Energy and Quantum Computers are already real, About energy and report on QC's existing

Hi All,

This is a partial thread that was lost in the recent crash I am sorry that all others in this thread are not included but I only kept my bits.

I am also sorry that the sequence is now a bit jumbled and may not make sense to others who "jump" in.

PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> General -> Energy
26/11/2004
Hi All,

Energy is lost because it will all eventually end up in heat through chaos. The other factor involved is Entropy. The Universe as a whole is gradually increasing in Entropy. Like a big tired old clock winding down. Unless someone or something winds it back up, like an unwinding spring, it will get slower and slower as less and less available energy is available for use. Yup the energy remains conserved but it is no longer capable of doing work.

Luckily there are "thingies" around that fight the good fight against all this chaos and actually go against the grain (humans, some crystals and other living things). The are energetic and they self assemble and they reverse lots of other processed. But they too are "feeding" off a resource that is going to eventually become in short supply.

This should not really concern us though. However the previous arguments in this post miss the problem of Entropy and that Energy is defined by how much work it is capable of doing. If energy is locked away and can't "flow" to another level the energy cannot be harnessed. It will no longer be "available" energy (to do work).

For example the sound energy given off by the ball is not useful after a period of time to do anything further. It spread too thinly to perform useful work. That is why you don't see that sound energy in further equations from then on.

Similar arguments exist for adiabatic heating of the ball when it bounces. After a while this energy is also spread too thinly for us to use. While it is "concentrated" near the ball it is possible to harness it (for instance it might be used to "partially" heat a room). In the same way doing physical jerks and using up our calories (jumping up and down on the spot) can be used to make us warm on cold days while lizards just have to grin and bear it (they can't manufacture heat efficiently). If you are smart and resourceful you can eke out an existence on the edge of chaos.

Cheers

PS:
Read post above first...

This may already be history in the cloak and dagger world of the "spooks".
Quantum leap for computers

You may realize that just because you can't buy a Quantum Computer at Radio Shack doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Cheers

Hi All,

This is a partial thread that was lost in the recent crash I am sorry that all others in this thread are not included but I only kept my bits.

I am also sorry that the sequence is now a bit jumbled and may not make sense to others who "jump" in.

Hi ARtone,

The problem of addressing the right values in a quantum computer is an interesting one. It is a paradigm change to our current computing concepts. In current computers all operations are sequential. This is OK since a lot of problems are sequential. Attempts are being made to make computers more parallel. We do this currently by adding more and more processors to a single computer. The fastest computers in the world work by this multiplication of the power of a single processor because a lot of the problems of the real world are parallel anyway. so parallel is good.

For example we elves in "Vegetation Management" try to solve problems of the worlds ecosystem using parallelism. The earth's atmosphere is a huge mechanical computer solving a problem that is of vital interest to all of us (the mice made us do it - you humans are part of the experiment). Its registers can be read by looking at the physical parameters of the system and we measure them to the highest degree of accuracy we need. How can we solve this problem quicker than the earth can do it so we can "look ahead" and see what the consequences that those nasty humans will have on the planet. We use Multiprocessors and divide the "virtual" earth into as small a cell as possible to fix the conditions as near as possible to the earth current parameters and quickly "look ahead" with a real "beast" of a number cruncher.. Even this“beast” processes sequentially and there are limits to how small the cells can be made to simulate the "real" world and still do the problem faster than the earth itself.

Think of a mechanical system that is an infinite state machine that can be viewed from any angle like a hologram. Set up the initial conditions in it and then view it from whatever virtual rotation space that lets you see the parameters you would prefer and then read what conditions the rest of the state machine is in.

If present computers were like this they would produce real time animation of the earth and with the aid of slider bars and little "Microsoft" widgets things we could wiggle it around till our heats were content. It is just a matter of programming and presentation. We can already do this sort of thing with simple problems, what we want is to do this with a real "doozey".

I don't yet know how to program a quantum computer but like Slarty Bardfast (a mate of mine) of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy fame, this elf only does fjords and the mice have not asked me to do any more than that yet.

It has been said that such machines can be built and undeniably it will be difficult. It will not solve all problems but will solve a class of problems that are essentially parallel. This is a restriction but it is still a very large class of real world problems.

How does it store all the answers at once? It doesn't - it "seems" that other Universes do that for us and their state machines, all together, co-operate with us to solve our problem. Science Fiction - Not really. It is a computer that has not been built yet, but great strides have been made even in my country, to give encouragement to the possibility of a favourable outcome. All we are building is a general purpose programmable quantum infinite state machine. See!

