Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
The 2nd Law: Is Increased Entropy Stochastic (incidental) or Causal (intrinsic)?
Recent science news is dominated by the multi-trillion dollar experimental search for the Higgs boson particle. A definitive observation of the theorized, but illusive, Higgs will finally complete the verification of the Standard Model – the most respected mathematical model of the evolution of our universe, explaining the emergence of each of the known forces and all of the matter we can observe. In the Standard Model, the Higgs is responsible for gravity – surrounding the more pedestrian particles – lending them the property we call "mass". If the Higgs exists, it is important as the causal bridge between the quantum world of the small and the relativistic world of the large. How could a particle that causes gravity be so hard to find? Because it doesn't actually have mass. It is as a result, known as "weakly interacting". It is only when a whole bunch of Higgs get together and surround other particles that mass is detected, and then, only in the surrounded particles. The Higgs binds so tightly to other particles, that it takes an extraordinary amount of energy, to break it free so that its presence can be detected. This is what the "Large Hadron Collider" does – it smashes heavy atomic nucleus (stripped of their electrons) at energies equivalent to those of the first moments after the Big Bang when all of the matter and energy in the entire universe was still smaller than a single star.
But there is a far more fundamental question. Gravity is a property. It is domain-dependent. It is specific to and belongs to a class of objects of a particular makeup and composition. The existence or nonexistence of the Higgs has no effect upon other properties of the universe like electromagnetism.
But there is a candidate for a domain-independent attribute of any and all causal systems. This attribute has been labeled the "Causal Entropic Principle" – it is generally discussed within the context of the transfer of heat (at astronomical scales) – within the study of thermodynamics. It is the logical extension of the concept of increased entropy, as first postulated, measured, and later described as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. But now, a hundred and fifty years after the formalization the laws of thermodynamics (of the phenomena and parameters of the transfer of heat, of the ratio of potential energy and work) correlative investigations in the fields of information, communication, computation, language, energy/mass, logic, and structure have uncovered parallel principles and constraints. It is reasonable now to understand the 2nd Law as a description of a fundamental constraint on any change, in any system, no matter what forces and materials are at play. We now understand the 2nd Law to describe the reduction in the quality (density) of the energy and or structure of the universe (or any part therein) as results any change at all. We have come to understand the 2nd Law as a constraint on the outcome of change in structure, which is to say "information", on its construction, maintenance, and or transfer. This insight has rendered an equivalence between energy and structure in much the same way that Einsteinian Relativity exposed the equivalence between energy and mass.
There is however a daemon lurking within our understanding of the 2nd Law, a daemon that threatens to undermine our understanding of causality itself, a daemon that, once defined, may provide the basis for an understanding of any self-consistent causal system, including but not exclusive of our own universe and its particular set of properties and behaviors.
The daemon of the 2nd Law is the daemon of stochastic – is 2nd Law dictated dissipation (entropy) statistical, or is statistics simply a tool we use in the absence of microscopic knowledge? Asked another way, is the reduction in the quality of energy or information that the 2nd Law demands of every action, a property of the universe or is it a property of the measurement or observation of the universe? Is action equivalent to measurement? Is there a measurement or stochastic class of action free of the entropy-increase demanded by the 2nd Law?
This question is of far greater consequence to the universe and the understanding of the universe than the mechanics of mass as it would describe and thus parameterize ALL action and ALL configuration and the precipitation or evolution of all possible action and configuration. Where the existence of the Higgs Boson may explain the source of mass and gravity in this universe, an understanding of the causal attributes leading to the behavior described by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics might just provide a foundation from which any and all causal systems must precipitate.
The implications and issues orbiting this problem are many and deep. At stake is an demonstrative understanding of change itself. We tend to think of change as exception. But, can a thing exist without change? If not, what is the difference between data and computation, between thing and abstraction of thing, and profoundly, an answer to the question, can data exist without computation? Can thing exist outside of abstraction of thing?
In thermodynamics and information theory, an effort is made to distinguish process and stochastic process. Heat is defined as an aggregate property describing the average or holistic state of systems composed so many interacting parts to keep track of all of them individually. Heat is a calculous of sorts, a system of shortcuts that allows mathematics to be employed successfully to determine the gross state of a huge collection of similar parts. There is a tendency then to assume that the laws that describe heat are laws that only apply to aggregate systems where knowledge is incomplete.
Are there non-stochastic systems? Are there discrete systems or dynamic changes within systems for which the laws of thermodynamics don't apply? Does the Causal Entropic Principle apply if you know and can observe every attribute of, and calculate the exact and complete state of a dynamic system?
Such questions are more involved than they may seem on first reading. Answering them will expose the very nature of change, independent of domain, illuminating the causal chain that has resulted from full evolutionary lineage of the universe.
Randall Lee Reetz
Note: The Causal Entropic Principle isn't a complex concept. It is the simple application of the 2nd Law's demand for increased universal entropy as a result of every change in any system. It says that every action in every system must be that action that causes the largest reduction in the quality of information or energy (the greatest dissipation). It says that a universe has only one possible end state – heat death – and that processes that maximize the rate towards this end state will be evolutionarily favored (selected), simply because entropy-maximizing processes and structures demand a higher throughput of energy and thus end up dominating their respective locality. Such entropy-maximizing schemes are thus more likely to determine the structure and behavior of the event cone stretching off into the future. An obvious extension of this principle is that complexity, or more precisely, the family of complexity that can find, record, and process abstractions that represent the salient aspects (physics) of the (an) universe, will help that complexity better predict the shape and behavior it must assume to maximize its competitive influence upon the future of entropy maximization. The "Causal Entropic Principle" thus represents a logically self-consistant (scientific) replacement for the awkwardly self-centered and causally impossible "anthropomorphic principle" (which lacks a physical or causal explanation and leans heavily on painfully erroneous macroscopic stretching of the quantum electro dynamics). Stretching circular logic to its most obvious and illogical end, the anthropomorphic principle borrows awkwardly and erroneously and ironically form the Heisenberg / Uncertainty Principle by asserting the necessity of "observers" as a precursor to the emergence of complexity. The Causal Entropic Principle explains the production of localized complexity without the need for prior-knowledge, and does so within the bounds of, as a result of, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, by showing that localized complexity can both come into existence as a result of the constant increase in universal entropy, and more specifically, that localized complexity has an evolutionary advantage, and will thus out-compete, less complex structures. In a Causal Entropic Principle universe, intelligence is the expected evolutionary result of competition to reach heat death faster. Falling down is enhanced by a particular class of complexity that can come into existence as a natural result of things falling down. Should one form of such complexity "understand" the universe better than another form, it will have an advantage and will be more likely to influence the shape of complexity in the future. The better a system gets at abstracting the dynamics of its environment the more likely it will be able to eat other systems than be eaten by them. Where the anthropomorphic principle requires an a-priori "observer", the causal entropic principle simply requires the 2nd Law's demand for increased entropy, for things falling down.
Evolution: Pendulum Dance Between Laws of Thermodynamics
For years, I have pursued a purely thermodynamic definition of evolution.
My reasoning is informed by the observation that change is independent of domain, process, or the physical laws and behaviors upon which a system is based. As the science of thermodynamics has itself matured (evolved), the boundaries of its applicable domain have expanded far beyond its original focus on heat. It is generally accepted that the laws of thermodynamics apply to ANY system in which change occurs, that the laws of thermodynamics are agnostic to energy type or form. Furthermore, scientists studying information/communication independently discovered laws that match almost perfectly, the laws of thermodynamics. This mirroring of domains has thrilled logicians, physicists, mathematicians, and cosmologists who are no more and more convinced that information (configuration) and energy are symmetric with respect to change over time.
Even conservatively, the implications of this symmetry are nothing short of profound. If true, it suggests that one can, for instance, calculate the amount of information it would take to get a certain mass to the moon and back, and it means that one can calculate how much energy it would take to compute the design a moon rocket. It means that the much vaulted "E" in Einstein's Relativity equation can be exchanged with an "I" for information (with valid results). It means, at some level, that information is relativistic and that gravity works as a metric of information. Same goes for the rules and equations that govern quantum dynamics.
And this from an eyes-wide-open anti-post modernist!
At any event, the symmetric relationship between energy and information (at least with regard to change) provides a singular foundation for all of physics, and even perhaps for all of ANY possible physical system (equally applicable to other universes with other rules).
It would seem that thermodynamics would provide a more than solid base from which to define the process that allows for, limits, and possibly demands the (localized) accumulation of complexity – evolution!
The Zeroth and First Laws of Thermodynamics work to shape and parameterize action. Given the particular configuration immediately prior they insure that the next action is always and only the set of those possible actions that together will expend the most energy. In colloquial terms, things fall down and things fall down as fast and as completely as is possible. Falling down, is a euphemism for the process of seeking of equilibrium. If the forces attracting two objects is greater than the forces keeping them apart, they will fall together. If the forces keeping them apart is greater than the forces attracting them, they will fall apart. Falling down reduces a system to a more stable state – a state in which less force is pushing because some force was released. Falling down catalyzes the maximum release of energy and results in a configuration of minimum tension.
The Second Law of thermodynamics dictates that all action results in a degradation of energy, or configurationally speaking, a reduction in density or organizational complexity. Over time the universe becomes cooler, more spread out, and less ordered.
The falling down dictated by the the zeroth and first law result in particular types of chunking determined by a combination of the materials available and the energy reduced. About a million years after the big bang, the energy and pressures of the big bang had dissipated such that the attractive forces effecting sub-atomic particles were finally stronger than the forces all around them. The result was a precipitation of matter as hydrogen and helium atoms in plasma. After a few hundred million years, the mass in these gasses exerted more attractive energy than the much cooler and less dense universe, and precipitated into clumps that became stars. As the fusion cascade in these first stars radiated their energy out into an expanding and cooling universe, the attractive force of gravity within became greater than the repulsive forces of nuclear reaction and the starts imploded upon themselves with such force as to expel their electrons and precipitate again into all of the other elements. These heavy elements were drawn by gravity again into a second generation of stars and planets of which earth is but one lonely example.
You will have noticed that each precipitatory event in our cosmological history resulted in a new aggregate class – energy, sub atomic particles, light atoms, stars, heavy atoms, stars and planets, life, sentience, language, culture, science, etc). The first two laws of thermodynamics dictate the way previously created aggregate objects are combined to form new classes of aggregate objects. The second law guarantees as a result of the most contemporary precipitation event, a coincidental lowering of energy/configurational density which allows still weaker forces to cause aggregates in the next precipitatory phase.
If you still aren't following me, it is probably because I have not been clear about the fact that the lower environmental energy density that is the result of each precipitatory cycle optimizes the resulting environmental conditions to the effects of the next weaker force or the next less stable configuration.
