Showing posts with label thermodynamics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thermodynamics. Show all posts
Prediction Schemes: Classicism vs. Non-linear vs. Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics and information theory are often grouped with classical dynamics. This is especially true where theory space is cleaved with quantum dynamics and other quote/unquote "non-deterministic" or "non-linear" theories on one side. But such classifications are problematic for several important reasons. Traditionally, the criteria of inclusion within the rubric "classical" has leaned heavily upon the concept of computation from knowledge of initial conditions. in Newtonian (and Relativistic) dynamics, knowing the initial state of a system allows one to calculate and thus predict the state of that system at any time in the future. Accuracy in prediction, from a classical perspective, is gated only by accuracy of knowledge of the original conditions of that system. Enter now, the strange world of quantum dynamics, where indeterminacy and sensitivity to observation turn classical calculations on their head. Non-clasical systems are systems in which determinism actually works against accuracy of prediction. The more you try to increase your knowledge of the initial conditions of a quantum situation, the less accurately you can predict that system's future. Much is made of the philosophical implications of observer "relativity" in an Einsteinium space/time model, but vantage-sensitivity is absolutely classical Рthe more you know about the initial conditions, the more accurate will be your relativistic predictions. In the quantum world, knowledge is itself, a cost of business attribute. In the quantum world, knowledge perturbs. In the quantum world, a system that seeks to know itself, is a system that is changed. In the quantum world, there are two types of systems, systems that are statistically perturbed, and systems that are locally perturbed. Meaning, you can measure (observe) aspects of a whole system without messing with that system, but should you want discrete knowledge of individual particles within that system, you must pay the price of a system that is forever thereafter disturbed. It is interesting how closely the empirically observed quantum world mimics the limits Kurt Godel placed on absolute knowledge. OK, let us now contrast thermodynamics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, against both classical or deterministic dynamics and quantum indeterminacy. If one accepts that purpose of knowledge is prediction, is fidelity of calculation to actual future states, than both classical and non-linear theory are self-limitiing. Classical prediction is hampered by limits to the accuracy of observation of the initial state. Quantum prediction is limited by the way systems are perturbed by measurement, the more you know, the more you must include yourself into to prediction calculations, and the more said act is limited by Godel's caps on self-knowledge. One could say that classical prediction is dependent at base upon naivet̩, and that quantum prediction is limited by knowledge itself. But what of the second law? The second law allows for absolute knowledge of the end state, of "heat death" or complete dissipation. Unlike all other forms of theoretical abstraction, the second law is absolutely agnostic to initial condition(s). You can use Newton's laws to look into the immediate future of a gravitationally bound system, but the same laws are meaningless in a system perturbed by other forces. Thermodynamic theory doesn't care what forces or materials are at play, it only cares about difference. In fact, thermodynamics doesn't know for the difference between material and force. The second law says that difference will always be less after any change in any system. The second law says that a change in any system will always result in the greatest possible reduction in difference. And importantly, the second law flips determinism on its head by providing perfect knowledge of the final state and doing so absolutely independent of any knowledge of initial conditions. Well that is certainly interesting, a theory that can predict the ultimate future independent of any past or present configuration, or, for that matter, any knowledge what so ever. What can be said of the quality or quantity of action that can be taken as result of this strange sort of knowledge? If success in competition can be linked to accuracy and capacity to predict, than what can be said of competitive success as a function of range of prediction? Imagine one could make and than order all possible predictions from most immediate to most long term. Comparing short-term against long-term predictions, which have the greatest impact on competitive advantage? If someone came into your office today and said, "I can say with absolute confidence that you will die as an artist in Copenhagen", how would such knowledge effect your future decisions and actions? How would absolute knowledge of your ultimate future effect your behavior? What if we were to compare the influence of such knowledge to short term knowledge of the same certainty? What if that same person came into your office and instead declared, "I have no knowledge of your ultimate fate, but I do know that you will not be able to fall asleep tonight". Would you be more (or less) likely to change or conform your plans or to take action based on short term predictions? There might be a tendency to ignore predictions that are far removed in time. One might reasonably think, "Even if I know that I will become an artist and eventually die in Copenhagen, I have a life to live until then, concentrating on long term eventualities interferes with my ability to successfully negotiate success in the short term, in the here and now. But it might also be reasonable to try to conform local goals to long term eventualities. One might eliminate actions that one feels will make it harder to plot a path towards know eventualities. Or, one might take risks they would not otherwise have taken. If I know I will die in Copenhagen, I might as well go base jumping in the Andes or climb Everest sans bottled oxygen. Surely, the heat death of the universe is an eventuality of much greater philosophical remove. What's more, evolution, as a process, seems to work just fine in the absence of any knowledge of eventualities. Can one make an argument that knowledge of universal eventuality gains its owner any special form of evolutionary advantage? Lets pit two entities against each other, one knows of heat death, the other doesn't. Which has the evolutionary advantage?
