. My point is is that you believe we have an accurate model of the evolution of the universe. This is not true, and there are many holes for error.
It's extremely accurate and it is the most accurate model to date. Of course it's not perfect - if it was, science would end.
-
I never said it couldn't. It was you being critical of something you could not do better yourself, as you admitted.
It doesn't change the fact that it has taken you until this post to clearly explain what your argument is. My own skills are irrelevant; you are the one making the argument.
I don't care for your degrading comments. Whether i reached you in the past is irrelevent to whether i have finally reached you now. Ever considered it has something to do with your own mental capacity?
I don't think you've understood the comment. If you understood it, you would see the connection. Last time, different way of explaining: If there are parallel universes, then the laws of physics state that each universe will have exactly the same amount of particles in each universe, which is around 10^80, give or take a few tens. Now, if our universe began in a ground state, it means that you cannot get a universe any more simpler than a ground state. To expect that our universe out of so many arises to be the most simplest way for reality to form (and knowing that the simple-nature cannot be reduced any more) means that none of the other universes (an infinite amount of them) can have begun in a lower state of energy.
Now... this is true. What part of it do you argue?
So all you are saying is that other universes would start off with similar characteristics to this universe?
Why do you you think that would be the case?
They can be similar but identical is forbidden. The reason why is because at t=1 the universe was compressed into an infinite state of density. You cannot get any more simpler than that. But to assume any other universe can exist beyond this threashold becomes obsolete because you cann reduce the complexity any further - which puts a contraint on where our universe is on the so-called infinite ladder. Theoretically, there should be universes which starts off in a lower state than ours; but that would contradict the vacuums laws in this universe. Saying you cannot have it simpler also means you cannot have any less dimensions. In fact there is no theoretical theory of quantum mechanics (which is not classical) which can fundamentally deal with a universe with any less than three. The lowest entropy state in this universe would forbid any other universe arising in this state so we are unique on the lowest state of order; its a bit like shuffling electrons together in orbitals inside an electron.
Why do you need to use "irreducible complexity" in your argument? All it does is obstruct more explicit explanation. "Complex" isn't even a good adjective for what you are saying.
It's irreducible because no universe can reduce any more simpler. Why do you not understand this?
Not for this topic it isn't. We are talking about entropy, not biological systems - we are talking about the cosmological make-up, not animals.
You are talking about devices. This is not a proper arguement to the conjecture being exampled. You cannot associate that therefore, with a quantum mechanical aspect of the universe.
Entropy is something that changes (increases) over time. Those biological and mechanical systems also change over time. The point was that you can't consider past and present states in the same way.
Various accounts can lead toa decrease. It's not always linear - But i am TALKING ABOUT COSMOLOGY - not local life on earth. Whilst life has its own statistical analysis, such analysis is usually left to the Strong Anthropic Principle which has absolute Nada to do with the conjecture/thought-experiment at hand. Leave this biology stuff alone please.
Not my point. My point is is that you believe we have an accurate model of the evolution of the universe. This is not true, and there are many holes for error.
It's extremely accurate and it is the most accurate model to date. Of course it's not perfect - if it was, science would end.
Most accurate yes - i never said it wasn't. Sometimes i think you imagine half the things you think i have said. Whether it's the most accurate model does not excuse the fact that 74% of the universe we still do not understand.
Bolded by me.
-
Mmm... I have just realized there is no paradox. I've missed one fundamental rule, and it almost shoots out of the page. I said in the OP:
''certainly require that the big bang is the most ground state formation of the universe at big bang could not be reduced mathematically any more simpler; to do so, entropy would need to cease to have any true description of disorder, for the lowest state of disorder would no longer apply because there would still persist more energy in a lowest state''
Hum... What does this sound like?
''A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a field; i.e. its ground state, which is non-zero.[2]''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
The solution is quite clear. The multiverse (if it exists) works like quantum objects with half the energy persisting when relative to another universe in a ground state. Two states can never exist at the same time and removes the paradox.
I should have seen that sooner.
-
So you solved your own problem? Congratulations.
-
Physicists are currently working towards reducing the complexity of the Universe to just one law. They haven't got there yet but, at the moment, there seem to be just 3 forces involved.
That's not very complex.
Also, there are actually four forces.
Electricity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and gravity.
There are 5 basic forces but three of them can already be shown to be aspects of just one- the electro-weak force. (electricity and magnetism were "unified" by Maxwell.
That, for those who can't count for themselves leaves (at most) 3.
-
Physicists are currently working towards reducing the complexity of the Universe to just one law. They haven't got there yet but, at the moment, there seem to be just 3 forces involved.
That's not very complex.
Also, there are actually four forces.
Electricity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and gravity.
There are 5 basic forces but three of them can already be shown to be aspects of just one- the electro-weak force. (electricity and magnetism were "unified" by Maxwell.
That, for those who can't count for themselves leaves (at most) 3.
In the standard model, we do not account for magnetism and electric forces alone for they are known to be experimentally-unified, so you are wrong. There are by textbook definition, four fundamental forces of nature.
-
So you solved your own problem? Congratulations.
In embarrasment of course.
-
Physicists are currently working towards reducing the complexity of the Universe to just one law. They haven't got there yet but, at the moment, there seem to be just 3 forces involved.
That's not very complex.
Also, there are actually four forces.
Electricity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and gravity.