For instance, the very act of the strong force to create atomic nuclei, lowers the temperature and pressure to such an extent that the weak force and the electromagnetic force can now overcome environmental chaos and cause the formation of atoms in the next precipitatory event.
This ratcheted dance between the laws of thermodynamics is the why of evolution, and results in the layered grammars that sometimes or at least potentially describe ever greater stacked complexities that led to life and us and what might come as a result of our self same actions as the dance continues.
Stepping back to the basic foundation of causality, it is important to be re-reminded that a configuration of any kind always represents the maximum allowable complexity. In recent years, much has been made of the black hole cosmologies that define the event horizon as the minimum allowable area on which all of the information within the black hole can be written as a one bit thick surface membrane of a sphere. The actual physical mechanical reason that this black hole event horizon membrane can be described as a lossless "holographic" recording or description or compression of the full contents of the black hole is complex and binds quantum and relativistic physics. Quantum because the energies are so great structure is reduced to the structural granularity of basic quantum bits. Relativistic because at this maximally allowable density everything passing the event horizon has reached the speed of light, freezing time itself… the event horizon effectively holds an informational record of everything that has passed.
The interesting and I think salient aspect of an event horizon is that is always exactly as big as it needs to be to hold all of the bits that have passed through it. As the black whole attracts and eats up any mass unlucky enough to be within its considerable influence, the event horizon grows by exactly the bits necessary to describe it at the quantum level.
The cosmological community (including Sir Steven Hawking), was at first shocked by the sublime elegance of this theory and then by the audacious and unavoidable implication that black holes, like everything else, are beholding to the laws of thermodynamics. The theory predicts black hole evaporation! Seems black holes, like everything else, are entropically bound. There is no free lunch. The collapse of matter into a black hole results in a degradation of energy and informational configuration, the self same entropy that demands that heat leak from a steam engine, demands that black holes will evaporate and that eventually, when this rate of evaporation exceeds the rate of stuff falling into it, a black whole will get smaller and ultimately, poof, be gone.
This is heady stuff. The biggest and baddest things in the universe are limited! But to me, the most profound aspect of this knowledge is not that event horizons can be describes as maximal causal configurations, but that we are shocked by this! All systems are, at each moment, the maximal allowable configuration by which those forces and those materials can be arranged. If they could be arranged any tighter, they would have already collapsed into that configuration.
To say this is to understand that time is not separable from configuration. As Einstein showed, time is physically dependent upon and bounded by the interaction of mass, distance, energy, and change. Cosmologists use limits to understand the universe. The maximal warpage of space-time caused by a black hole's density effectively flattens the allowable granular complexity of the configurational grammar to binary bits held in the minimally allowable physical embodiment. But, lower energy configurations, configurations like dogs, planets, and the mechanism by which I am attempting to explain this concept, are bounded and limited by the exact same causal rules.
The difference between a black hole horizon and an idea? Well it has to do with the stacking of grammatical systems (quarks, sub atomic particles, atoms, molecules, proteans, cells, organs, bodies, culture, language, etc.) that allows for complexities greater than the binary bits, the only stuff allowed to pass through an event horizon. But these stacked grammars that allow us to be us are every bit as restricted to the same maximally allowable configuration rule that minimizes the size of a black hole's event horizon. In a system configured by a stacked grammar, the minimum complexity rule is enforced at the transition boundary between each two grammatical layers.
[to be continued]
Randall Reetz
My reasoning is informed by the observation that change is independent of domain, process, or the physical laws and behaviors upon which a system is based. As the science of thermodynamics has itself matured (evolved), the boundaries of its applicable domain have expanded far beyond its original focus on heat. It is generally accepted that the laws of thermodynamics apply to ANY system in which change occurs, that the laws of thermodynamics are agnostic to energy type or form. Furthermore, scientists studying information/communication independently discovered laws that match almost perfectly, the laws of thermodynamics. This mirroring of domains has thrilled logicians, physicists, mathematicians, and cosmologists who are no more and more convinced that information (configuration) and energy are symmetric with respect to change over time.
Even conservatively, the implications of this symmetry are nothing short of profound. If true, it suggests that one can, for instance, calculate the amount of information it would take to get a certain mass to the moon and back, and it means that one can calculate how much energy it would take to compute the design a moon rocket. It means that the much vaulted "E" in Einstein's Relativity equation can be exchanged with an "I" for information (with valid results). It means, at some level, that information is relativistic and that gravity works as a metric of information. Same goes for the rules and equations that govern quantum dynamics.
And this from an eyes-wide-open anti-post modernist!
At any event, the symmetric relationship between energy and information (at least with regard to change) provides a singular foundation for all of physics, and even perhaps for all of ANY possible physical system (equally applicable to other universes with other rules).
It would seem that thermodynamics would provide a more than solid base from which to define the process that allows for, limits, and possibly demands the (localized) accumulation of complexity – evolution!
The Zeroth and First Laws of Thermodynamics work to shape and parameterize action. Given the particular configuration immediately prior they insure that the next action is always and only the set of those possible actions that together will expend the most energy. In colloquial terms, things fall down and things fall down as fast and as completely as is possible. Falling down, is a euphemism for the process of seeking of equilibrium. If the forces attracting two objects is greater than the forces keeping them apart, they will fall together. If the forces keeping them apart is greater than the forces attracting them, they will fall apart. Falling down reduces a system to a more stable state – a state in which less force is pushing because some force was released. Falling down catalyzes the maximum release of energy and results in a configuration of minimum tension.
The Second Law of thermodynamics dictates that all action results in a degradation of energy, or configurationally speaking, a reduction in density or organizational complexity. Over time the universe becomes cooler, more spread out, and less ordered.
The falling down dictated by the the zeroth and first law result in particular types of chunking determined by a combination of the materials available and the energy reduced. About a million years after the big bang, the energy and pressures of the big bang had dissipated such that the attractive forces effecting sub-atomic particles were finally stronger than the forces all around them. The result was a precipitation of matter as hydrogen and helium atoms in plasma. After a few hundred million years, the mass in these gasses exerted more attractive energy than the much cooler and less dense universe, and precipitated into clumps that became stars. As the fusion cascade in these first stars radiated their energy out into an expanding and cooling universe, the attractive force of gravity within became greater than the repulsive forces of nuclear reaction and the starts imploded upon themselves with such force as to expel their electrons and precipitate again into all of the other elements. These heavy elements were drawn by gravity again into a second generation of stars and planets of which earth is but one lonely example.
You will have noticed that each precipitatory event in our cosmological history resulted in a new aggregate class – energy, sub atomic particles, light atoms, stars, heavy atoms, stars and planets, life, sentience, language, culture, science, etc). The first two laws of thermodynamics dictate the way previously created aggregate objects are combined to form new classes of aggregate objects. The second law guarantees as a result of the most contemporary precipitation event, a coincidental lowering of energy/configurational density which allows still weaker forces to cause aggregates in the next precipitatory phase.
If you still aren't following me, it is probably because I have not been clear about the fact that the lower environmental energy density that is the result of each precipitatory cycle optimizes the resulting environmental conditions to the effects of the next weaker force or the next less stable configuration.
For instance, the very act of the strong force to create atomic nuclei, lowers the temperature and pressure to such an extent that the weak force and the electromagnetic force can now overcome environmental chaos and cause the formation of atoms in the next precipitatory event.
This ratcheted dance between the laws of thermodynamics is the why of evolution, and results in the layered grammars that sometimes or at least potentially describe ever greater stacked complexities that led to life and us and what might come as a result of our self same actions as the dance continues.
Stepping back to the basic foundation of causality, it is important to be re-reminded that a configuration of any kind always represents the maximum allowable complexity. In recent years, much has been made of the black hole cosmologies that define the event horizon as the minimum allowable area on which all of the information within the black hole can be written as a one bit thick surface membrane of a sphere. The actual physical mechanical reason that this black hole event horizon membrane can be described as a lossless "holographic" recording or description or compression of the full contents of the black hole is complex and binds quantum and relativistic physics. Quantum because the energies are so great structure is reduced to the structural granularity of basic quantum bits. Relativistic because at this maximally allowable density everything passing the event horizon has reached the speed of light, freezing time itself… the event horizon effectively holds an informational record of everything that has passed.
The interesting and I think salient aspect of an event horizon is that is always exactly as big as it needs to be to hold all of the bits that have passed through it. As the black whole attracts and eats up any mass unlucky enough to be within its considerable influence, the event horizon grows by exactly the bits necessary to describe it at the quantum level.
The cosmological community (including Sir Steven Hawking), was at first shocked by the sublime elegance of this theory and then by the audacious and unavoidable implication that black holes, like everything else, are beholding to the laws of thermodynamics. The theory predicts black hole evaporation! Seems black holes, like everything else, are entropically bound. There is no free lunch. The collapse of matter into a black hole results in a degradation of energy and informational configuration, the self same entropy that demands that heat leak from a steam engine, demands that black holes will evaporate and that eventually, when this rate of evaporation exceeds the rate of stuff falling into it, a black whole will get smaller and ultimately, poof, be gone.
This is heady stuff. The biggest and baddest things in the universe are limited! But to me, the most profound aspect of this knowledge is not that event horizons can be describes as maximal causal configurations, but that we are shocked by this! All systems are, at each moment, the maximal allowable configuration by which those forces and those materials can be arranged. If they could be arranged any tighter, they would have already collapsed into that configuration.
To say this is to understand that time is not separable from configuration. As Einstein showed, time is physically dependent upon and bounded by the interaction of mass, distance, energy, and change. Cosmologists use limits to understand the universe. The maximal warpage of space-time caused by a black hole's density effectively flattens the allowable granular complexity of the configurational grammar to binary bits held in the minimally allowable physical embodiment. But, lower energy configurations, configurations like dogs, planets, and the mechanism by which I am attempting to explain this concept, are bounded and limited by the exact same causal rules.
The difference between a black hole horizon and an idea? Well it has to do with the stacking of grammatical systems (quarks, sub atomic particles, atoms, molecules, proteans, cells, organs, bodies, culture, language, etc.) that allows for complexities greater than the binary bits, the only stuff allowed to pass through an event horizon. But these stacked grammars that allow us to be us are every bit as restricted to the same maximally allowable configuration rule that minimizes the size of a black hole's event horizon. In a system configured by a stacked grammar, the minimum complexity rule is enforced at the transition boundary between each two grammatical layers.
Things fall, but only as fast as the stacked grammars that govern causal reality will allow. This isn't a metaphor, the speed of diffusion, of degradation, of falling down, is always and in all situations, maxed-out. The exact same physical topology that bounds the size of the a black hole event horizon contributes to the causal binding effecting the rate at which any system can change. This is because at the deepest causal layer, all systems are bound by relativity and quantum dynamics. The grammatical layers built successively on top of this lower binding only serve to further influence entropy's relentless race towards heat death.