In a way a hologram is a “fixed” infinite state machine. It is captured in an instant and you can "read" it from many different input parameters (angles). None of these problems were “solved” initially when the film was exposed but the “solutions” are undeniably there aren't they?

The 7 qubit computer is not a really useful computer and it solves only a really simple problem, but it does seem to hold the potential that a "big one" is theoretically possible.

Will everyone own a quantum computer in the future? Possibly not, but then would they want one? I do think that we will build "some" quantum computers to solve some problems and it will probably happen in this century.

Cheers

Hi ARtone,

Yup - points taken - a lot of the inpetus for a QC is coming from cryptology and this is a military thing. Good thing that real "spooks" carry one time pads eh!

Still they will build them... eventually. If only the fact that in the end Moore's Law will fail and there are some very difficult philosophical problems (such as the travelling salesman problem) still to be solved. Big number crunchers will cough and choke on some "relatively simple" problems to define but neigh impossible to solve in practice.

Neo-Slovakia is right... but the QC is an "infinite" state machine. Doesn't that make the tassel on your beanie wiggle with anticipation? Sorta makes you think of "Deep Thought" in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". Deep thought (the Ultimate sequential computer of it's time) is asked to solve the ultimate problem. The meaning of Life the Universe and everything. DT says that it will take some time. Thousands of generations later it come up with the answer - 42!

To interpret this enigmatic answer the Earth was constructed under the instructions of the mice to discover the meaning of the ultimate answer. We will eventually arrive at our "Deep Thought" and it won't be near fast enough. I hear that they are going to put an Interstellar Freeway through this neck of the woods and the Vogons have posted Earth's demolition notice at alpha centauri. but there is a group of "avowed" loonies who want to "do the job" ahead of time.

Enter the QC!
Good Elf Posted on Nov 27 2004, 04:27 AM
Hi All,

This post is too late QCs exist already ......
QUOTE
Nobel laureate William Phillips says.

Banks and governments are scrambling to build quantum-style encryption machines to protect their systems, and crack others. "There are rumours they're already being used by the military and intelligence communities," said Professor Phillips, from the atomic physics division of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology in Maryland.


QC Computers are already in use

I posted this on page 3 of this thread a couple of days ago.

Cheers

extrasense Posted on Nov 27 2004, 04:42 AM

QUOTE (Good Elf @ Nov 27 2004, 04:27 AM)
"There are rumours they're already being used"

The operating word here is rumors

But people are conditioned to believe any crap that is on TV rolleyes.gif

ES

Good Elf Posted on Nov 28 2004, 02:00 AM
Hi extrasense,

QUOTE
The operating word here is rumors


No extrasense, the operative element in the quote is "Nobel laureate William Phillips" said it. Check it out. He would not make a statement attributable to him no matter what, unless he was dead sure that he was right, way in advance. These guys are the most conservative people on this earth.

Cheers
extrasense Posted on Nov 27 2004, 06:41 PM

QUOTE (nescafe @ Nov 27 2004, 03:53 PM)
Just a note. The new laser computer Israel made could have the creation of a quantum computer as one of its research projects, testing for quantum signifigance, ie, quantum states.

Laser computer is a different animal. Everything is quantum, as a bottom line.
The claims of multistate computation, entanglement, etc. are what makes quantum computer ideas insane.

ES

extrasense Posted on Nov 28 2004, 03:59 AM

QUOTE (Good Elf @ Nov 28 2004, 02:01 AM)
the operative element in the quote is "Nobel laureate William Phillips" said it.

Hi, elf,

You are too much in love with authority biggrin.gif
"Nobel laureate" wants some attention, that's all.

Look, at the same breath it is being herolded by the pseudoscietific pseudomedia, the creation of 1 bit QUAC, and, in this case, of fully operational QUAC.

It is all lie.
If it is quantum system, you know neither what you are have in input, nor what you have in output. The case closed.

ES

Hi extrasense,

No, not in love with authority, just sane enough to realize that these "authorities" never say anything that may prove retrospectively to damage their precious reputation. Ask yourself why he said it in the first place if he could be wrong?

Cheers

Hi All and Elf

Well here we are back again. Missing 400 posts of mine it doesnt bode well for the libraries of the future especially for quantum storage.

I doubt the idea of currently existing quantum computers other than in the most rudementory state - perhaps the odd small register. I dont think even the government could keep that secret. As if they would want to.

AR

Hi AR,

Back again... lost "exactly" all my posts eh! I am going to tell the head elf about this. Sorry that it is a bit all screwed up but all my stuff is precised to relevant facts to my own personal brain space. I never thought I would need to do this.