Randall Lee Reetz, January 26, 2012
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.
The Problem with Darwin…
 |
| Ya… how would you look as Darwin? |
When understood as a "how", the process of evolution is reduced to orrery – like the awkward clockworks that spin planets and moons around concentric bearings – substituting method where there should be cause. How is always specific to domain, but why, the ultimate why, is general enough to explain all of the how's. Armed with a robust understanding of the big WHY of evolution, one should be able to walk into any domain and predict and then map it's how. Again, it isn't that Darwin's evolution orrery doesn't accurately predict biological patterns of change, or even that Darwin's evolution orrery doesn't accurately abstract the salient causal aspects of biological change, it is that Darwin's how of evolution in biology leads people to the idea that evolution is specific and exclusive to biology, or that one can understand evolution in other domains by overlaying biology's how.
Darwin never generalized the process of evolution. Imagine had Newton and Einstein had not generalized dynamics and motion and that we had, as a result, built all of our machines on the principle that motion was caused by legs and feet.
The people who have come the closest to the generalization of evolution, the thermodynamisists, have never been able to or interested in the development of a generalization of the direction of change and the cause of that direction. I will get back to this absence of generalization in the understanding of evolution but right now will only hint at an explanation… in the aftermath of the all too human race and cultural superiority wars and atrocities, it has been socially dangerous to think of evolution as having a direction as such thoughts can be read as rhetorical arguments for superiority and pre-judgement, the likes of which were used by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and others as justification for mass exterminations and other exclusionary policies. That humans have the proclivity to exploit incomplete knowledge in the pursuit of ridiculous selfishness at absurd scales should be nothing new or noteworthy. But no one would advocate the cessation of the study of chemistry simply because arsenic is a chemical, or the study of high energy physics simply because the atom bomb can be built from such knowledge.
Or would we? Cautionary reactions to the self-superior pogroms that so blighted the 20th century have driven several generations of researchers towards the relativist rhetoric we see most prominently in the post-modernist movement, but which is evident in the works of less irrational and otherwise, empirical scientists like Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins. Both represent an interesting study in overcompensation. In their quest to irradiate the all-to-natural self-superiority that seems to cause humans to erect unfounded tautologies that place humans on top of pre-destined hierarchies, both argue and argue brilliantly, for a flat evolutionary environment in which change happens but without any directionality at all. Again, this is like saying that because metal can be shaped into swards and knives and guns it shouldn't be produced even should we need plows and trains and dynamos and bridges and buildings and printing presses and lab equipment and computers.
Of course, caution is its own form of rhetoric, as potentially dangerous as its more obviously tyrannous cousins.
And, yes! Evolution has a direction. There I said it! Say it with me. You won't be struck down by post-modernist lightning. Trust me. Trust your self. It is more than a little absurd that one would have to argue for direction in a process that explains directionality. They are of course correct in their assertion that evolution isn't pre-determined. Nothing is. Of course. But the "brilliance" of evolution is that it results in a direction without need for prior knowledge, plan, or determination of any kind. To toss this most salient aspect of the evolutionary process simply to make a sociological point seems reckless in the maximum.
Randall Lee Reetz
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
The Scope of Evolution?
We evolutionists desperately want to quantify evolution. We are embarrassed by the continued lack of measurability and predictability one would expect from a true theory-based science. In the place of true metrics, we defer to the vague, broad, and situationally dependent term; "fitness".
We say that genetic variability in the population of any given lineage will insure that some individuals express traits that provide a survival advantage. Given the particularity of a given environment's mix of resources and challenges, not all individuals will have the genes necessary to make them fit. We say that there is always some small diversity in any population, a variability caused by sexual mixing, mutation, and a whole slew of non-genetic processes that indirectly effect either the actual genes inherited or conditions under which those genes are expressed. We say that this variability across a localized population is enough to influence who will survive and who won't, or most importantly, who's genes will be expressed in the next generation and who's won't. We assert that this process is obvious, observable, and predictable. And of course we are correct. We can and do produce laboratory experiments and field observations in that show that genes predict traits, genetic variability is correlated to population variability, and environmental conditions act as filters selecting towards individuals or populations expressing some genes and against those with others.