[to be continued]
Randall Reetz
DNA replication…
Yes, this shit is so amazing that it makes a hardened evolution theorist like me cough up some creationist thoughts (don't worry, it will be a temporary affliction).
This animation shows the lagging strand replication process in greater detail. If you are wondering why the lagging strand should have to be built in reverse, it is because the other side of the helix is inverted which would have necessitated an exact molecular machine to have been evolved from scratch, but in reverse! This molecule, "polymerase", is composed of 8005 atoms. The ingenious workaround, to run the strand through the same molecule backwards, though mechanically awkward, is far more likely (less complicated) to have evolved than would have been a mirror image of the whole polymerase molecule (or its function). In fact, it is probable that such a molecule might not even be physically possible given the "handedness" (right/left) of the atoms molecules must be built of. Because of this, I consider the asymmetry of DNA replication machinery to be evidence of the least energy dictated meandering of the evolutionary process.
By pure chance, an particular arrangement of 8005 things would happen once every 8005 to the 8005th attempts (8005 factorial). Of course molecules don't assemble by pure chance. Even if you dumped the requisite atoms into a box and shook it up, the assembly wouldn't happen instantaneously, some atoms would form small groups, and those groups would clump together into larger groups, etc. The atoms of each element have unique properties that effect their aggregation.
But that isn't the full story either because the polymerase molecule is built atom by atom by DNA.
Evolution: Optimizing a Definition of Fitness
We think of evolution as a process that optimizes organisms (things) through the filter of fitness. Fitness as means - the species - as end. I have long suspected that this interpretation is wrong-headed, and results in conceptual mistakes that ripple though all of science, blinding us to much that could be understood about the Universe, process, and the basic shape and behavior of reality.
So let's flip it. We'll instead, re-frame evolution as a process that uses things (organisms, species, systems, ideas, etc.) as a means (channel, resource, armature, vehicle) for the optimization of fitness. From this inverted vantage, optimizing the criteria of fitness is the goal – species, nothing more than a convenient means.
It always feels wrong to talk of evolution's "goals". Certainly a universe doesn't start out with a plan or agenda. Things like plans and agendas are only possible within advanced abstraction apparatus like a brain or computer. Universe's start out simple and chaotic. Only chance causal interactions played out amongst a universe sized accumulation of matter and force over ridiculous amounts of time will lead to the types of rare and energy demanding structures that can "think" up things like plans and agendas. So when I talk here of "a process that optimizes", I make use concepts and terms that are more generally associated with self, ideation, and will – with the products of advanced abstraction machinery found in humans and maybe eventually in thinking machines. But what I mean to convey is the direction of a process. That processes have direction and that direction is (or can be) independent of the types of advanced computation necessary for things like planing and intent is in fact, the exact conceptual jump that the idea or discovery of "evolution" demands. Evolution = direction without intent.
The directionality we see in evolving systems (all systems) is blatantly and obviously non-random. Our job then is to understand, explain, and ultimately, exploit this understanding. Because we humans have trouble imagining non-random direction coming from systems without a brain, a soul, an agenda, we are left with a slim set of emotionally acceptable options; anthropomorphizing the universe and evolution, inserting a deity, or simply rejecting evolution (or reality) out of hand. The non-emotional option, the science option, evolution, recovers from this dissonance through the application of inductive logic, physical evidence, and frankly, by simply offering a emotionally dissonant option.
The thesis of this essay is the suggestion that evolution might be agnostic to optimization of species and is instead simply using species as a conduit for the optimization of this thing called fitness. That fitness might in fact be more real, and species, ethereal.
This entire domain is so fraught with potential miss-interpretation. I feel a constant urge to over-explain, to be extra careful, to make sure the reader isn't thinking one thing when I mean something else. For instance I feel a need to define the term "species", especially because I am using it in a more general way than is usually required within the boundaries of its original domain, biology. This is because I am convinced that evolution is a universal process, that it has nothing in particular to do with biology or life, that it happens in all systems, all of the time, an unavoidable aspect of any reality.
So when I write "species" I mean the thing or system that is "evolving" – the animal, the planet, the culture, the idea, the group attitude in line at the post office this morning. And in the context of this essay, I use "species" to mean the thing upon which "fitness" acts (as judge, jury, pimp, or executioner). Species is the thing, fitness the criteria that molds the thing.
But by this definition, species is corporal and measurable, suggesting that fitness is… is what? If we are talking about something, shouldn't we have some way of examining it, measuring it, comparing it, holding it in our hands, flipping it over, squeezing it, spitting it open and looking at its parts? That seems a more reasonable proposition for species than for fitness.
We like to think we can man-handle a thing like species, take it to the lab and do lab things. But maybe that is more illusion than truth. We can dissect a frog, but that particular frog isn't really the species "frog". The species "frog" is an average, a canonical concept, a Platonic solid, a moving target, an arbitrarily bounded collection, a gelatinous arrow through foggy potentialities.
I was in route to show that "fitness" is a real thing, but all I accomplished was a picking away at the real-ness of "species". Maybe that will end up being more helpful anyway. The colloquial image of species, even amongst evolution theorists has always seemed more visceral, more thing-like than fitness. We point to a single nervous animal on the savanna and declare, "that is gazelle". Worse, we often fail to make a semantics distinction between that declaration and the categorical; "gazelle is that". That fitness is a much harder thing to point to, really doesn't mean it is less real, or as I have shown, that real-ness applies to either.
Now that I've reduced both species and fitness to the realm of concept, it should be easier to argue my thesis.
Even at the concept level, "species" is a thorny concept fraught with pedagogy and hubris. It is hard to look at a penguin, a porpoise, or a planet and imagine something more amazing, more evolved than its current form. Which probably goes a long way to explain why we have a natural tendency to overlay onto the concept "species" notions of perfect form, of an apex, a pre-determined goal. But this certainly has less to do with species and more to do with the limits of our cognitive facility. It would be absurd to assume that this particular now is in some way special, that forms are complete and that we just happen to inhabit the planet just at the point when evolution has finally and completely finished its big 14 billion year project.
OK, the apologies have been met out, the slippery territory marked, the standard arguments abutted, the inconsistencies delineated, the usual misinterpretations admitted. These are standard precursors to any serious discussion in the study of evolution and bare witness to both the complexity of the subject and the apparent inability of the brain to readily make sense of its many dimensions.
So why should I want to reorder the relative hierarchy of fitness and species? For one, I have always felt the standard Darwinian definition of evolution to be a bit circular. Wow, before that comment ruins my standing, I had better get to work defending Darwin. I am a "standard model" realist. Darwin got most or all of evolution correct. Especially if you restrict your focus to biology. Darwin is the dude! The positions I detail here are meant as additions, as icing on the cake Darwin baked. But Darwin built his theory around life and his bio-centrist focus on evolution restricts and warps the applicable idea-space it scopes. I always say that Darwin explained the how of evolution with regard to biology, and that I am interested in the why of evolution with regard to all systems.
To restrict the scope of evolution to biology, is to somehow draw a line in the sand between life and not-life, a special sauce within life that categorically separates it from all other systems. I can't find that line. So I am left with the responsibility of understanding and defining evolution as a domain independent attribute of any system or system of systems.
Structurally, all systems are ordered as hierarchical stacks. Each level receives aggregate structures from lower (previously constructed) levels and produces from these, new super-aggragates, that it in turn passes to the next higher level. That this process of aggregate layering is historically dependent is obvious. The non-obvious mapping is to energy. The lowest levels of the hierarchy, the earliest levels, represent high energy processes, energy levels that would rip apart aggregates at higher levels. In this universe, all systems are built upon the aggregation processes laid down in the earliest moments, aggregations that occur at the upper limits of heat and pressure – strings, quarks, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules. Each corresponding to a matching environmental energy level, an energy level that is cooler and less pressurized than the ones that came before it. The universe gets cooler and more dispersed. Always. The growth of complexity, evolution, is dependent upon this predictable and unavoidable dissipation of energy over time.
Those who would argue that life is special, that evolution is exclusive to it, well they are obligated to draw a definitive boundary between life and everything else, and because life, like everything else, is dependent upon the historical layering of aggregate systems, will have to draw that line historically. They will have to show a moment in time before which there was not life or evolution and after which there was life and evolution.
There are many ways to define life in order that such a line could be drawn. If you say, as most do, that life is that set of systems that incorporate and utilize both R and D Nucleic acids, well there is surely some moment in the past which would accurately delineate those earlier systems which didn't have both RNA and DNA, from the later systems that did. Such a definition is some what arbitrary, but all categorical definitions are. But if you seek instead to hinge your definition of life to the process of evolution, then you are faced with a tautologically intractable problem. Either you must accept the nonsensical proposition that the universe started with RNA/DNA preformed, or the more rational causal proposition that evolution is independent of and proceeded biology, preparing over vast periods of time, the aggregate ingredients necessary for the super-aggregate we call life. If you insist despite this logic, that evolution is a property exclusive to biology, then you are left with the thorny problem of defining aggregation processes happening simultaneous to and independent of biology. Processes that continue to produce atoms, molecules, stars, planets, galaxies, cultures, ideas, sand dunes, ocean currents, etc. And, you must also show how these continuous and omnipresent processes are qualitatively different when they happen outside of systems that use RNA and DNA from those that do. But that isn't enough, you must also show either that no system after biology will ever evolve, of that the entire future of evolution will happen within the confines of biological systems.
The evidence and logic weighs overwhelmingly on the side of life being an arbitrarily bounded category, and evolution defining a process unbounded by domain, history, or complexity. Both of which are difficult concepts for humans to accept. We like to think we belong to a category made exclusive by some secret sauce, some magic that applies in some measure only to life, and which has reached its zenith in the human form or spirit. We like to imagine evolution to be that process that shaped the shapeless gasses of primal soup into the perfect form that we now enjoy. Wow. The ego and hubris drips and pools.
If I may, back to fitness. The above arguments are crafted to shake we humans free of our innate bio/human/self centrism and to show how such hubris works to emphasize contemporary corporal form over timeless ephemeral process, placing a sort of artificial spotlight on species and downgrading the in contrast, fitness. Its only natural. And it is wrong.
The tendency to focus on species is easy to understand. If you are looking at an animal and asking questions about evolution and process it is only natural that the scope of your thinking would be restricted to that animal, that species, that family of life and its struggle to survive. Even when you back your self out to a vantage wide enough to include all of life, the full fan of Linnaean Taxonomy over the full 4.5 billion year crawl, the focus is still thing, still survival, still some sort of cosmic engineering project. It is only when you back all the way out, when you look at all that is, the entire Universe, every moment since the big bang, life and the stuff between, in, and of it, that you might be forced to ask questions big enough to frame the why of evolution.
