Emergence - Complexity from Simplicity, Order from Chaos (2 of 2)

[0Fear]

The problem is that emergence doesn't tell us anything. It's like saying that groups follow rules because individuals follow rules. Well, where do these rules come from? Why do fundamental particles and space carry the tendency they do to allow for "emergence"? And why is there a tendency in the first place? These are the real questions.

[megadeus17]

@0Fear Yes, these questions are real. But you are missing the point. Complex structures do emerge from the set of simple rules without need of any sort of "blueprint" or "designer will". THIS is the point.

[0Fear]

@megadeus17 The question is, where do these rules come from? Why is there a constant tendency for order when there doesn't have to be?

[megadeus17]

@0Fear Yes, it is curious question. But totally irrelevant. Emergent structures depends ONLY on the underlying set of rules, regardless of their source. "Where do these rules come from" simply does not matter. It changes nothing. Complex structures will emerge anyway. Its simple math (well, not so simple actually) .

[Enkarashaddam]

@megadeus17, I think the interesting properties of emergence really goes a long way towards debunking so-called "watchmaker" arguments. In fact, it demonstrates why the fallacy of division (found within that argument) is a fallacy. In fact, the notion that non-inert, interconnected components can replace the driving force of organization is a critical aspect in explaining why systems and their properties change over time.

[DiggityDogg56]

At the instant of the BB, the universe was in almost perfect order. One particle. You can't get more orderly than that. And you can't do anything with it either. You need to mess it up, make it disorderly before you can do anything like create 'complexity with it. Order is not complexity. DNA can create complexity precisely because it's base pairs do not follow an 'orderly' sequence. 'Order' does not allow for complexity. Randomness fed into a coherent selection process allows for complexity.

[cmpresents]

Complexity does not create intelligence, at 2:22, the major difference is that we are alive and computers are not, why can't these ppl see that, it's beyond me. You can have a transitor contact a trillion transistor, it's not going to become intelligent.

[Lioobayoyo]

@cmpresents

well... sure we're not a computer, but there is complete and clear evidence that our intelligence is caused by our brain activity, and our brain is a complex system... and because strange order emerge from complex system with basic interaction rules, so....

our brain (i should say nervous system) is very much more complex than a computer processor (have you watched the video ? )

[megadeus17]

@cmpresents Amusing statement. 200 years ago it may even be taken seriously. One question out of pure curiosity - how will you empirically verify that something is "alive"?

[cmpresents]

@megadeus17 If it feels it's environment, then it's alive.

[megadeus17]

@cmpresents You just replaced one poorly defined term ("alive") with another ("feels"). How will you empirically verify that something "feels"? Can you describe the scientific procedure which can be applied to separate objects that "feels" from objects that "does not feels"?

[cmpresents]

@megadeus17 If science can't do that, how do you expect me to do it. You know inside of you that there's something special about life, and you know that science can't answer those questions. Billions of people know that there's is something special about life, and that's a fact. You can go on talking and believing what ever you want. But you, have no idea what life is, and that is all I need to know.

[StarSpawn06]

@cmpresents

yes life is special,

but science explains it just fine.

what you are probably uncomfortable with is that when life is clearly defined and explained ( by science ),

it loses part of its 'mystique'.

Or are you are referring to things like consciousness, which are associated with life, but not necessary components of life ?

Now that is a truly special phenomenon.

[redpillreality]

@megadeus17 there is a scientific criteria for life. if something has all of these properties it is considered to be alive:

1 homeostasis

2organization

3 metabolism

4 growth

5 adaptation

6 response to stimuli

7 repoduce

[GROGANIOUS]

One may have to differentiate what one observes and say it is emergence and to propose that a phenomenon is emergent. The subjective comes into the equation like saying "the emperor's clothes are beautiful" while a child will say "the emperor has no clothes."

[LastDaysPictures]

Complexity does not emerge from nothing. There needs to be a (invisible) blueprint. Take for example the mathematical sequence of Fibonacci. Out of this very simple sequence emerge a fractal pattern with so many puzzling patterns. But behind this patterns is a principle, not material but invisible. So all nature has that kinds of principles embedded. DNA is a language, demonstrating the Zipfs-law, electric plasma follows fractal patterns, ... creation is wonderful!