About QC's.....

I keep saying this - don't believe me believe this guy - he has more at stake than me.

Cheers

Hi Elf

you said he wouldnt say this if not true- but he has included a get out of jail clause by saying " it is rumoured" which means he thinks that. Surely a ground breaking Elf can read between the lines.

This phrase is on a par with " the moon may be made of cheese" or
" I believe all particles are cubic shaped"


AR

[B][I][U][FONT=Optima][The Edge of Chaos
Chris Langton when playing with self-reproducing cellular automata with threshold of added noise, discovered a regime at particular theshold value, where there is a transition between where the state of the automata eventually repeats itself and state where there is completely random generated states that never repeat. Coined by Doyne Farmer as the "edge of chaos" this regime is between the chaotic regime and the order regime. Jim Crutchfield has mathematically analyzed this transition and determined that there is a peak at the "edge of chaos" where there is a maximum of information. The edge-of-chaos is where COMPLEXITY resides
In actual fact, the metaphor in form of the phrase "edge of chaos" is misleading, for this "edge" is more like a dynamic discontinuous surface or volume depending on the complexity of the cellular automata. Moreover, the edge-of-chaos is also the "edge of order", depending on which side (chaos or order) you are looking from.
One can visualize this metaphor as a phase space and model natural systems in this way.



Figure 1. A Macrosystem: A Level of Major Material Complexity
In natural systems, the actual size of the edge-of-chaos region is very small compared to chaotic and ordered regimes (approximately 107 smaller in mass-energy compared to the chaotic region and 107 smaller in space-time compared to ordered region). The chaotic region has most of the mass and energy, but the ordered region occupies most of the space and time. The chaotic region supplies the evolutionary energy for the growth of the edge-of-chaos. The order region is the ``material'' area for the storage of dynamic structures (i.e., microsystems).
If the edge-of-chaos is big enough, then you can have multiple levels of material complexity.

On the earth the atomic chaos of the center of the earth is next to the molecular chaos of the surface of the planet, which is the edge-of-chaos when compared to the ordered regioned of the atmosphere.


Complexity
com - with, *plek - to fold, braid, or twist, ity - property of
The problem of the meaning of "complexity"
There are many ways to define the word "complexity"[5]. And there many connotations of the word "complexity" deriving from the work trying to answer some basic scientific questions, such as computational complexity, algorithmic information complexity, logical depth [6], thermodynamic depth[7], and effective complexity [4]. All of these usage's are valid and useful for understanding nature, but these usage's of the word "complexity" are sophisticated in ways that are difficult to directly relate to naturally occurring "entities" and their associated processes such as elementary particles, atoms, molecules, cells, and organisms as we know them in the world.
Part of the problem with using the concept of complexity is the problem of defining exactly what consists of "the system" or the entity which encompasses the complexity. We will argue that some delineation's of systems are more natural than others for understanding how the complex things arise, such as living organisms. We will use the word complexity with a different meaning than the above usage's. We will use a particular meaning the word that include both process and structural aspects of the world. In other words, we are considering long-term, dynamic complexity.
If we look at nature and notice the entities that have been discover as building blocks in this complex world, we quickly find the results of science have given several levels of entity description. Through scientific consensus the words quanta, particle, atom, molecule, cell, organism, family, and society represent classes of entities that appear identifiable in some of the scientific disciplines. These words as concepts are useful in terms of a very naive definition of the word complex. If we take the simple usage of something is complex if "it is made of parts", then we find that a society is composed of families, a family is composed of organisms, an organism are composed of cells, cells are composed of molecules, molecules are composed of atoms, atoms are composed of particles, and particles are composed of quanta(bosons, leptons, quarks). This usage will serve as the basis of our notion of complexity.
This notion at first glance seems correct in the intuitive aspect of common usage of word "complexity" and gives a nice ranking of complexity that seems natural. That is, for example, societies are more complex than molecules because societies at some level are composed of molecules. Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker [8] uses this notion of complexity to discuss the evolution of life. But, this simple usage of the word complex does not have a precise definition of "parts," and there is the problem of defining the extent of the whole. This naive notion of complexity, although intuitively correct, must also address what is relationship of the parts to the whole. And just as important, there remains the question of what is the definition of the whole. Part of understanding this part/whole relationship comes from examining the underlying process of increasing complexity. In our use of the concept of complexity we are using a naive definition similar to Dawkins' use something is complex if it is made of parts. However, we include in our notion of complexity a surrounding context, namely a dissipative structure. We define loosely a major level of complexity [10] as demarcated by a massive, self-organized dissipative structure, hereby called a macrosystem. Our universe, galaxies, the solar system, earth, and Gaia are some of the most notable macrosystems. The macrosystem consists of self-organized ``parts'' that are hereby called microsystems. The complexity of a macrosystem is based one the complexity of the majority of microsystems that compose it. Also, a macrosystem is surrounded by another macrosystem of a lower level of complexity. Lastly, if a macrosystem is massive, stable enough, and has enough diversity in its microsystems, then other macrosystems can occur within it, such as the earth within the solar system.
Microsystems are the natural occurring building blocks that compose things. They are self-organized, dissipative structures at the microscale relative to its surrounding macrosystem. Leptons, baryons, atoms, molecules, prokaryotic cells, multi-cellular organisms, human families, and corporations are some of the primary examples of microsystems at different levels of complexity.