The why of evolution has to be big enough to comfortably hold all change, all systems, any aggregate and any aggregate chain, not just those that succeed, not just those that are fit, not just things that can be called things… everything! Any process that explains the existence of one system should also be able to explain every other system. Universality, at this depth of scope demands a bigger reason than can be explained by the concept "species". Darwin's big how in biology then becomes a local mapping to a specific domain. It isn't wrong, it just isn't universal. You can know everything about pianos, but won't really understand music until you know enough about enough instruments that you begin to see the formative patterns that unite, from which all instruments are informed.
Species, be it a valid concept at all, must be but a subset, an example, a non-special representative, a member of a perfectly inclusive, and domain independent set. Sets that include everything are not informative as a set. So we look elsewhere. That species, as a label, pointing to the subject of evolution, can equally be applied to any thing, forces us to look elsewhere for that which explains the big why of change. Change must not reside in thing, product, tailings, result, or even detritus. If the big why isn't thing, but has to explain thing, any thing, all things, than the big why must be a process or action or modifier or pressure. Some common attribute of any change regardless of domain. What process is agnostic to domain?
In a word, entropy. In an attempt to determine the maximum work that could be extracted from any source of energy, steam era engineers teased apart the relationship between source and output and found an intriguing and strangely universal leakage. Energy, when used, degrades, diffuses, is no longer as useful or available to the original process. When scientists discovered the same leak, this time with structure, a strange universality began to appear. Energy and information, force and structure, an unexpected symmetry. Then Einstein revealed the exact relationship between energy, time, space, and mass, allowing thermodynamic transforms on all physical terms. Despite initial objections by Stephen Hawking (and others attracted to the notion that nooks and crannies of the universe might provide respite from the second law's rigid causal prescriptions), Leonard Susskind and others have brought both the quantum world of the impossibly small and the black hole world of the impossibly big, together under a shared entropic umbrella. What we are left with, like it or not, is a universal. A universal that is universal to all physical domains and dimensions, regardless of scale. Wow. That doesn't happen very often in nature. That hasn't happened in science. Ever. Significant?
In his 1927 book, The Nature of the Physical World, Sir Arthur Eddington, put it this way:
"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Any theory or assessment of evolution that is not written in response to thermodynamics, information theory, and entropy would seem to be a theory not particularly interested in validity. That the laws of thermodynamics and evolution both direct their unblinking stares upon the domain of change would seem to me an invitation to at least begin to consider the possibility of a concerted union between the two.
[more to come…]
Randall Reetz
So let's flip it. We'll instead, re-frame evolution as a process that uses things (organisms, species, systems, ideas, etc.) as a means (channel, resource, armature, vehicle) for the optimization of fitness. From this inverted vantage, optimizing the criteria of fitness is the goal – species, nothing more than a convenient means.
It always feels wrong to talk of evolution's "goals". Certainly a universe doesn't start out with a plan or agenda. Things like plans and agendas are only possible within advanced abstraction apparatus like a brain or computer. Universe's start out simple and chaotic. Only chance causal interactions played out amongst a universe sized accumulation of matter and force over ridiculous amounts of time will lead to the types of rare and energy demanding structures that can "think" up things like plans and agendas. So when I talk here of "a process that optimizes", I make use concepts and terms that are more generally associated with self, ideation, and will – with the products of advanced abstraction machinery found in humans and maybe eventually in thinking machines. But what I mean to convey is the direction of a process. That processes have direction and that direction is (or can be) independent of the types of advanced computation necessary for things like planing and intent is in fact, the exact conceptual jump that the idea or discovery of "evolution" demands. Evolution = direction without intent.
The directionality we see in evolving systems (all systems) is blatantly and obviously non-random. Our job then is to understand, explain, and ultimately, exploit this understanding. Because we humans have trouble imagining non-random direction coming from systems without a brain, a soul, an agenda, we are left with a slim set of emotionally acceptable options; anthropomorphizing the universe and evolution, inserting a deity, or simply rejecting evolution (or reality) out of hand. The non-emotional option, the science option, evolution, recovers from this dissonance through the application of inductive logic, physical evidence, and frankly, by simply offering a emotionally dissonant option.
The thesis of this essay is the suggestion that evolution might be agnostic to optimization of species and is instead simply using species as a conduit for the optimization of this thing called fitness. That fitness might in fact be more real, and species, ethereal.
This entire domain is so fraught with potential miss-interpretation. I feel a constant urge to over-explain, to be extra careful, to make sure the reader isn't thinking one thing when I mean something else. For instance I feel a need to define the term "species", especially because I am using it in a more general way than is usually required within the boundaries of its original domain, biology. This is because I am convinced that evolution is a universal process, that it has nothing in particular to do with biology or life, that it happens in all systems, all of the time, an unavoidable aspect of any reality.
So when I write "species" I mean the thing or system that is "evolving" – the animal, the planet, the culture, the idea, the group attitude in line at the post office this morning. And in the context of this essay, I use "species" to mean the thing upon which "fitness" acts (as judge, jury, pimp, or executioner). Species is the thing, fitness the criteria that molds the thing.
But by this definition, species is corporal and measurable, suggesting that fitness is… is what? If we are talking about something, shouldn't we have some way of examining it, measuring it, comparing it, holding it in our hands, flipping it over, squeezing it, spitting it open and looking at its parts? That seems a more reasonable proposition for species than for fitness.
We like to think we can man-handle a thing like species, take it to the lab and do lab things. But maybe that is more illusion than truth. We can dissect a frog, but that particular frog isn't really the species "frog". The species "frog" is an average, a canonical concept, a Platonic solid, a moving target, an arbitrarily bounded collection, a gelatinous arrow through foggy potentialities.
I was in route to show that "fitness" is a real thing, but all I accomplished was a picking away at the real-ness of "species". Maybe that will end up being more helpful anyway. The colloquial image of species, even amongst evolution theorists has always seemed more visceral, more thing-like than fitness. We point to a single nervous animal on the savanna and declare, "that is gazelle". Worse, we often fail to make a semantics distinction between that declaration and the categorical; "gazelle is that". That fitness is a much harder thing to point to, really doesn't mean it is less real, or as I have shown, that real-ness applies to either.
Now that I've reduced both species and fitness to the realm of concept, it should be easier to argue my thesis.
Even at the concept level, "species" is a thorny concept fraught with pedagogy and hubris. It is hard to look at a penguin, a porpoise, or a planet and imagine something more amazing, more evolved than its current form. Which probably goes a long way to explain why we have a natural tendency to overlay onto the concept "species" notions of perfect form, of an apex, a pre-determined goal. But this certainly has less to do with species and more to do with the limits of our cognitive facility. It would be absurd to assume that this particular now is in some way special, that forms are complete and that we just happen to inhabit the planet just at the point when evolution has finally and completely finished its big 14 billion year project.
OK, the apologies have been met out, the slippery territory marked, the standard arguments abutted, the inconsistencies delineated, the usual misinterpretations admitted. These are standard precursors to any serious discussion in the study of evolution and bare witness to both the complexity of the subject and the apparent inability of the brain to readily make sense of its many dimensions.
So why should I want to reorder the relative hierarchy of fitness and species? For one, I have always felt the standard Darwinian definition of evolution to be a bit circular. Wow, before that comment ruins my standing, I had better get to work defending Darwin. I am a "standard model" realist. Darwin got most or all of evolution correct. Especially if you restrict your focus to biology. Darwin is the dude! The positions I detail here are meant as additions, as icing on the cake Darwin baked. But Darwin built his theory around life and his bio-centrist focus on evolution restricts and warps the applicable idea-space it scopes. I always say that Darwin explained the how of evolution with regard to biology, and that I am interested in the why of evolution with regard to all systems.
To restrict the scope of evolution to biology, is to somehow draw a line in the sand between life and not-life, a special sauce within life that categorically separates it from all other systems. I can't find that line. So I am left with the responsibility of understanding and defining evolution as a domain independent attribute of any system or system of systems.
Structurally, all systems are ordered as hierarchical stacks. Each level receives aggregate structures from lower (previously constructed) levels and produces from these, new super-aggragates, that it in turn passes to the next higher level. That this process of aggregate layering is historically dependent is obvious. The non-obvious mapping is to energy. The lowest levels of the hierarchy, the earliest levels, represent high energy processes, energy levels that would rip apart aggregates at higher levels. In this universe, all systems are built upon the aggregation processes laid down in the earliest moments, aggregations that occur at the upper limits of heat and pressure – strings, quarks, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules. Each corresponding to a matching environmental energy level, an energy level that is cooler and less pressurized than the ones that came before it. The universe gets cooler and more dispersed. Always. The growth of complexity, evolution, is dependent upon this predictable and unavoidable dissipation of energy over time.
Those who would argue that life is special, that evolution is exclusive to it, well they are obligated to draw a definitive boundary between life and everything else, and because life, like everything else, is dependent upon the historical layering of aggregate systems, will have to draw that line historically. They will have to show a moment in time before which there was not life or evolution and after which there was life and evolution.
There are many ways to define life in order that such a line could be drawn. If you say, as most do, that life is that set of systems that incorporate and utilize both R and D Nucleic acids, well there is surely some moment in the past which would accurately delineate those earlier systems which didn't have both RNA and DNA, from the later systems that did. Such a definition is some what arbitrary, but all categorical definitions are. But if you seek instead to hinge your definition of life to the process of evolution, then you are faced with a tautologically intractable problem. Either you must accept the nonsensical proposition that the universe started with RNA/DNA preformed, or the more rational causal proposition that evolution is independent of and proceeded biology, preparing over vast periods of time, the aggregate ingredients necessary for the super-aggregate we call life. If you insist despite this logic, that evolution is a property exclusive to biology, then you are left with the thorny problem of defining aggregation processes happening simultaneous to and independent of biology. Processes that continue to produce atoms, molecules, stars, planets, galaxies, cultures, ideas, sand dunes, ocean currents, etc. And, you must also show how these continuous and omnipresent processes are qualitatively different when they happen outside of systems that use RNA and DNA from those that do. But that isn't enough, you must also show either that no system after biology will ever evolve, of that the entire future of evolution will happen within the confines of biological systems.
The evidence and logic weighs overwhelmingly on the side of life being an arbitrarily bounded category, and evolution defining a process unbounded by domain, history, or complexity. Both of which are difficult concepts for humans to accept. We like to think we belong to a category made exclusive by some secret sauce, some magic that applies in some measure only to life, and which has reached its zenith in the human form or spirit. We like to imagine evolution to be that process that shaped the shapeless gasses of primal soup into the perfect form that we now enjoy. Wow. The ego and hubris drips and pools.