[theinquisitor]

@LastDaysPictures, but there isn't a blueprint, that's the whole point of emergence. The water molecules that form into a snowflake aren't following a plan, they're just obeying the laws of physics and arranging according to the local conditions. Complexity does not arise in this case from a blueprint at all. What do you mean a non-material principle? These kind of things are explained entirely by physical laws. Nothing non-material is necessary. That's the beauty of it.

[Awesnap]

@theinquisitor i believe the poster is trying to state that the laws these things follow are immaterial yet are constant. There is nothing inherit in the physical structures of these things to suggest when combined in appropriate proportion and interaction that anything greater should "emerge". You can't examine the physical properties of an atom or an individual ant and say "oh well this will result in the creation of acids, or this ants colony will live for 12 years before diminishing"

[theinquisitor]

@Awesnap, but that's not accurate. Emergence is precisely NOT about some metaphysical layer on top of the large scale structure. The very point of emergence is that it IS inherent in the physical structure of the individual entities and comes about by their interaction. That's why emergence has been seen in computer simulations where all the variables are known and there is no organising force beyond the interaction of the component parts.

[Aldelirium]

@theinquisitor how about energy. its non material and necessary.

[latinamaids]

This is the Theory of Everything.

[seneca65r]

Impressive Si.

But not everything.

[DELPHIIII]

fascinating stuff!

[soulmony]

a repetitive thought as an entity may be observed as a constant factor inside a cycle or a set of cycles as a whole, you may notice that the given repetitive thought doesnt acts the same every time. In the first cycle that thought got an instant materialization in the brain but in the next cycle the tought had to actually overcome the previous momentum so materialization came as the second thing. Guess what, in the last cycle materialization will be the last thing to be achieved owning all

[ehswan]

A computer is an electronic device. A biological organism is not. This is obvious to any one who cares to think about it. Apparently these idiots do not, think about it, that is. Now I'm gonna get real simple for youall that don't think too much. That is most of you. LIFE IS ELECTRO-CHEMICAL+? in nature. Just the addition of chemical throws a serious monkey wrench into the complexity argument . Life is not merely more connection, it is about an entirely different order of being. Good day.

[BigMTBrain]

@ehswan - "If man were meant to fly.." Nature's human mind has, IN TIME, developed means to improve and trump all "natural" locomotion. Likewise, nature's human mind WILL develop means to trump itself. It is purely a matter of complexity. We've just now made it to quad and octo-core CPUs. Stick around for 2 to 5 decades --> 1,000,000-quantum-nanocores MASSIVELY-PARALLEL-optically-i­nterconnected CPUs in a cubic centimeter will leave biology far behind with expanded and finer-grained conciousness.

[BigMTBrain]

@ehswan - ...and you'll be beggin' you mum to buy you an implant so you can be as super-smart and super-aware as all the other kids. :)

[BigMTBrain]

@ehswan - Observe the size of brains of various creatures and compare their relative awarenesses. Amoeba, snail, rat, cat, monkey, dolphin, human. Obviously, bigger, and especially cortex folding, imply greater COMPLEXITY which implies greater conciousness and awareness. It is no stretch to apply the same rule to current, amoeba-like robot brains to future ones. Just for fun...As neurons are not aware of the mind, WE (the neurons) are not aware of what has emerged from the Internet (the brain).

[theinquisitor]

BigMTBrain, the idea that the internet, or any complex information system will possess emergent intelligence is a very intriguing possibility. However I'm not sure that the information flow on the internet is as coherent or as interconnected as would be required. Of course, without a theory of consciousness or emergence, it's difficult to know what is required. But if the internet does have a mind, it is surely psychotically insane.

Poor thing. We're sorry. Please don't nuke us :D

[BigMTBrain]

Ha ha :D Agreed! Perhaps a decade or two of the long-sought semantic web (whenever that comes about) will bring the necessary coherency. But, for the time being, you're absolutely right... (still laughing...) it has got to be one happy and nutty fruit loop.

[BigMTBrain]

Another thought... most intel and awareness in the Universe is most likely not human-like (animal-like). I posit that there MAY be infinite HIERARCHIES and infinite TYPES of awarenesses operating at vastly different TIMESCALES than our own. Also, mergent feedback loops, common in emergent systems like the brain, loosely direct its parts. Perhaps an intermediary between ID and evolution. Imagine an ecosystem with some KIND of awareness. Also, what in gawd's name might a singularity be computing?

[theinquisitor]

Regarding the possibility of an intermediary between ID and evolution in the form of an emergent self-aware ecosystem, one problem I see with that is that evolution shows no foresight.