Involution: On the Structure and Process of Existence,
REVISITED
(under construction)
Context
David M. Keirsey
Abstract:
Using systematic analysis of phenomena across levels of complexity of existence enables a clearer understanding of the underlying structure and evolutionary process of the universe. The concept of major levels of complexity provides a framework for explaining the interaction between two adjoining levels of major complexity. This interaction is a form of information feedback. This feedback is analogous to biological evolution but appears in simpler levels of complexity that do not involve life. In addition, at higher levels of complexity, the feedback is at multiple levels thus adding to the confusion of the evolutionary mechanisms and function of life. The precise but abstract metaphorical concepts of birth, growth, equilibrium, decay, and death are shown to be fundamental processes that necessary at all levels of increasing complexity. By comparing and contrasting the levels of material and functional complexity using the rigorous methods of Relational Science and Comparative Complexity, similar to methods introduced by Robert Rosen, we can understand the structure and process of existence. The word involution, redefined and refined, is used to represent the process and structure of existence which creates this increasing material complexity. The word envolution, created and defined, is used to represent the process and structure of this increasing functional complexity.
Introduction
The awe inspiring diversity of forms and processes of the universe mixed with some apparent regularity of nature, naturally provokes the scientific question of: is there an underlying regularity of the universe that can produce that diversity? Quantum mechanics and the current cosmological theories of theoretical physics do provide some explanation to this question. On the other hand, these theories do not really provide, for example, a satisfactory explanation on how some organisms form into societies. For, not only are there a diversity in the universe such as quarks, protons, atoms, planets, asteroids, quasars, pulsars, supernovae, and active galactic nuclei, but also there is the diversity of life.
The first problem in explaining the diversity is to categorize it, so as to be able to distinguish or differentiate the "things" in the universe so as to be able to use these distinctions in the discourse of reason. This has been the task of science since the Greek philosophers of antiquity started trying to objectively analyze the world. However, the major problem in science has been dealing with the "complexity" of nature [1].
There are many different complex phenomena in each field of science. Until now it has been difficult to compare phenomena between fields of science, such as physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, and economics, in a systematic manner because it has appeared that the properties and processes of these phenomena are radically different. On the other hand, there seems to be some vague similarity between radically different phenomena of universe, such the evolution of stars and planets to the evolution of life. Indeed, the science of complexity [2][3][4] is beginning to shed some light on this similarity, and it appears there is some important commonalty between the sciences. A building of this commonalty in terms of a scientific theory could profoundly change our understanding of all the sciences and ultimately our understanding of the universe. Yet, communication between different sciences in regards to this fundamental commonalty at best at its beginnings. Scientists from different fields have difficulty in communication because they view their scientific fields as very different and effectively they speak different "languages". Nevertheless in terms of this new scientific world view, a building of a commonalty now seems possible because each field of science has a great deal of knowledge accumulated and can serve as a solid basis that can be used to analyze analogous phenomena.
In understanding the structure and process of the universe there are three important descriptive parts to the analysis in terms of the science of complexity. First part of the descriptive analysis is the naming and defining of each level of complexity of existence. This is an ambitious task, but in the process of trying to delineate and define each level, a better understanding of the fundamental commonalties between all levels will occur. In defining the levels, we must first characterize what it a level of complexity means and how one can recognize it. In this paper, the notion of major levels of complexity is introduced and used to provide an initial framework for understanding the information feedback between the major levels in time as the universe evolves.
Table 1 illustrates what are the major complexity of material levels that should serve as the currently understood levels. In addition, there are successive minor levels of complexity that are between the major levels but are harder to define and discover because the evolutionary process destroys a great deal of the evidence. These basic levels can be refered to by the phrase "Material" systems, a term which has used by Robert Rosen to a significant degree. The major point about about these material systems is they exist. The issue to be address in this essay is to answer the teleological question of WHY do they exist. This type of question is not normally a Provence of science. However, many of these why questions, although not all, can be answered, in a scientific manner.
The second part of the descriptive analysis is the process description of each level of complexity. In this process description, it is important to show the commonalty between levels. This common process description, hereby called involution, will represent the common theory on how levels of complexity arise and what is the underlying structure and process of the universe. For starters there seems to be four basic processes. The analogous notions of birth, growth, decay, and death appear to common to all levels of complexity from galaxies and stars to human society and cyberspace. For example, it appears that catalysts in chemistry have a similar role of birth as genomes have in biology, and as memes have in sociology. Mapping seemly different processes into precise analogies between these processes at different levels of complexity will clarify the underlying common process. This mapping involves making explicit the information feedback between levels. The mappings themselves will give insight into the processes and structures at each level. These mapping are again an ambitious task, and requires the deep understanding of the each level of complexity. On the other hand, there is a great deal of knowledge accumulated at each level of complexity by the respective sciences and vast amount of work has been performed in the sciences that straddle the levels of complexity, such as molecular physics, biochemistry, and ethnology.
Hand-in-hand with the process description is the structural description. One approach to devise a structural description, and the approach taken here, is to first catalog the major organizational entities of each level and the current major species, and if possible provide the history of evolution of species at each level. Analogous to the drive to catalog "life" by Linnaeus, this catalog can serve as lingua franca to generalize and unify the disparate phenomena that occur in the different fields of science. The problem has been that little attention has been paid to the various unified functional relationships of these structural components. In cataloging these structural, "material" phenenoma we will use functional names as well as their normal structural names.
Table 1 serves a sample of the top level listing of the major levels of complexity with example major species in that level complexity. Just as there is no perfect classification scheme in biology, there will not be a perfect classification in the science of complexity. On the other hand, just as wrong classifications served as a counterpoint foundation for discovery of better explanations as in the work of Lamarck, Cuvier, and Darwin in biology, so can this catalog and others serve as a framework of scientific inquiry for the science of complexity.