If I may, back to fitness. The above arguments are crafted to shake we humans free of our innate bio/human/self centrism and to show how such hubris works to emphasize contemporary corporal form over timeless ephemeral process, placing a sort of artificial spotlight on species and downgrading the in contrast, fitness. Its only natural. And it is wrong.
The tendency to focus on species is easy to understand. If you are looking at an animal and asking questions about evolution and process it is only natural that the scope of your thinking would be restricted to that animal, that species, that family of life and its struggle to survive. Even when you back your self out to a vantage wide enough to include all of life, the full fan of Linnaean Taxonomy over the full 4.5 billion year crawl, the focus is still thing, still survival, still some sort of cosmic engineering project. It is only when you back all the way out, when you look at all that is, the entire Universe, every moment since the big bang, life and the stuff between, in, and of it, that you might be forced to ask questions big enough to frame the why of evolution.
The why of evolution has to be big enough to comfortably hold all change, all systems, any aggregate and any aggregate chain, not just those that succeed, not just those that are fit, not just things that can be called things… everything! Any process that explains the existence of one system should also be able to explain every other system. Universality, at this depth of scope demands a bigger reason than can be explained by the concept "species". Darwin's big how in biology then becomes a local mapping to a specific domain. It isn't wrong, it just isn't universal. You can know everything about pianos, but won't really understand music until you know enough about enough instruments that you begin to see the formative patterns that unite, from which all instruments are informed.
Species, be it a valid concept at all, must be but a subset, an example, a non-special representative, a member of a perfectly inclusive, and domain independent set. Sets that include everything are not informative as a set. So we look elsewhere. That species, as a label, pointing to the subject of evolution, can equally be applied to any thing, forces us to look elsewhere for that which explains the big why of change. Change must not reside in thing, product, tailings, result, or even detritus. If the big why isn't thing, but has to explain thing, any thing, all things, than the big why must be a process or action or modifier or pressure. Some common attribute of any change regardless of domain. What process is agnostic to domain?
In a word, entropy. In an attempt to determine the maximum work that could be extracted from any source of energy, steam era engineers teased apart the relationship between source and output and found an intriguing and strangely universal leakage. Energy, when used, degrades, diffuses, is no longer as useful or available to the original process. When scientists discovered the same leak, this time with structure, a strange universality began to appear. Energy and information, force and structure, an unexpected symmetry. Then Einstein revealed the exact relationship between energy, time, space, and mass, allowing thermodynamic transforms on all physical terms. Despite initial objections by Stephen Hawking (and others attracted to the notion that nooks and crannies of the universe might provide respite from the second law's rigid causal prescriptions), Leonard Susskind and others have brought both the quantum world of the impossibly small and the black hole world of the impossibly big, together under a shared entropic umbrella. What we are left with, like it or not, is a universal. A universal that is universal to all physical domains and dimensions, regardless of scale. Wow. That doesn't happen very often in nature. That hasn't happened in science. Ever. Significant?
In his 1927 book, The Nature of the Physical World, Sir Arthur Eddington, put it this way:
"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Any theory or assessment of evolution that is not written in response to thermodynamics, information theory, and entropy would seem to be a theory not particularly interested in validity. That the laws of thermodynamics and evolution both direct their unblinking stares upon the domain of change would seem to me an invitation to at least begin to consider the possibility of a concerted union between the two.
[more to come…]
Randall Reetz
How Engineers Get Thermodynamics And Information Theory All Wrong
There is probably no other area of higher education where what is taught is so out of step with what is in fact valid. Engineering programs the world over, in the interest of simplicity and practicality, teach thermodynamics and information theory towards practicality and real-world solutions. What could be wrong with that? What is the negative side of practicality?
Well, usually, nothing. In most cases, cutting corners doesn't invert the causal bedrock upon which engineering is based. The field equations used to abstract relativity, do not usurp or demand a reformulation of E=mC^2. Neither do feynman diagrams mess with or disrupt an accurate understanding of quantum electro-dynamics. But in thermodynamics and information theory, the practical methods taught and used by engineers are based on assumptions that have resulted in an almost universal and wholesale misunderstanding of the base meaning and the causality that animates the bedrock of energy and information dynamics.
In thermodynamics, the problem is probably best described by the idea of "the perfect wall". To cut corners, engineers are taught arithmetic tricks that work in the usual atmospherically-dense and energy-conductive environments in which human's live. Unfortunately, these computational short-cuts do far more then introduce the usual errors of computational fidelity, they actually reverse the meaning of thermodynamics as a science. Thermodynamics as a science is about the way systems interact with the systems they are embedded within. But more than that, thermodynamics asserts the absolute necessity and inevitability of interaction and transference of energy that will result from ANY change within or without a system.
It should therefore be obvious that the teaching and use of practical methods that sidestep the central tenet of a field of science will have an unusually strong an adverse effect on the understanding of that science. Whole generations of engineers are being unleashed into the world with an absolutely backwards understanding of the very dynamic that universally informs all other dynamics. This is more than unfortunate. The growing population of scientists and engineers that march forward from universities with a backwards understanding of thermodynamics interferes with progress in all fields of science.
Same can be said of thermodynamics' sister, information theory. Because everything we do is increasingly keyed to progress in computation, the miss-map between the causal truths that inform information theory and the practical methods taught in their stead, may potentially have a much larger and deleterious impact on our potential as a species.
Where thermodynamics dictates the way energy leaks across the spacial dimensions, information theory dictates how information leaks across time. Purists will say that energy and information are equivalent. Ultimately, this is true. So when energy is measured in its more general form, as information, as bits, then information theory also dictates the lossy transfer of energy across time.
Because the two disciplines show how no system exists independent of other systems, we must concern ourselves with how systems are related through this leaking of energy and information. What can be said absolutely about the way information and energy set up directional relationships between systems with regard to space and time?
The Butterfly Effect; Isn't
In the none academic world, causality suffers a different abuse altogether. It is tempting for people to take notions of system interconnectedness to ridiculous and self-defeating extremes. We loose ground when the perfectly valid logic showing why a system can never act in isolation is illogically extrapolated to, "All systems effect all other systems equally". Making exceptions for speed of light (event cone) isolation, it can indeed be shown that all gravitational systems effect all other gravitational systems… the movement of a butterfly in South America will indeed effect (however infinitesimally) a dam in Montana. But if one were to rank, by degree of effect, all of the systems effecting the gravity fields surrounding a dam in Montana, a butterfly in Argentina would be very very low on the list. Even if one is butterfly obsessed, wants to ignore the one dog on the corner who has more mass than all of the butterfly's in the rocky mountains, there are tens of millions of butterflies closer, each of whom's infinitesimal gravitational pull would none the less have a larger causal effect on our poor dam's future.
This particularly populist breed of cause-and-effect miss-mappings is not the focus of my essay. As wacky as pedestrian notions become, they probably can't significantly derail scientific progress to any great degree. But when entire generations of science students are raised on incorrect understandings of basic science, we are all in trouble. This is especially devastating when the topic of delusion is as fundamental to the causal stack as is thermodynamics, energy and information.
"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
What determines the causal morphology and behavior of the hierarchy of influence (dictated by thermodynamics and information theory)? If we define the shape of causality we define process itself, and by extension, the shape of reality.
Information Theory specifies ways to measure the capacity of a storage matrix and the reliability of a communication channel. But all of it's metrics are agnostic to the meaning encoded and transmitted. Each bit and each bit pattern are treated as equal. Only frequency and order, not meaning, not saliency, not fidelity of representation.
What would you have to fold into or add to information theory and thermodynamics in order to measure meaning and saliency? Is it there already? Are we missing something in our approach to and use of an already semantically robust set of laws and equations?
Several years ago, the mathematician Stephen Wolfram (founder of the maths software "Mathematica") wrote a book called "A New Kind Of Science". It is a dense and repetitive work over twelve hundred pages long. I tried to get through it and gave up. Feels like a giant fractal, built of some obscure philosophy based on fractals. Not feeling OK with my initial critique, I forced myself to come up with a theory, any theory, that said or not, I could attribute to his work. The best I could do was to suppose that Wolfram was trying to say that science had historically used equations to understand the components of nature that could be accurately described by equations, but the really interesting things about nature were iterative, and open ended, they required logical descriptions that required continuous computation. To bad he couldn't have just said that.
At about the same time, the social biologist Edward O. Wilson wrote a book called "Consilience". He argued for a cross-discipline coming-together of the various branches of scientific exploration, a holism, for the advantages of looking at nature (and those who study it) as the one large and interdependent super-system it is.
Of course dynamic, ever changing, "evolving" systems are systems simple equations (calculated once) will never accurately represent. Traditional thermodynamics and information theory engineering maths and methods work best on simple systems that are or can be thought of as repetitive and isolated. The conditions (input energy, output work) might change, but the conditions of the conditions never do. At any sufficiently salient level, real systems are never that well behaved or that removed from their environments or situations.
Real systems are direction of time dependent. It is more than ironic that the one scientific law that defines exactly why causal systems are non-reversible is used primarily by engineers who choose to use it in ways that ignore the direction of time it demands. I can forgive newtonian or relativistic or quantum physicists for ignoring the asymmetry of time… their maths don't require it. But thermodynamicists? Information theorists?
[more to come…]
Randall Reetz
Cognition Is (and isn't):
What is really going on in cognition, thinking, intelligence, processing?
At base cognition is two things:
1. Physical storage of an abstraction
2. Processing across that abstraction
Key to an understanding of cognition of any kind is persistence. An abstraction must be physical and it must be stable. In this case, stability means, at minimum, the structural resistance necessary to allow processing without that processing undoly changing the data's original order or structural layout.
The causal constraints and limits of both systems, abstraction and processing, must work such that neither prohibits or destroys the other.
Riding on top of this abstraction storage/processing dance is the necessity of a cognition system to be energy agnostic with regard to syntactic mapping. This means that it shouldn't take more energy to store and process the string "I ate my lunch" than it takes to store and process the string, "I ate my house".
Syntactic mapping (abstraction storage) and walking those maps (abstraction processing) must be energy agnostic. The abstraction space must be topologically flat with respect to the energy necessary to both store and process.
Thermodynamically, such a system, allows maximum variability and novelty at minimum cost.
What if's… playing out, at a safe distance, simulations, virtualizations of events and situations which would, in actuality, result in huge and direct consequences, is the great advantage of any abstraction system. A powerful cognition system is one that can propagate endless variations on a theme, and do so at low energy cost.
And yet. And yet… syntactical topological flatness carries its own obvious disadvantages. If it takes no more energy to write and read "I ate my house" than it does to write or process the statement, "I ate my lunch", how does one go about measure validity in an abstraction? How does one store and process the very necessary topological inequality that leads to semantic landscapes… to causal distinction?