Every trait that is selected for has to be immediately beneficial to reproduction. A trait can't develop over many generations if it's only beneficial at the end of the development. That's the kind of thing I'd expect to see from intelligence in the evolutionary process. As far as I know no such example exists.

[BigMTBrain]

But you're then implying that any given intelligence is based on logic and reason.... foresight. I suppose that is our human definition of intelligence. However, if the system is a simple feedback loop, feature-wise it may possibly only operate on the immediate generation producing some degree of extra selection pressure. All speculative, of course, but here there is, I imagine, complexity enough and connectedness enough for emergence to play a factor. But without a theory, as you say...

[BigMTBrain]

On second thought... I did a thought experiment on thought: An emergent thought modifies the behavior, interaction, and organization of current operating neurons. The effect of a repetitive thought pattern on neurogenesis is clear. But the effect on the functionality of a given newborn neuron is not. Though this thought experiment has little to do with genetics, it does illustrate that any eco-awareness is probably more involved with immediate interaction than with epigenetics or genetics. Hmm.

[manchester26m]

@theinquisitor "Every trait that is selected for has to be immediately beneficial to reproduction"

Well, not quite - Any evolved trait has to not interfere with reproduction. You can still have a fat leopard passing on his genes while slim, fast leopard gets squashed by a falling branch or freak rockslide.

Of course, over time you'd expect this to normalise.

[theinquisitor]

@manchester, good point, I did oversimplify in that case.

[manchester26m]

@theinquisitor  And full of porn :)

[betterthanthat282009]

I am currently doing research on complexity in health care and there is some interesting nursing research on how nurses in CAS's develop simple "rules" for making sense out of the chaos of her day.... This video is most intersting as it is obvious this biological science clearly has applicability to social and org. complexity. Figuring out those "basic rules" seems to be the next step to navigating the emergent chaos and complexity (see P. Ebright for work in nursing rules in complex systems)

[soulmony]

First part was the increasing development of complexity so you could see an expansion in all areas of society therefore they started to crash to each others resuting in the actuall complex chaotic society. Matter was taken to its limits up to the piont of catastrophy and disolution, now the second part starts where thoses imperfections in matter start to being disolved and a Harmonical system starts to being revealed. Maximum balance and evolution of consciousness was needed.

First Part Done

[otonanoC]

This is 1 of only about 5 videos on the entirety of youtube dealing with the Science of Complexity.

There is literally noone on youtube discussing this stuff, let alone debating it. This little Nova episode just barely scratches the surface of this topic, and it is presented in a very popularized way for a TV audience.

[theinquisitor]

Yeah although there is a lot about evolution, which is an example of emergent complexity.

I would like to see more about consciousness as an emergent phenomenon, although the only time I think I've even heard that mentioned on youtube is in EdwardCurrent's video "A Christian Meets the Invisible Pink Unicorn".

[otonanoC]

The "Rational Response Squad" completely rejects emergent consciousness. This could have something to do with the "atheist lemmings" (cough cough) all following suit.

Please see, watch?v=Lp3LEGcHsPo

[Kaandorpius]

Water is the vehiculum for motion, we need it to move muscles, to transport and organize molecules. To more there is of everything, the more possibilities arise, and the faster they come.

[WarzSchoolchild]

A recent press interview with Bob Hazen, MIT LEAD TRUMPETR! Check it out folks!

"Bob Hazen: The Trumpeter Of Astrobiology"

Wednesday, 30 July 2008, 4:02 pm

Column: Suzan Mazur

Bob is featured in this video post. He has worked for over 30 years at the Carnegie Institute. he is no 'lightweight intellect!'.

Bob explores the intriguingly possible, astro-biological origins of life, and perhaps evolution itself? Solar Plasma Jelly-Fish!;?D

Cheers 'Inquisitor'

From

Alastair Carnegie.

[bastardrob]

makes sense

[WarzSchoolchild]

Back in the early 1980s, a conference on plasma chemistry was underway. Crick & Watson (DNA) were attending, during the coffee break they discussed the probability of DNA forming in plasma (stripped of electrons)...

They concluded DNA would form spontaneously! the electrons were inhibitors! of the reaction. Sir Fred Hoyle (a good friend of mine) postulated 'Jelly-Fish' type organisms on our Sun's surface. You can strain a jelly fish through a sieve, and it will reconstitute!