There are 5 basic forces but three of them can already be shown to be aspects of just one- the electro-weak force. (electricity and magnetism were "unified" by Maxwell.
That, for those who can't count for themselves leaves (at most) 3.
In the standard model, we do not account for magnetism and electric forces alone for they are known to be experimentally-unified, so you are wrong. There are by textbook definition, four fundamental forces of nature.
Your veiw point is inconsistent.
The electromagnetic and weak forces are experimentally known to be unified so you should accept that either you count the unified forces individually when there are five or you count the groups of unified forces in which case there are three.
Lets be clear about this; I have listed all 5 and yet you say there are 4.
If the GUT people are right then actually, there's only 1.
Even 6 would be not very complex compared to a God.
-
If the GUT people are right then actually, there's only 1.
Even 6 would be not very complex compared to a God.
Yep; it is the electromagnetic; just one. [:)]
-
Physicists are currently working towards reducing the complexity of the Universe to just one law. They haven't got there yet but, at the moment, there seem to be just 3 forces involved.
That's not very complex.
Also, there are actually four forces.
Electricity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and gravity.
There are 5 basic forces but three of them can already be shown to be aspects of just one- the electro-weak force. (electricity and magnetism were "unified" by Maxwell.
That, for those who can't count for themselves leaves (at most) 3.
In the standard model, we do not account for magnetism and electric forces alone for they are known to be experimentally-unified, so you are wrong. There are by textbook definition, four fundamental forces of nature.
Your veiw point is inconsistent.
The electromagnetic and weak forces are experimentally known to be unified so you should accept that either you count the unified forces individually when there are five or you count the groups of unified forces in which case there are three.
Lets be clear about this; I have listed all 5 and yet you say there are 4.
If the GUT people are right then actually, there's only 1.
Even 6 would be not very complex compared to a God.
Please don't argue. I know there are by academic conjecture four fundemental forces of nature, whether or not they unify at sufficiently high enough temperatures.
FROM : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
The four known fundamental interactions are electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction (also known as "strong" and "weak nuclear force") and gravitation.
-
"Please don't argue. I know there are by academic conjecture four fundemental forces of nature, whether or not they unify at sufficiently high enough temperatures.
"
I'm not arguing.
I'm just pointing out that there are five.
Magnetism
Electicity
Gravity
The weak force and
The strong force
It's odd that you persist in saying there are only 4.
Academic conjecture can do what it likes, but there's no way that you can count those 5 forces and only get 4.
I know that 2 of them are both facets of electromagnetism but, as I said, if you don't count the unified ones individually then there are 3. The answer's not 4.
Anyway- it hardly matters. A handfull of forces is still a lot less irreducibly complex than a God.
-
I never appealed to God - Nor does any credible scientist call the forces five. If you want to get technical, yes, there are five fascets. Two of which are incredibly close enough to be classed as a single force, hence, electromagnetism.
-
"Please don't argue. I know there are by academic conjecture four fundemental forces of nature, whether or not they unify at sufficiently high enough temperatures.
"
I'm not arguing.
I'm just pointing out that there are five.
Magnetism
Electicity
Gravity
The weak force and
The strong force
It's odd that you persist in saying there are only 4.
Academic conjecture can do what it likes, but there's no way that you can count those 5 forces and only get 4.
I know that 2 of them are both facets of electromagnetism but, as I said, if you don't count the unified ones individually then there are 3. The answer's not 4.
Anyway- it hardly matters. A handfull of forces is still a lot less irreducibly complex than a God.
Bored chemist:
I have just came to realize that you have read this work drastically-wrong. Am i correct in saying that this irreducible-complexity arguement has you believing that it asserts you cannot unify the fundamental forces theoretically?
It by no means suggested that whatsoever.
-
I just don't see how 'electricity' is a fundamental force. We get electricity by spinning magnets and wire, among other techniques. Electricity is simply the displacement of electrons by various methods. It is an effect. Not a fundamental force.
-
I think she or he meant it as ''electic'' rather than electricity itself.
-
I think she or he meant it as ''electic'' rather than electricity itself.
Ofcourse, Whether 1, 4, or 5, by anyones count the basic construct of the cosmos must and will reduce it's complex character to the lowest common denominator. All systems seek the simplest equilibrium because that's the key to greatest efficiency. I agree with your point Mr. Scientist about the initial circumstances of the proposed Big Bang. However, I personally, do not invest much faith in the Big Bang scenario. Nevertheless, if the Big Bang is correct, then your accessment would be right. I prefer to believe in the eternal state of the universe.
-
What you seem to be arguing Mr S is that we should look at SpaceTime as 'it is' and use that as the best plausible example for creating those than can discuss it :)
It's one way of looking at it.
As for the concept of breaking down stuff into smaller and smaller 'forces'?
That's another way to look at it.
It's a little like time.
You may assume that as time has an arrow all things will have a chronological procession and a past, a present and a future. But at a quantum level that description can be questioned. It all comes down to what your presumptions are. In the Newtonian world we believed in objective celestial mechanisms. In our Einsteinian world we believe in probability and relativity.
If you think of it in terms of 'emergences' time only have an clear 'times arrow' macroscopically. Which then seems to suggest that black body radiation and time both 'jumps' from obscurity to 'revelation' in a non-hierarchical (smooth) way, and by that I mean 'emerging'.
--
Which doesn't mean that our arrow of time isn't smooth at our macroscopic level btw. Im only suggesting that there are 'jumps' to it.