An Entertaining Idea - The Scale of Complexity and the Value of Progress
I was asked, in jest, if the internet was becoming Skynet. I responded (innocently), "it already is; it's basically sentient". Little did I realise the can of worms I had opened.
So I have an idea for you to entertain.
Firstly, are you willing to entertain an idea for fun? If not, try to work out the expression, "to argue semantics"; It's harder than you think!
Now to the entertaining idea of scale of complexity. The complexity of what? Well, in general I'm referring to any system at all; both those which actually exist (reality) and those merely conceived to exist (hypotheticals).
In a system, is not simplicity desired? Well yes, obviously, simplicity is the universal goal. But take simplicity to its logical extreme: what's the simplest thing possible? I'd wager "nothing". Non existence. Things which are not. Anything which does not exist, could not exist, and could never exist. These things have a complexity of zero. This things have no complexity.
Nothings are hypothetical systems with zero complexity. Zero complexity entities (if you can still call them entities), are the leftmost point on this scale, so the scale starts at '0'.
0
|---------------------------------->
Is there negative complexity? I'm not sure how to entertain this thought, but feel free to try for yourself!
It would seem logical to me, however, that complexity never actually reaches zero. For hypothetical non existant systems, by their very nature, don't exist. A sort of asymtote, if you will. Nothing doesn't exist, as it's name suggests, yet not only does it not exist, it isn't possible for it to ever exist. You can't get something out of nothing, and even if you could, it would then cease to be nothing, it would cease to be a zero complexity system. Something is at least some thing. It is the very essence of it.
Nothings. They are the unthinkables. They are the unfathomables.
So our would not include the start point. In 'range' notation, you use an open dot to indicate that point is not part of the data set.
0
O--------------------->
nb: Melissa gives good feedback.
T1: How many systems exist with zero complexity?
T2: None
T1: What about nothing? Doesn't that have no complexity?
T2: Yeah, I guess it does.
T1: Then is not there at least *one* system with zero complexity? "Nothing"
T2: I guess...
Let's make a list of all systems with zero complexity.
Let's say an empty list looks like this "[]", with a non-empty list looking like this "[1,2,3,4,5]"
WARNING: Semantic Content: You may have heard of maths geeks referring to "sets", what most people think of as "lists" are usually "sets". A 'set' is an 'unordered list', whereas a normal "list" is usually "ordered", that is, the order of the items in the list matters.
So, now take our set of zero complexity systems:
[]
And lets put all possible zero empty systems in it. We'll start with the system of "nothingness".
What is the complexity of nothingness? Zero. It has zero complexity, "there is nothing to it". It, in fact, *is* nothing. So, we'll add it to the set.
["nothingness"]
This still doesn't sit well with me, however. Does "nothing" really qualify as a system? What's a system?
I think a system is an entity which can be defined as a whole, but which is in itself also comprised of other entities (which may in turn, be systems, or just atomic entities).
So, by this definition, nothing is *not* a system. It isn't a collection of anything, it's not even a collection at all. It's the lack of things, the lack of collections, the lack of systems. So... we've managed to define a few things so far. Let's state them a little more formally.
Things: Anything which can be defined (so, technically, "thing" is itself a "thing").
Nothings: The absence of things, what exists when no other things exist.
Set: A list of things, possibly empty
Is "Nothing" a Thing? It seems useless. Is there ever a use for nothing? It feels like as soon as you check for something, it ceases being a nothing, and becomes a thing, "even if you don't find what you expected".
What's outside? "Nothing". Is that ever true?
What's going on outside? "Nothing unusual". That's more like it.
What's outside the universe? "We don't know". Unknown.
There we go. Something that is actually useful. "Unknowns", and their counterpart, "Knowns".
So, for now, lets kick out Nothing into the realm of non-existence.
Rejected Systems = Nothing
"Nothing" is a known, we know about it, but it is not useful (yet). Nothing does not exist. Things can exist. Nothing can not exist.
Out of nothings land into the land of things, or at least somethings. The systems with some (non zero) complexity.
Ultimately, there should be 'literally-atomic' entities, from which all systems are comprised. By my best current understanding, these are somewhere about "
elementary-particles". Seems to be lots of thinking still going in this direction. I'm going to defer this discussion into a later post. Now, back to system complexity!
Lets now place something simple on the scale. Say, an electron. A relatively simple system.
electron
O-----|---------------------------------------->
It's not *at* zero. But it's close. Especially on the scale we're to be working on.