Interesting!

[theinquisitor]

Chemistry without electrons? Is that a bizarre attempt at humour? I hope so.

[WarzSchoolchild]

"Results 1 - 10 of about 542,000 for Plasma Chemistry" (Google Search) Plasma is atoms stripped of their electrons.

Check out, "Plasma Technology Sites Worldwide"

I repeat "stripped of their electrons" NO JOKE! It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to refute your skepticism, 'inquisitor'.

Please educate youself. drop the 'scholastic' approach, it leads to pseudo-science! "NULLIUS IN VERBA" The Motto of The Royal Society. Empty words do not advance science. only experimental results!

[theinquisitor]

"Empty words do not advance science. only experimental results!"

Care to provide some references to peer reviewed papers on the subject?

[WarzSchoolchild]

Work, Work, Work,...I sadly cleared out my old copies of New Scientist, where I first read of this, but allow me a little time, and I will be glad to oblige you! We will have to dig up the archives! It is highly unlikely a casual chat in a Cofee Break, was transposed into a learned paper! GET REAL!

Why not 'Lick a stamp' yourself Inquisitor? and write to James Dewey Watson in person, Sadly Francis Crick is no longer with us. R.I.P.

[theinquisitor]

New Scientist isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal, it's a magazine written for the general public that includes a lot of speculation. Do you know what peer review is?

Can you explain how chemistry is supposed to happen without electrons, when chemistry IS the interaction of the electrons of different atoms? It's definitionally wrong. Like a square circle. Also, excessive exclamation marks don't help your argument.

[roidroid]

i loled at the Oscar.

Oscars are awards given for achievements helpful to the FILM industry, not SCIENCE. I guess Craig Reynolds' "Boids" computer modeled flocking behavior was useful for modeling swarm behavior in CG movies. Thus he won an Oscar.

[broj8s8n79]

Can we say, 'wishfull thinking'?

[SciBud]

And kosovian cannot write in proper English. Says a lot about one's intelligence.

[cat22203]

this statement says a lot about YOUR intelligence! Most people on youtube are NOT native English speakers/writers, idiot!

[kosovian]

Even if there were these right molecules under the right conditions, yet there is supposed to be someone (or something) that would put them together. I mean, in that experiments the scientist was necessary to do that experiment, it could not have possibly just happen spontaneously, heating and other stuff. There is some methaphysical in this complexity of simplicity that is just beyond our any sense!

[theinquisitor]

There is someTHING putting it together. Physics and chemistry. I don't know where they came from but I see no reason to suggest that a PERSON made the rules of physics and chemistry, because people require physics and chemistry to exist in the first place. The only thing that is wrong here is your prejudices. You can't make statements about what can't be sensed, how do you know there is some metaphysical magical stuff if it's undetectable. You're just making it up to avoid the evidence.

[kosovian]

Listen, if that PERSON didn't do all the things that were done in that experiment in the first place, then the laws of physics and chemistry would remain static, and I'm referring to the experiment done in this video. It's absolutely meaningless the fact that you watch this and deny that there is some methaphysical force (undetected) that made possible everything around us! That is GOD!

[kosovian]

I mean, look around yourself, look your own body, your own organism? We all take our organisms for granted and never realize that it is a perfection, there is not a single organ in wrong, or in the wrong place. Do you think such a perfection could have been created from the probability that some molecules "somehow" were linked together, and than again linked, creating so life? This is just naive!!!

[theinquisitor]

If your premise is that complex things can only be created by more complex things then you defeat your own argument. God is surely more complex than any biological entity, and so by your premise, god must have had a designer. And god's designer had a designer, and so on. Your argument about design defeats itself. If you are going to say that god doesn't need a designer then why not say that the universe didn't need a designer?

[kosovian]

Do you realize what have you just stated above? Absolutely a meaningless phrase! I'm very sorry to see how a man becomes a victim of atheism, when YOU yourself are a fact of the subject you seem to be against. God has no designer! He is the almighty, self-sufficient, hasn't born anybody and hasn't been born by anybody! He is the designer! I'm sorry I have to say bur you seem to have problems with the world. Check our Anthropic Principle to see!

[theinquisitor]

Haha, anthropic principle? Do you even understand what the anthropic principle is? It doesn't support the idea of design, it is an argument AGAINST design. It's the idea that for instance we could have only arisen on a planet that could support our life, therefore it's not suprising to find that the planet closest to us supports our life. It is a way of disregarding the apparent designed nature around us as a consequence of the fact that WE adapted TO it. Read about it again.