The flexibility necessary in an optimal syntactic system, topological flatness, works against the validity mapping that makes semantics topologically rugged, that gives an abstraction syntactic fidelity.
This problem is solved by biology, by mind, though learning. Learning is a physical process. As such it is sensitive to the direction of time. Learning is growth. Growth is directional. Growth is additive. Learning takes aggregate structures from any present and builds super-aggragate structures that can be further aggregated in the next moment.
I will go so far as suggesting that definitions of both evolution and complexity are hinged on the some metric of a system to physically abstract salient aspects of the environment in which it is situated. This abstraction might be as complex as experience stored as memory in mind, and it may be as simple as a shape that maximizes (or minimizes) surface area.
A growth system is a system that can not help but to be organized ontologically. A system that is laid up through time is a system that reflects the hierarchy of influence from which its environment is organized. Think of it this way, the strongest forces effecting an environment will overwhelm and wipe out structures based on less energetic forces. Cosmological evolution provides an easy to understand example. The heat and pressure right after the big bang only allow aggregates based on the most powerful forces. Quarks form first, this lowers the temperature and pressure enough for sub atomic particles, then atoms. Once the heat and pressure is low enough, once the environmental energy is less than the relatively weak electrical bonds of chemistry, molecules can precipitate from the atomic soup. The point is that evolved systems (all systems) are morphological ontologies that accurately abstract the energy histories of the environments from which they evolved. The layered grammars that define the shape and structure (and behavior) of any molecule, reflect the energy epochs from which they were formed. This is learning. It is exactly the same phenomenon that produces any abstraction and processing system. Mind and molecule, at least with regard to structure (data) and processing (environment), are the result of identical process, and as a result, will (statistically) represent the energy ontology that is the environment from which they were formed.
It is for this reason that the ontological structure of any growth system is always and necessarily organized semantically. Regardless of domain, if a system grew into existence, an observer can assume overwhelming semantic relevance that differentiates those things that appeared earlier (causally more energetic) from those things that appeared later (causally less energetic).
This is true of all systems. All systems exhibit semantic contingency as a result of growth. Cognition system's included (but not special). The mind (a mind, any mind), is an evolving system. Intelligence evolves over the life span of an individual in the same way that the proclivity towards intelligence evolves over the life-span of the species (or deeper). Evolving systems can not be expressed as equation. If they could, evolution wouldn't be necessary, wouldn't happen. Math-obsessed people have a tendency to confuse the feeling of the concept of pure abstraction with the causal reality of processing (that allows them to experience this confusion).
Just as important, data is only intelligible, (process-able, representative, model, abstraction) if it is made of parts in a specific and stable arrangement to one another. The zeroith law of computation is that information or data or abstraction must be made of physical parts. The crazies who advocate a "pure math" form of mind or information simply sidestep this most important aspect of information. This is why quantum computing is in reality something completely different than the information-as-ether inclination of the duelists and metaphysics nuts. Where it may indeed be true that the universe (any universe) has to, by principle, be describable, abstract-able by self consistent system of logic, that is not the same what's so ever as the claim that the universe IS (purely and only) math.
Logic is an abstraction. As such it needs a physical realm in which to hold its concepts as parts in steady and constant and particular relation to each-other.
My guess is that we confuse the FEELING of math as ethereal and non-corporal pure-concept with the reality which of course necessitates both a physical REPRESENTATION (in neural memory or on paper or chip or disc) and a set of physical PROCESSING MACHINERY to crawl it and perform transforms on it.
What feels like "pure math" only FEELS like anything because of the physicality that is our brains as copular machinery as they represent and process a very physical entity that IS logic.
We make this mistake all day long. When the only access to reality we have is through our abstraction mechanism, we begin to confuse the theater that is processing with that which is being processed and ultimately with that which that which is being processed represents.
Some of the things the mind (any mind) processes are abstractions, stand-ins for other external objects and processes. Other things the mind processes only and ever exist in the mind. But that doesn't make them any less physical. Alfred Korzybski is famous for declaring truthfully, "The map is not the territory!" But this statement is not logically similar to the false declaration, "The map is not territory!". Abstractions are always and only physical things. The physics of a map, an abstraction system, a language, a grammar, is rarely the same as the physics of the things that map is meant to represent, but the map always obeys and is consistent with some set of physical causal forces and structures built of them.
What one can say is that abstraction systems are either lossy or they aren't useful as abstraction systems. The point of an abstraction is flexibility and processing efficiency. A map of a mountain range could be built out of rocks and made larger than the original it represents. But that would very much defeat the purpose. On the other hand, one is advised to understand that the tradeoff of the flexibility of an effective map is that a great deal of detail has been excluded.
Yet, again and again, we ourselves, as abstraction machines, confuse the all too important difference between representation and what is represented.
Until we get clear on this, any and all attempts at merely squaring up against the problem of machine intelligence will fail.
[more later…]
Randall Reetz
If It Doesn't Scale, It Isn't A Solution
[note: this post is a work in progress]
You've met the private school freaks. They can't believe anyone would put their kids in a public school. What with all of the riffraff, the minority students, the dropout rates, the low performance on standardized tests, the poor state of school grounds and facilities, the struggle for funding for special programs like music, art, and sports, the lack of emphasis on college preparation, etc. Man, look at that list! Those are some strong and obvious arguments against public school education. Or are they?
What people who advocate private or limited solutions fail to calculate is what I call the "boutique effect". If for instance, there isn't enough money in a culture to give everyone a rich and safe childhood and education, it is absolutely expectable that those who are given those resources will excel (at least when compared to the scores of the less fortunate masses).
However, there is a real societal cost to exceptionality, and this goes to my "solutions that don't scale" thesis. With regard to exclusive schools for the rich, that cost has to do with the fact that the parents of rich kids just happen also to be the people with the most political and economic influence. When their kids are not part of the public education system, neither is their protective passion, experience, knowledge… or influence. They don't care about public education. Why should they? Their kids are not dependent upon it.
From another angle, when money goes to elite institutions, it is not being put where it is needed the most. Rich kids already live in information-ally rich environments. Rich kids are already live in safe and calm environments where learning works. Rich kids are much more likely to have direct access to positive role models… their environment is chock full of success stories. Rich kids are not as likely to live in families broken apart by drugs and prison terms and gang deaths and violence and people struggling with a second language or a culture that is not in step with the larger population. Rich kids have educated parents around them who can help them with their homework! Rich kids can afford to think about learning and succeeding, their world is devoid of the concentration-destroying stresses that poor kids deal with all day long.
And the whole reason people can get richer in this country than they can anywhere else, is because our population is more competitive (or used to be) than every other country. Why? Because we did this obscenely radical thing 150 years ago, we decided that everyone had a right to a publicly funded education! Educated people build factories and high tech energy delivery systems, they build transportation systems and are more likely to participate in advancements and the types of change that increase productivity. Productivity is the key. If you can get more value, more product, out of the average hour worked by your population, you can produce more wealth. Education is the radical difference that gave America its high per/hour, per/person productivity, it is why the rich are rich and why they can afford to borrow from the equity that is american productive wealth, even though that borrowing actually destroys wealth on a national scale in the process.
But these are not factors that have anything to do with a valid comparison of private education vs. public education. These are strictly socio-economic factors. The problem is when desperate parents look at the performance divide that exists between public and private schools and concludes that public schools should do exactly what private schools do. Private schools could be significantly worse than public schools and still produce higher test scores, more college acceptances, fewer drop outs, and lower crime rates. All of the intangibles work in their favor. In fact, it is often true that private schools employ teachers with less education and training than their public school counterparts.
Private school programs tend to spend less time on basic subjects (math, reading, etc.) and get better results! That is why they can spend a higher percentage of their student's time on extra-curricular activities (music, art, sports, theater, community projects, etc.). Obviously, if a public school would fail if it decided that it should therefore shorten the instructional time devoted to math and reading. Private exclusive schooling is not a solution that scales. It is obvious that it is a solution that only works for a very small percentage of the population of a society, and that it works only at the expense of the whole country as a whole. There are lots of examples out there of countries with very good exclusive education systems and very very very poor economies embedded within extremely unstable social chaos dominated by poverty. Most central African nations play this game, Myanmar, The United Arab Emeritus, South Africa (before apartheid was upended), Iran, North Korea, Brunei, etc, etc, etc. Exclusivity is the norm in the poorest nations on Earth. If exclusivity worked, these would be the most productive nations.
Lets look at China. Until recently, from a strictly financial perspective, China has done all of wrong things, it has restricted entrepreneurship, it has restricted credit, it has promoted an exclusively top-down decision and influence structure… everything that works against the kinds of fluid business environment that are attributable to a growing and healthy post industrial economy. And yet… and yet, despite all of these huge shortcomings and mistakes, China succeeds like no other country. Why, because it has spent an inordinate percentage of its wealth on its public education system. China's people are well educated by any global standards. Not some of its people. Not the exclusive elite. Everyone. And given China's huge population, that is a lot of educated people to compete en-mass with the rest of the world. When they finally turn the last capitalist stone, when they finally create a legal structure to support personal liberty, property ownership, and unfettered personal expression, watch out! Even without these capitalist standards, China reaps such benefits from its non-exclusive infrastructural investments. Meanwhile, those of us in the west have all but forgotten which factors really matter, and which, in comparison, are just fluff.
But, if you happen to live in a nation that has paid attention to productivity, has produced wealth as a result of a fair and solid infrastructure (transportation, energy, safety, medicine, credit, agriculture, justice, and education… for everyone!), you can play the exclusive game in limited numbers, even though it destroys wealth on a national scale.
Now let's switch gears. Inoculation. How did inoculation get to be such hotbed of superstitious thought? Inoculations have been blamed for hyper-activity, for cancer, for Asperger, and MS, for Attention Deficit Disorder, even for AIDS, etc. What inoculations are never blamed for is the one thing they are most definitely and unequivocally guilty of… preventing pandemic spread of disease! But inoculation programs only work when a certain minimum threshold of the population participate. Each vaccine (/disease combination) has its own special number… correlating to a specific minimum percentage of the population that must be inoculated. If a smaller slice of the population are given the vaccine, an outbreak is certain. When a parent makes the decision not to get their kid vaccinated, what they are really doing is passing the responsibility and risk (if there is any) to the kids who do get vaccinated. They reap the rewords but pay none of the price!
This is a great example of a solution that doesn't scale. While the vast majority of parents accept the shared responsibility a few parents can get by without inoculating their kids. It is a solution. But it isn't a solution that scales. Obviously, it doesn't work if everyone chooses this solution. It doesn't even work if more than a few choose not to inoculate. This type of solution only works because others are not choosing to shirk their share of the responsibility (and risk). In fact, if more and more people choose the non-solution option, there will become a point where everyone will suffer, even those who did take the vaccine. Most of these vaccines only work when the exposure to the pathogen is very low level. If a pandemic took hold, and if many people got really sick, high concentrations of the pathogen could overwhelm the immune resistance afforded through inoculations.