Well that all sounds good… model driven prediction, physical mechanistic explanation, solid techniques for observation… like a real science. If, that is, you are content to restrict your inquiry to the how.
If you are content with an understanding of evolution that is restricted to biology. If you are content with an understanding of evolution that blindly accepts as dependent factors, such temporal notions and shifting and immeasurable terms as "environment" and "fitness" and never ever asks, "Why?", then you probably won't need to read any further.
But if you, like me, would like to understand evolution in its largest context; independent of domain, and across all time, then you already know that evolution's current answers, though already correct and verifiable by any standard, is not yet a true science.
When Newton sought to define motion (and yes I know that Einstein perfected it through Relativity and quantum theory), he didn't do so only for an apple falling from a tree… but universally, for all physical bodies in all situations. His equations predict the position, speed and trajectory of an object into any distant future and across any distance. If the same could be said of evolution theory, we would have in our possession theory and or equations that we could use to predict the outcome of evolution across any span of time and in any domain.
Yet, of course we don't. We know all kinds of things about the interaction, within the domain of biology, of germ and progeny, of reproductive selection and mutation, of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and of the competition over resources and of the crazy alliances and unintuitive and unplanned results of cooperative adaptation (including the tightly wound dance between predator and prey, between parasite and host).
But these processes, no matter how well understood, measured, researched, and modeled, are not what could be called the primitives of evolution. To be primitives, they would have to be universal. They are not universal. Thinking so would be like Newton thinking his laws only applied to cannon balls or things made of metal. So ingrained is the false correlation between biology and evolution that it is often impossible for me to get people to continue a discussion about evolution when I say "Let's talk about evolution in other systems." or "Let's talk about evolution as domain independent phenomenon."
If evolution isn't a "general" phenomenon, then someone representing the "special theory of evolution" will have to show how it is that life evolves but other systems do not. I doubt this requirement can be met. It would mean that some line can be drawn in time, before which there wasn't evolution, and after which there was. The logical inconsistency arises when one realizes that, to get to that line, some process suspiciously similar to evolution would have to have transpired to advance complexity to the level just preceding biology.
Another way to frame the overarching question of the why of evolution starts with the realization that competition within an environment isn't restricted to the various individuals of one species. Nature isn't that well refereed. In fact, nature isn't refereed at all. Nature is a free for all pitting snail against walrus against blue green algae. And it doesn't stop there. The ocean currents compete to transfer heat and in doing so, effect the food available to marine life of all kinds. In a very real sense, in an exactly real sense, a hurricane competes directly with a heron. Even the more stable artifacts of an environment, the topology and physical composition of the geographic features below foot compete actively and dynamically with the biota growing in its fissures and above its slowly moving face. Our old and narrowly-bounded definition of that which fits the category of evolution is plainly and absurdly and arbitrarily anthro-, species-, mammal, or bio- centric, and logically wrong.
Each time I introduce these new and inclusive definitions of the scope of the cast that performs in the play that is evolution, I hear grunts and groans, I hear the rustle of clothes, the uncomfortable shiftings… I hear frustration and discomfort. Hands raise anxiously with questions and protests: "How can non-living things evolve?" "Non-living things don't have genes, without genetics traits can't be transferred to or filtered from future generations!" And the inevitable, "The category containing all things is a useless category!"
I can't say that I don't understand, don't appreciate, or in some real way haven't anticipated and sympathized with these bio-centric apologies. This is how evolution has been framed since Erasmus Darwin and his grand kid Charles first seeded the meme. I will therefor take a moment to address these two dominant arguments such that they can be compared with a domain-independent definition of evolution.
First, lets look at evolution's apparent dependence upon genetics. How could evolution work if not for a stable medium (DNA) for the storage and processing of an absolute recipe for the reliable re-creation of individual entities? You may be surprised that my argument starts with an agreement; evolution is absolutely dependent upon the existence of a substrate stable enough to transfer existing structure into the future. But does that stable structure have to be biology's famous double helix? Absolutely not! In fact, it is causally impossible to find a system within this Universe (or any imaginary universe) in which the physical makeup of that system and its constituent parts does not facilitate the requisite structure to transfer conditions and specific arraignments from any present into any trailing futures. The shape of a river valley is a fundamental carrier of information about that valley into the future. The position, mass, and directional velocity of celestial bodies is sufficient carrier of structural information to substitute handedly for the functional duty that DNA performs in biology. But it is also important to realize and fully absorb the opposite proposition. DNA is not the only way that biological systems reliably transfer information about the present into the future. Biological systems are of course just as physical as galaxies, stars, and planets. The same causal parameters that restrict the outcome of any particular then (as a result of any particular now), that restrict causality to an almost impossibly narrow subset of what would be possible in a purely random shaking of the quantum dice. DNA is especially good at what it does, but it doesn't own or even define the category.