[kosovian]

Human, open your eyes and see around you!!! I shall discuss no more with you about this subject, becuase I feel I'm discussing with someone who has ears, but cannot hear, has eyes but doesn't see. And just remember one thing: Your world is not the right one, please become part of the right one!

[theinquisitor]

Okay don't listen to me. But you owe it to yourself to investigate this further and at least listen to what the evolutionists have to say. Search youtube for: ken miller, there's a two hour lecture debunking intelligent design. The guy is a catholic and believes in god and has apparently found a way to reconcile his faith with fact. You should at least know what the people who disagree with you actually think rather than just closing your eyes to it.

[theinquisitor]

We are not perfectly designed. Perfect means no improvement could be made. Why would a designer be able to come up with microscopic metabolic factories in our cells and then be stupid enough to make us breathe and eat through the same holes ensuring that many of us will choke to death. In the groin, a sewage system in the middle of an entertainment complex. Our appendix does nothing but get appendicitis and kill us. This is what you call a perfect design?

[kosovian]

Few decades ago, scientists had claimed that there were about 100 structures (among them organs) that were of no need in our body. Now how smart is that, now that we have science in a better stage?

[kev3d]

Human births, without modern medical care, are fatal to the Mother 20% of the time. Half of all women before 1900 lost at least one child at birth or right after. Why? Our Heads are too large for the birth canal. Wider birth canal, the female cannot walk. Smaller heads, and our greatest technology becomes a rock. Excellent design.

[theinquisitor]

How about this, look at a puddle sitting in a depression in the ground. Just notice how PERFECTLY the water fits the edges of the hole, it's almost as if the hole is MADE for the water to sit in it. This is the kind of error you're making. The universe wasn't made for life any more than the depression in the ground was made for the water. The water is what adapts to the ground, not the other way around, and it is life that adapts to environment, the environment isn't made for life.

[kosovian]

I just cannot believe how a person like you, whose account is full of science videos, denies facts that clearly tell of creationism. Please be rational, and jugde the world in that way. Have you ever thought why the oxygen is exactly 21% in the air? If you haven't, I'd sugesst you to make some recearch around it. And please, don't you ever say again that God has a designer!

[theinquisitor]

Sorry man, but you've been duped by the creationists. They're propagandists. I've listened to their stuff, and I've listened to the evolutionists. Have you listen to both sides? I would bet that you haven't heard an account of evolution given by someone who actually advocates it. I would bet that it's only been described to you by creationists. They are lying to you. I don't expect you to believe me but I can prove it if you have an open mind and enough time.

[kosovian]

add me r_draz @ hotmail . com and I'll be glad to discuss about it...

[kev3d]

The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere has changed over time. In some places, to this day, the oxygen content is lower or higher than 21% based on Altitude, available life, decomposing organic material and even volcanic activity. Look up the Oxygen Catastrophe roughly 2.6 billion years ago. Oxygen, by the way, is corrosive and toxic at certain levels. Some design. However, not all life requires oxygen.

[kev3d]

Spoken like a man who knows his Douglas. Excellent video.

[theinquisitor]

It reminds me of a hypothetical story about a man from medieval times who is shown a television and decides that there must be hundreds of little men running around inside making the images appear. Then he is shown the inside and given a full education in science and electronics. Then he says "oh I see, I understand now, it's electronics, but I'm sure there are some little men in there somewhere."

[MaBu888]

Exactly. Well put.

[kosovian]

3:56-4:09 "the right molecules under the right conditions will do this (give life), forming increasing more complex structures, and those structures will form even more complex structures and so on.." now this is so naive. It's absolutely childish to think that this could be the way life appeared.

[kev3d]

Naive as in, oh...I dunno...A virgin birth, Magic wands, Zombies, Monsters, Giants, Talking animals, Magic Rainbows,demons,ghosts, people flying, resurrections, a magic killer box and astrology? Naive like that? All of those things appear in the Bible, yet none, not one, has any shred of evidence.

[borris79]

Murray Gell-Mann won the Nobel Prize in Physics for introducing quarks, one of two fundamental ingredients for all matter in the universe.

[borris79]

Ted Talks: Murray Gell-Mann: Beauty and truth in physics... "you don't need more to get more"...