Any of this remind you of the "libertarian" platform? It should. The libertarian program is the very definition of a solution that doesn't scale.
[more to come…]
Randall Reetz
Are We But Crows? (Where Pattern is Noise)
Lets look at yet another way that the human mind gets tripped up and falters. Our propensity to find pattern makes us vulnerable to an inane form of overindulgence and counterproductive obsession with attributes of systems that do not carry essence or salience. Seems that our evolutionarily-shaped affinity for pattern make us particularly vulnerable to a level of indulgence that in smaller quantities is reasonable and healthy, even necessary.
Here is the problem. Most pattern is indicative of a lack of information or salience. If a system can get away with simple duplication along a scheme, it means that that part of the system is not very important. It means that it is cutting resource corners and systems can only get away with this type of cost cutting in areas that are not salient to the main purpose of the system at large.
Imagine going to a bookstore and obsessing over the fact that all of the books are made of the same stuff, of paper sheets cut and stacked in approximately the same geometric ratio. Imagine, in fact that this pattern overwhelmed your attention to such a degree that you could not be bothered with the content encoded as printed words on the pages of those books.
That would render all books equivalent. A book printed with random strings of words or with no words at all would be informationally equivalent to Darwin's, Origin Of The Species. In the face of an overwhelming attraction to inessential pattern, essential pattern is dismissed as noise, is ignored.
I call this the "Crow" problem… an obsessive attraction to shiny objects. There are so many examples of this type of cognitive distraction; rainbows, crystals, mirages, amber waves of grain, camouflage, fractals, golden rectangles, sacred numbers, etc. It is where our own cognitive process amplifies some pattern in the world wether or not it is important in any information rich manor.
We are for instance, especially susceptible to and sensitive to right/left symmetry. Probably because filtering for this pattern allows you to quickly pull animals out of a complex sensory field. Having such a filter gave us evolutionary advantage, so we now have brains with a tendency to favor right/left symmetry in visual fields.
The rainbow is an other great example of pattern that is attractive but virtually meaningless. A rainbow is not actually a thing of course, but a mix of the refractive nature of light and a behavioral anomaly of our visual apparatus. A rainbow is like a hologram. What we are seeing is light reflected off of raindrops or fog. Of course it is a poor indicator of the location of rain in our visual field… there is rain in other parts of the sky than where the colored bands appear. The phenomena that is visible as a rainbow is happening every time rain is present but we only see the rainbow when our orientation to the sun is within certain fairly restrictive parameters. Yet, so attractive is the rainbow stimuli, under the influence of this pattern detection stimulus, we might just miss more pertinent information (a lion approaching?).
Another example of particular importance is the attraction to crystals and the latest crystal fad, fractal geometry.
Most people are interested in fractals (or think they should be). But what exactly do you actually KNOW about fractals? Does your knowledge of fractals include an understanding of the WHY of n-dimensional radial n-scale self-similar patterns, why they appear in dissipative systems that develop over time? Do you care to know or understand? I get the feeling that people who are the most attracted to fractals are more interested in some sort of pseudo-spiritual grooviness, the stare at your navel aspect of fractals, than the simple truth of least-energy dictated growth patterns.
What is abstracted in mathematics as the "fractal" is in fact the only pattern that nature can exhibit in systems that are dominated by parts that are very much the same. Sand is a good example. Homogenous liquids and gasses are another. Fractals are a map or abstraction of dissipative systems, and all systems are dissipative. But the events and situations that matter in the evolution of complexity, the WHY that makes US possible, are not the even dissipation within a scheme, but the CREATIVE events that allow for new (faster and bigger) dissipative paradigms. An explosion is fractal in the same way that a capillary web is fractal in the same way that both a tributary and alluvial plane is fractal. It is just the end result of a history where least energy dictates the most efficient moment to moment dissipation of energy. The way you are saying that fractals are important feels religious and rapturous. As though fractal patterns in nature are a THING or a GOAL. Fractals don't know they are fractals any more than the ink making up the word "Fractal" on a printed page "knows" or "wants" to be that particular word or any word at all.
People who act this way towards pattern scare me. What matters in process is the places where pattern breaks. Else we wouldn't be here. Else we couldn't find salience.
I am afraid of and purposefully vigilant against the grand attractors of human thought, virgin births, miracles of any kind, shiny baubles, trickery, omnipotence, anecdote, life ever after, self importance, power over others, a desire to know or have access to the prediction of future events, predetermination, and pertinent to this discussion, crystals and fractals and the types of pseudo-cyclical pattern that makes us think nature is more simple than it is and that nature is of our own imagination or invention.
All systems seek equilibrium. In systems made up of subsystems, each of these subsystems seek their own equilibrium or resonance. Frequently when the resonances of several co-systems fall into an overlapping cycles, additive standing waves can and do overwhelm the integrity of the system as a whole. Feedback loops are anti-complexity mechanisms. Overarching patterns overwhelm systems and keep them from creative or information rich activities and interactions. Systems that seek to compete in the edge of evolution game are systems that spend an inordinate amount of energy keeping feedback loops in check. A creative system is a system working overtime AGAINST the information killer that is natural tendency towards simple pattern (fractals).
If you are trying to get rid of a planet or smooth out the heat cline in an ocean, fractal patterns are important. If you are a member of a species that is carrying complexity forward through the accumulation and control over abstraction, dissipative pattern and the systems dominated by them, are like Kryptonite to the program at hand… best to avoid them at all cost.
It is important to know when to appreciate pattern and when to run like hell when you see it developing. The forces that produce pattern are information destroyers.
We had better look long and hard at this issue. Choosing a false god at this level in the evolutionary game could end up causing the death of the whole complexity scheme just as it is becoming aware of its purpose and salient pattern.
As another example of pattern distraction, I give you DNA.
My favorite morphological description of DNA: "the non-periodic crystal". It harnesses the strong self-organizing (but anti-information) properties that give rise to a crystal (in this case, an almost endless wound chain of identical and stable "double-helix" spiral twists) as a stable superstructure for that will carry the information (anti-crystal) bearing base-pairs at its axillary center. The crystal spiral holds and protects the integrity of the always-vulnerable low-entropy sequence that holds our genetic recipe… DNA's real structure of importance. Even so, we humans seem to be more attracted (like crows) to the simplicity of the simple and un-remarkable spiral crystal armature instead of the non-crystaline information the crystal armature makes possible!
The larger implication of our self-destructive crow-like attraction to simplicity is that we are romantic about the very things that don't matter and ignore-ant of the anti-crystal configurations that are complex and information rich… that are salient to the information we are and the information our information may yet create.
I suspect that our attraction to simplicity in pattern is an idiosyncratic after-effect of a salience detector within our thinking apparatus that is constantly looking for self-similarity. When computer scientists and logicians attempt to design compression schemes, they are looking for ways to algorithmically discover those sections or sequences of a set of information that are un-important to the overall structure… much of data is repetitive, if you can find these repetitions, patterns, you can reduce them to simple equations or pointers to prototypical modules that can be stored once and forever duplicated as filler. Obviously, these patters are compressible because they cary so little salient information.
While it is somewhat surprising that so much of an image, musical recording, even string of text, can, using fractal math, be detected as filler and deleted, the subsequent and predictable human reaction… that of honoring the trash simply because it is pretty, is to my mind, one of the most scary attributes of human proclivity. Fractals illustrate how much of nature's structure is non-salient, is the noise, the tailings of dissipation. That we would be enamored by the pattern of noise to such an extent that we ignore the real meat of information (that which is not pattern-able) is our potential downfall as a species.
A snail isn't trying to build spiral. A snail grows a shell that happens to be a spiral because that is THE ONLY SHAPE allowed in three dimensions that is both a cone (expanding tube) and dimensionally minimal of solid permanent material. The snail has better things to waste its limited energy on than the shape of its protective home. So it chooses the one shape that takes the least energy and most minimal construction algorithm to pull off. We dishonor the snail as a biological scheme by paying attention to the aspect of its survival that is the least interesting. That simplicity of that spiral shell is what should tell us not to pay attention to that aspect of its being or strategy.
But in this regard and others, we act as crows despite our 100 billion brain cells and the potential therein.
Sad.
Randall Reetz
Complexity is Self-Limiting… Evolution Says "So What!" But At What Cost?
Complex systems tend towards greater complexity. That is one way, in fact, of defining evolution. But complexity is also self-limiting in obvious and unavoidable ways. What gives?
How, specifically, does an understanding of complexity's natural limits, recast an assessment of where human society is, where it might be going, and what of this potential do our own limitations in understanding complexity and its limits… well, limit?
We tend to gravitate towards a rather cleaned-up image of the future, all stainless steel and gleaming glass, and sexy robots that can't say "no" (puffy clouds, white wings, and lutes?). To be fair, this sparkly and perfect view of the future is something we reserver for "The Future". Excepting for Sunday mornings, we are refreshingly realistic about the process of getting through all of the calendar-able pedestrian futures to the final "The Future"… sometimes even positing an apocalypse or two along the way. Its as though we understand that things of great complexity and stability must be constructed, and that building is a messy and chaotic process, our self-delusion begins and ends with the absolutely fatal assumption that there is some end to the construction process, after which everything will be grand and glorious and perfect in the sense that no major construction will ever again mar the sublime and pristine quite and elegance we have built.
Right. OK.
In light of the magnitude of our self delusion, it seems down right naive to apply the phrase "drink the Cool-Aid"… in some very real sense, we must, each of us, have Cool-Aid factories right smack in the middle of our brains!
The actual future, the sober future, the one we seem hell-bent on ignoring, is a future of greater and greater and more and more constant change. A future we can never get to. A future that will surely go on one day without us. There were after all, a whole bucket-load of futures before we existed, before we declared ourselves the supreme center of everything, the final future. Ultimately, of course, there is a final and absolute future to any system. If you paid attention during your thermodynamics or information science lectures, you know that there will come an ultimate future which can not support any complexity at all.
For now, we will ignore that final future-of-all-futures (heat death)… there are "miles to go before we sleep".
As complexity marches forward and "upward", evolving systems are increasingly characterized by construction and change. A static system, one that can't react to its own constantly increasing experience, is a system that isn't as complex as one that can learn and adjust itself to accumulated knowledge. The romantic vision of a completed and peacefully static future is as laughable as it is understandable.
Some fantasies drive us towards success and influence, and others towards catastrophe and insignificance.