The second argument against an all-inclusive, domain independent definition of evolution – the logical argument against the usefulness of category that contains everything – well let's start by parsing it semantically and rhetorically. On face, there is no way to argue. The category "all" is a category of little worth. There is nothing to be known of something if it can't be compared to something else. But, and this should be obvious, I am not trying to create a category; quite the opposite! My intent is to create a theory of everything. Such a theory would obviously fail if it didn't apply to everything. So, semantically, this "set of everything is a useless set" argument doesn't map to the topic at hand. I get the distinct feeling that the argument is meant pedantically, and purposely, to derail and obfuscate the logical trail I am attempting to walk the audience down. It is a straw horse. It looks logical, but it doesn't apply.
A much more instructive and interesting line of questioning would go to the plausibility of a domain independent theory of evolution, what it would or would not change regarding our understanding of the emergence of complex structures (and their accelerating complexity), how it modifies our understanding of biological evolution, whether or not evolution will stand up to the requirements of a "theory of everything" (how it compares with others), and maybe even the effectiveness of my own description of this idea.
So, why is it important to me for evolution to meet the test of a "theory of everything"? First, I loath the unexplained. If evolution only talks to the mechanism of change within biology, then evolution would necessarily stand upon a stack even more foundational truths, and, as I mentioned earlier, other parallel theories would have to be developed to explain the emergence of complexity in non-biological systems. Either way, a vacuum would remain, exposing a need for the development of a foundational theory or set of theories that would support what in biology we call evolution, what in geology we call tectonics (etc.), what in meteorology we call heat dissipation cells, what in culture we call engineering, cooperative networks, etc.
What makes this whole endeavor so tricky, is that we tend to confuse mechanism with purpose. We get so caught up with the almost impossibly complex molecular mechanism (nucleic acids) by which biology builds complexity, that we forget to look at why it bothers at all. This why, this great big why, is to my mind far more fundamental and interesting and once understood, provides a scaffolding from which to comfortably understand and predict the necessary meta-components that need to be present in some form or another, in any evolving system. And, if you like elegance in a theory, it gets even better. It turns out that a byproduct of evolution as a theory of everything is that it must therefore be based on the two physical principals that have stood the test of universality – thermodynamics and information theory, and it strengthened both of these theories in the one area they were weak – dynamics. Once you understand the motivation and demands of change itself, the particular mechanisms of evolution at play in any one domain are reduced to how, are, no matter how varied, are but skins worn by a beast who's behavior becomes more and more predictable and universal.
All systems have what it takes to evolve. All systems are composed of components that in some small way differ. That difference might be in how the parts are made, or it might be in how the parts are distributed, and it most probably is both. That is all a system needs for the process of evolution to apply. So long as there is a difference somewhere in the system, or in that system's interaction in the greater environment in which it exists, evolution needs must be happening all of the time.
So just what is it that evolving things compete for? Is it food? Yes. Is it safety? Yes. Is it comfort? Yes. Is it stability? Yes, that too. For plants, competition is for solar radiation, carbon dioxide, water, a stable place to eat, grow, mate, and rase offspring. We animals need far more energy than our skin could absorb even if it was all capable of photosynthesis. So we eat things that can. And that is just the way things work. To get ahead, things learn to take advantage of other things. One might even say that the advantage always goes to those entities that can take the greatest advantage of the the productive behavior of the greatest number of other things. If you can't make enough energy, then eat a lot of things that can.
One could imagine taking this line of reasoning to the extremes. Lets define fitness as the ability to sit on the apex of a food chain. Of course you have to keep moving. If you don't stay vigilant and obsessive, always trying to find new and better ways to eat more of the other things, you will succumb to competition by things that do.