Now lets place rocks on the scale. Considerably more complex than a single electron, how many orders of magnitudes do you think? Methinks this scale may be logarithmic (youtube powers of 10, you'll not regret it).
electron rock grasshopper mouse dog chimpanzee human
O--|-------|--------|-------|----|------|-------|----->
Humans seem to be the most adept species on our planet at entertaining ideas. Creating 'concepts' in their mind. Playing those concepts through, comparing these concepts to reality and each other, and executing action based on the best perceived outcome. Humans are also able to conceptualise the idea of a concept. It is this 'meta meta' higher level analysis which seems to be unique (to our knowledge) to humans (did you know that technically we are classified as homo sapien sapien? Ever wondered what sapien means? Well know you have!).
If we zoom in on the human portion of the scale it becomes more controversial. People seem comfortable comparing complexities of systems between animals and humans, but why not between one human and another? Obviously, there are different facets of complexity... But the most complex organ in our system seems to be the brain, so lets presume its complexity is orders of magnitudes greater than say, a heart or muscle, so that its complexity greatly outweighs any complexity of the 'lesser' organs. Lets just entertain it for a second.
Village Idiot Average Joe Albert Einstein
<--------------|-------------|---------------|-------------->
The relative complexity higher order living system ability to conceive more complex systems. Abstraction.
As far as the human population goes, it's probably be a normal distribution around Joe. This type of thinking is powerful, but dangerous. People often take offence at this point. If you ever find yourself face to face with someone who looks like they'd rather you died than suggest not all humans were created equal, simply restate that you never suggested that rocks were better than electrons, just that they are more complex. Let them put 2 and 2 together for that one. If they still want to kill you, I suggest talking about the weather. Or maybe compliment the clothes they are wearing.
So, as humans are quite complex. No doubt. So lets zoom out again. What's more complex than humans?
humans ???
<--------|--------------|-------->
I'd hazard a suggestion that the Earth is more complex than humans (it does contain us to some degree, after all), maybe even some of the more complex plants are?. A galaxy is certainly more complex than a human. So lets chuck them on the scale.
electron rock mouse human earth galaxy
O----|--------|--------|---------|----------|--------|------>
What is the complexity of the universe that we inhabit? Infinite? I'm not sure... Are there parallel universes? I'm not sure yet. Humans definitely have the capability to conceive parallel universes, just like they do gods and aliens. So maybe they do exist. But I don't think it makes sense for a parallel universe to be either less or more complex than ours. In what does our universe exist? A metaverse? A multiverse? I think that's a discussion for another day! For now, we'll end our scale at my proposed metaverse (a universe of universes). Remind me to discuss time and space sometime. Maybe I should read up about them first, instead of trying to work everything out myself.
electron rock human earth galaxy universe metaverse
O----|--------|--------|--------|--------|-----------|-----------|------>
Science is exploring both ends of this scale, both approaching zero complexity (Large Hadron Collider), and approaching infinite complexity (Hubble Deep Field).
I was in a discussion with my brother, when he started to argue with my referring to the internet as being sentient. Sure, maybe, in some definitions of the word isn't. But it some definitions of the word it very much is. I'm not suggesting it is 'alive' in the way we think about it. But I'm talking about life as a set of behaviours.
I think of society as an entity. A massively complex entity. I would put it higher on the scale than humans. I consider my SIM card to be a system, to be an entity, with its own little processor able to protect the data inside, and even call home if it needs to and is in the right environment. A SIM is certainly more complex than an electron. And I'd suggest more complex than a rock. And the internet is certainly more complex than a SIM card (did you know the internet is self healing? and that it was designed to be so?). The internet is taking a life of its own.
One interesting thing to note now, is where do you put what we refer to as life on this scale? Where does it start? Are we the highest form of life on the scale of complex living?
Happiness is simple, btw, simplicity is happiness. Ever seen a sad rock? Just be like a rock and you'll be happy. But is there more to life than just being happy? I think there is. I think ultimate meaning of life itself can never be known, but that living a fulfilled life means looking for answers to the questions you have. And once you get these interim answers, you realise how many more questions there are to ask.
What is a good life? I think a good life is a fulfilled life. Doing good. What is doing good? I think it is doing well for humanity. Furthermore, maybe it is doing well for life in general. Life's purpose seems to be self preservation; evolution and adaptation being the tool for its survival.
Lets attempt to plot life on the graph. When did non living matter become living matter? How did it happen? A tangent for another day.
I think I'll have to work out the value of progress another day. I see value in considering the Earth to be alive. To be living. It certainly seems to fit most definitions of living. Does it have free will? Whatever that is. Perceived free will. Thinking about freewill seems to be like contemplating whether or not we're just a brain in a vat. Smarter men have thought down those paths, and have left many a sign which read "Wrong way, go back!", at varying degrees of intensity as you get further from the point. :)