The difference between these two forms of fantasy are, to my mind, the difference between paying attention to the greater reality that is the whole universe (its physical laws, material properties, and configuration), and paying attention instead only to the reality hacked together within our own emotionally contorted and narrowly self-centered minds. The distance that separates the two is probably a good measure of the speed with which nature will replace us with some other form of complexity generating scheme with a more accurate natural mapping of reality to abstraction of reality.
A self-centered and locally weighted perspective is both expectable and self defeating. What works in the short term often gets in the way of what works in the long run. This is one of two oxymoronic misreading of process clouding our understanding of evolution that increasingly threatens our potential as a species. The other (related) self-obfuscation we don't seem to be able to avoid, and central to the thesis of this essay, is the dream-like way we tend to imagine the future as some silicone-enhanced sexed-up version of some glazed-over and romantic version of a past that never was.
What we know, how we comprehend what is around us, is a function of the iterative process of matching the stream of incoming sensation to what we have stored as experience. What comes to be known is always heavily effected by what was known before. Leaning is a local affair. Systems always end up knowing more about the things closest to them. The closest thing to a system is itself! This is a topologically and causally unavoidable fact, leading to difficult to circumnavigate self-centered understandings of the universe around us. I am convinced that evolution ultimately (in the longest run) favors systems that can overcome this local-centrism…though to to this, a system must literally work against itself in the short term. Success in the long run is dependent on the development and protection of genetic structure that frustrates success in the short run. This big-picture learning must be accomplished through the development of an ever more accurate internal analogue (process-able map) representing the most inclusive and location agnostic understanding of the entire universe. This too is an ever receding target, we can chase but never completely capture. Evolution is this back and forth dance between what matters to a system in the hear and now and the capacity to pay attention to, model, and process that which is salient about the entire universe… context in the largest sense.
I don't want to veer too far away from the thread of this essay, but it is important to keep in mind the counter-indicated admixture defined both by the immediate local needs of any given individual and the larger, decidedly non-individual scope of evolution. A decidedly cooperative mixture that is, none the less, achievable exclusively through the lives of and genetic/cultural information carried forward exactly and only by individuals.
In any given population of individuals at any given locality, there exists a range of differences that enable some individuals to make more efficient use of the resources in their surroundings, and some individuals to be better equipped to contend with and exploit the resources of their children's inherited environment. Those better matched to the current environment will out-compete those with a better match to the environment of the future. Ultimately, of course, what matters is the capacity of the entire mélange to both survive in the present and present morphotypes that meet the demands of the future. The demands of the present vs. those of the future are often at odds with each-other. A successful evolutionary scheme must "waste" a sizable chunk of its structure and energy on strategies that may have no immediate positive effect on fitness (and might in all actuality hinder success in the moment). Maintaining a long range understanding of evolution itself, and our place in it, is the example of this dangerous opposition that best fits the scope of this essay.
It seems obvious to me that the amount a system must "waste" anticipating changes in the future of its environment is inversely relational to the accuracy of its internal mapping of the universe in total. Systems that know nothing of the universe, must produce a great variety of random solutions. A very expensive prospect that best fits very very very simple individuals produced in absurd numbers. Atoms, molecules, single celled organisms.
Understanding the process, "THE" process, evolution, is probably the most salient predictive mechanism an organism might seek to internalize. We seem to have limited capacity as a species to model and abstract and then effectively navigate an abstraction of this "THE PROCESS". Especially when it comes to understanding the limitations and usefulness to "THE PROCESS" of any one scheme, species or individual.
The spirit of this essay isn't Nietzschein pessimism or a catastrophist's Cassandra; "I told you so!". I am an eternal optimist, so these words are intended instead as a wake-up call, and offered up as a Windex Wipe to the foggy lens through which we view reality… in the hope that we use it, adjust our behavior, and rectify the self-defeating distance between what is and what we want to see.
Nature doesn't stand still. Not at least until the very end. Heat death isn't at all like my fantasy of an endless Mediterranean resort vacation. Any system that bets its future on stasis, no matter how advanced, is betting against its longevity or influence on the real future.
I've compiled a list (below) of some of the most obvious side effects that haunt complexity, that push back against its growth. If we illuminate these barriers we might be better equipped to consider ways to get around them, and we might discover something of how systems get better and better at finding cheats in the march towards greater complexity.
For a system to be complex, it must have structure and difference within that structure. A crystal has structure, but its lack of capacity for internal differentiation means it can never be complex. But differentiated structure isn't enough, it has also to have some way of protecting and maintaining that structure, that shape or behavior over time. Shit happens. A complex system must employ some set of mechanisms in a constant fight against entropy. Without which, a system's complexity will be short lived, and short lived complexity isn't very complex at all.
Which brings up an important and much ignored aspect of an evolving system. We have a tendency to over emphasize the moment, the present situation or system. Nature on the other hand doesn't care about the individual or the moment except as a vehicle for the transmission of structure into the future. What matters isn't how complex a system is today, but the potential of a given configuration to influence the greatest complexity in the longest future across the widest expanse of the material universe. Many aspects or measures of complexity cross over between the here and now and the deepest future… but not all and not always.
Back to our list.
1. One way to maintain structure is to build yourself out of stuff of great material integrity – say titanium, stainless steel, or diamond.
2. Another is to adopt a vigilant and obsessive Mr. Fix-It program of self maintenance. Yet another option is to replace yourself with a pristine copy before you dissolve into an entropic heap.
3. A simple cousin of this replacement scheme is playing the numbers game… make sure there are so freak-n many copies of you in the first place that one or two of you make it into the distant future by virtue of the dumb luck of large number.
4. Or, you can choose to live a life of extreme isolation – limit your interaction with other systems and you limit the deleterious effects the second law dictates.
5. Then there is wall building. Wall building is a self-made form of the isolation scheme… instead of finding a place to hide in a pre-existing landscape, dig yourself a tunnel or build yourself a wall or a mote or a shell or a nest or fast legs or wings with which to run away with.
And then there is the problem of resource acquisition. Anything of value to a complex system tends to be reactive. Reactive things are destructive. Installing your self within a reactive environment means you have more access to energy and materials, but it also means you have to spend more energy and structure just to protect yourself from your environment. As your energy demands increase so too does your need to locate yourself closer and closer to more and more reactive and ever changing environments. A cave full of grain is great at first, but as you eat your way through it, its original attractiveness decreases. Better to install yourself at the mouth of a river, next to a mid-ocean vent, or on the floor of a flood plane. As your complexity increases, so to does your appetite for energy and materials. Access means proximity. Proximity to greater and greater concentrations of energy demands protection. Protection is expensive in terms of the self-protective physical structure and its maintenance.
Worse still is the negative feedback that metabolic waste presents. The more you eat, the more you go. The more you go, the harder it is to find food. As complexity increases, guess what happens to the magnitude of this problem and the need therefore to spend more and more energy on waste removal schemes?
The focus of this essay are the aspects of complexity (and complexity's demand for energy and structure) that put counter-productive limits on strategies that would otherwise allow for greater and greater complexity… and how evolving systems find work-arounds. The fact that we are here at all is proof that evolution finds a way.
What interests me is the way increases in complexity puts increased demand on energy and material resources, and how these processes are self-limiting and at the same time actually define the purpose that drives evolution.
In the particular, real systems manifest great creative variety in the fight for the extension of structure and integrity over time. For instance, once brains appear, trickery and guile become the standard approach to wall building. You don't need to go the long and arduous course of developing poison and some specialized hollow teeth through which to deliver it, if you can just tweak your skin coloration or shape to mimic those who have. Or you can become invisible by adopting a color and texture scheme that mimics your less vulnerable or edible surroundings. In essence, trickery schemes are the same as isolation or wall building except the wall you are hiding behind is within the brain of another creature (either it's already there or you build it in your foe's brain through behavioral conditioning).
But here is the rub. No matter which scheme a system adopts in the maintenance of structure… that scheme hardens their structure, making it more difficult and expensive to adapt to an always changing environment. In a very real way, what makes you stronger in the present makes you vulnerable over time.
Example: When Teflon was developed it was obvious to its creators that its extreme inert-ness, its aversion to chemical interaction, would make it an ideal lining for any reaction container (including frying pans and irons). But this same property made it almost impossible to figure out how to affix Teflon to the surface of a container (it took over 10 years to solve this problem).
On the opposite end of the isolation spectrum is metabolism. When a system seeks a means of extracting and drawing energy or structure from its environment, it needs to maximize its reactive interface to that part of its environment that has the most entropic potential. In earth biology, this usually manifests as an active interface to oxygen and or sunlight – both of which are highly corrosive to structure. In order to both exploit the energy of these highly reactive sources, biology has adopted a myriad of selectively self protective (and expensive) mechanisms. Playing with fire is an attractive AND expensive proposition. Simple systems have no option but to hide from highly reactive environments – to dig themselves into deep cracks in the earth. Only a system of great complexity has the structural and behavioral leeway to adopt the complex and selective mechanism necessary to both use and avoid concentrated reactive resources.
As a system becomes more complex it reacts faster to internal and external change. It evolves faster. This is a circular definition of "complexity"… configurations that facilitate faster development of configurations that facilitate faster development of configurations… ad infinitum. The capacity to do things faster always comes at a cost. To mitigate that cost, the system must learn to be efficient and effective in its environment. This means going with the flow. This means fitting in. This means doing what the environment is already doing. This means not fighting the system. To work with a system (instead of against it) means internalizing and abstracting a model of the environment's most salient structures. If you have some knowledge of what a lion will do when you enter a clearing it is sitting within, you have a better chance of surviving the encounter. If you have legs and eyes, your very structure is an acknowledgment of the physical constraints of your environment.
An accurate assessment of this whole concept becomes increasingly complex as we realize how system and environment blend in a co-evolutionary super-system.
In science fiction, the future is presented in one of two ways. Either the world has devolved into some filthy post-appocolyptic entropic mess, or it is a perfectly complete stainless steal and glass uber-infrastruture with everything in its place and everything perfectly maintained. Both projections are impossible, but the hermetically sterile one is the most problematic as it seems to resonate more completely with human emotional projections.
The problem is this; the more complex a system becomes, the faster is its capacity to change, leading to a system that is constantly in flux, constantly reworking itself, constantly under construction. Try to find a day in a modern city devoid of numerous construction cranes marring its skyline. This situation will only become more intense as human society evolves.
Biological systems have learned to accommodate the constancy of change, deterioration, ware and tear, construction, etc., through complex molecular mechanism of growth and repair played out at the (largely microscopic) cellular level. Furthermore, these anti-entropic mechanisms are largely automatic and do not therefore overly burden the larger and more overarching consciousness and behavioral control mechanisms (our mind).
Though humanity has reached a level of complexity that supersedes the capacity of its infrastructure to effectively carry its own complexity demands, we don't seem, as a species to be able to see this problem as systemic.
[more to come…]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)