… to be continued …
Randall Reetz
We say that genetic variability in the population of any given lineage will insure that some individuals express traits that provide a survival advantage. Given the particularity of a given environment's mix of resources and challenges, not all individuals will have the genes necessary to make them fit. We say that there is always some small diversity in any population, a variability caused by sexual mixing, mutation, and a whole slew of non-genetic processes that indirectly effect either the actual genes inherited or conditions under which those genes are expressed. We say that this variability across a localized population is enough to influence who will survive and who won't, or most importantly, who's genes will be expressed in the next generation and who's won't. We assert that this process is obvious, observable, and predictable. And of course we are correct. We can and do produce laboratory experiments and field observations in that show that genes predict traits, genetic variability is correlated to population variability, and environmental conditions act as filters selecting towards individuals or populations expressing some genes and against those with others.
Well that all sounds good… model driven prediction, physical mechanistic explanation, solid techniques for observation… like a real science. If, that is, you are content to restrict your inquiry to the how.
If you are content with an understanding of evolution that is restricted to biology. If you are content with an understanding of evolution that blindly accepts as dependent factors, such temporal notions and shifting and immeasurable terms as "environment" and "fitness" and never ever asks, "Why?", then you probably won't need to read any further.
But if you, like me, would like to understand evolution in its largest context; independent of domain, and across all time, then you already know that evolution's current answers, though already correct and verifiable by any standard, is not yet a true science.
When Newton sought to define motion (and yes I know that Einstein perfected it through Relativity and quantum theory), he didn't do so only for an apple falling from a tree… but universally, for all physical bodies in all situations. His equations predict the position, speed and trajectory of an object into any distant future and across any distance. If the same could be said of evolution theory, we would have in our possession theory and or equations that we could use to predict the outcome of evolution across any span of time and in any domain.
Yet, of course we don't. We know all kinds of things about the interaction, within the domain of biology, of germ and progeny, of reproductive selection and mutation, of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and of the competition over resources and of the crazy alliances and unintuitive and unplanned results of cooperative adaptation (including the tightly wound dance between predator and prey, between parasite and host).
But these processes, no matter how well understood, measured, researched, and modeled, are not what could be called the primitives of evolution. To be primitives, they would have to be universal. They are not universal. Thinking so would be like Newton thinking his laws only applied to cannon balls or things made of metal. So ingrained is the false correlation between biology and evolution that it is often impossible for me to get people to continue a discussion about evolution when I say "Let's talk about evolution in other systems." or "Let's talk about evolution as domain independent phenomenon."
If evolution isn't a "general" phenomenon, then someone representing the "special theory of evolution" will have to show how it is that life evolves but other systems do not. I doubt this requirement can be met. It would mean that some line can be drawn in time, before which there wasn't evolution, and after which there was. The logical inconsistency arises when one realizes that, to get to that line, some process suspiciously similar to evolution would have to have transpired to advance complexity to the level just preceding biology.
Another way to frame the overarching question of the why of evolution starts with the realization that competition within an environment isn't restricted to the various individuals of one species. Nature isn't that well refereed. In fact, nature isn't refereed at all. Nature is a free for all pitting snail against walrus against blue green algae. And it doesn't stop there. The ocean currents compete to transfer heat and in doing so, effect the food available to marine life of all kinds. In a very real sense, in an exactly real sense, a hurricane competes directly with a heron. Even the more stable artifacts of an environment, the topology and physical composition of the geographic features below foot compete actively and dynamically with the biota growing in its fissures and above its slowly moving face. Our old and narrowly-bounded definition of that which fits the category of evolution is plainly and absurdly and arbitrarily anthro-, species-, mammal, or bio- centric, and logically wrong.
Each time I introduce these new and inclusive definitions of the scope of the cast that performs in the play that is evolution, I hear grunts and groans, I hear the rustle of clothes, the uncomfortable shiftings… I hear frustration and discomfort. Hands raise anxiously with questions and protests: "How can non-living things evolve?" "Non-living things don't have genes, without genetics traits can't be transferred to or filtered from future generations!" And the inevitable, "The category containing all things is a useless category!"
I can't say that I don't understand, don't appreciate, or in some real way haven't anticipated and sympathized with these bio-centric apologies. This is how evolution has been framed since Erasmus Darwin and his grand kid Charles first seeded the meme. I will therefor take a moment to address these two dominant arguments such that they can be compared with a domain-independent definition of evolution.
First, lets look at evolution's apparent dependence upon genetics. How could evolution work if not for a stable medium (DNA) for the storage and processing of an absolute recipe for the reliable re-creation of individual entities? You may be surprised that my argument starts with an agreement; evolution is absolutely dependent upon the existence of a substrate stable enough to transfer existing structure into the future. But does that stable structure have to be biology's famous double helix? Absolutely not! In fact, it is causally impossible to find a system within this Universe (or any imaginary universe) in which the physical makeup of that system and its constituent parts does not facilitate the requisite structure to transfer conditions and specific arraignments from any present into any trailing futures. The shape of a river valley is a fundamental carrier of information about that valley into the future. The position, mass, and directional velocity of celestial bodies is sufficient carrier of structural information to substitute handedly for the functional duty that DNA performs in biology. But it is also important to realize and fully absorb the opposite proposition. DNA is not the only way that biological systems reliably transfer information about the present into the future. Biological systems are of course just as physical as galaxies, stars, and planets. The same causal parameters that restrict the outcome of any particular then (as a result of any particular now), that restrict causality to an almost impossibly narrow subset of what would be possible in a purely random shaking of the quantum dice. DNA is especially good at what it does, but it doesn't own or even define the category.
The second argument against an all-inclusive, domain independent definition of evolution – the logical argument against the usefulness of category that contains everything – well let's start by parsing it semantically and rhetorically. On face, there is no way to argue. The category "all" is a category of little worth. There is nothing to be known of something if it can't be compared to something else. But, and this should be obvious, I am not trying to create a category; quite the opposite! My intent is to create a theory of everything. Such a theory would obviously fail if it didn't apply to everything. So, semantically, this "set of everything is a useless set" argument doesn't map to the topic at hand. I get the distinct feeling that the argument is meant pedantically, and purposely, to derail and obfuscate the logical trail I am attempting to walk the audience down. It is a straw horse. It looks logical, but it doesn't apply.
A much more instructive and interesting line of questioning would go to the plausibility of a domain independent theory of evolution, what it would or would not change regarding our understanding of the emergence of complex structures (and their accelerating complexity), how it modifies our understanding of biological evolution, whether or not evolution will stand up to the requirements of a "theory of everything" (how it compares with others), and maybe even the effectiveness of my own description of this idea.
So, why is it important to me for evolution to meet the test of a "theory of everything"? First, I loath the unexplained. If evolution only talks to the mechanism of change within biology, then evolution would necessarily stand upon a stack even more foundational truths, and, as I mentioned earlier, other parallel theories would have to be developed to explain the emergence of complexity in non-biological systems. Either way, a vacuum would remain, exposing a need for the development of a foundational theory or set of theories that would support what in biology we call evolution, what in geology we call tectonics (etc.), what in meteorology we call heat dissipation cells, what in culture we call engineering, cooperative networks, etc.
What makes this whole endeavor so tricky, is that we tend to confuse mechanism with purpose. We get so caught up with the almost impossibly complex molecular mechanism (nucleic acids) by which biology builds complexity, that we forget to look at why it bothers at all. This why, this great big why, is to my mind far more fundamental and interesting and once understood, provides a scaffolding from which to comfortably understand and predict the necessary meta-components that need to be present in some form or another, in any evolving system. And, if you like elegance in a theory, it gets even better. It turns out that a byproduct of evolution as a theory of everything is that it must therefore be based on the two physical principals that have stood the test of universality – thermodynamics and information theory, and it strengthened both of these theories in the one area they were weak – dynamics. Once you understand the motivation and demands of change itself, the particular mechanisms of evolution at play in any one domain are reduced to how, are, no matter how varied, are but skins worn by a beast who's behavior becomes more and more predictable and universal.
All systems have what it takes to evolve. All systems are composed of components that in some small way differ. That difference might be in how the parts are made, or it might be in how the parts are distributed, and it most probably is both. That is all a system needs for the process of evolution to apply. So long as there is a difference somewhere in the system, or in that system's interaction in the greater environment in which it exists, evolution needs must be happening all of the time.
So just what is it that evolving things compete for? Is it food? Yes. Is it safety? Yes. Is it comfort? Yes. Is it stability? Yes, that too. For plants, competition is for solar radiation, carbon dioxide, water, a stable place to eat, grow, mate, and rase offspring. We animals need far more energy than our skin could absorb even if it was all capable of photosynthesis. So we eat things that can. And that is just the way things work. To get ahead, things learn to take advantage of other things. One might even say that the advantage always goes to those entities that can take the greatest advantage of the the productive behavior of the greatest number of other things. If you can't make enough energy, then eat a lot of things that can.
One could imagine taking this line of reasoning to the extremes. Lets define fitness as the ability to sit on the apex of a food chain. Of course you have to keep moving. If you don't stay vigilant and obsessive, always trying to find new and better ways to eat more of the other things, you will succumb to competition by things that do.
… to be continued …
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)