Material
Complexity
Level
Abs-Species
Complexity Major Abs-Species MacroSystem Lineage
0 Quanta (quarks, leptons) Bosons, Neutrinos, Electrons Universe
1 Particles (mesons, baryons) Gamma rays, Neutrons, Protons Galaxy System(Milky Way)
2 Atoms ( nuclei, plasma) Helium, Carbon, Iron Star System(Super Giant)
3 Molecules (monomers, polymers) Solids (Si2O) Liquids(H2O), Polymers (Carbonhydrates, Nucleic Acids) Planetary System(Earth)
4 Cells (prokaryotes, proctistia) Thermophilics, Cyanobacteria, Proctistia Biological System(Earth) - Gaia

5 Organisms (multi-cellular eukaryotes) Fungi, Plantae, Animalia Organism System(Gaia) - Hypersea

6 Families (genetic groups) Social animals, Eusocial Invertebrates, Mankind Family System(Hypersea) - Hyperland
7 Societies Tribes, Governments, Corporations Societal System(Mankind) - Metaman

8 CyberSocieties World Wide Web (internet mankind industry) CyberSocietal System(Earth) HyperMetaman
Figure 1. Major Levels of Material Complexity
The problem of the meaning of "complexity"
There are many ways to define the word "complexity"[5]. And there many connotations of the word "complexity" deriving from the work trying to answer some basic scientific questions, such as computational complexity, algorithmic information complexity, logical depth [6], thermodynamic depth[7], and effective complexity [4]. All of these usage's are valid and useful for understanding nature, but these usage's of the word "complexity" are sophisticated in ways that are difficult to directly relate to naturally occurring "entities" such as elementary particles, atoms, molecules, cells, and organisms as we know them in the world.
Part of the problem with using the concept of complexity is the problem of defining exactly what consists of "the system" or the entity which encompasses the complexity. We will argue that some delineation's of systems are more natural than others for understanding how the complex things arise, such as living organisms. We will use the word complexity with a different meaning than the above usage's. We will use a particular meaning the words that include both process and structural aspects of the world. In other words, we are considering long-term, dynamic material complexity. Another way to view complexity, in a pure functional way is Robert Rosen's definition of complexity. His definition serves as long-term, static functional complexity. The correspondance between the two complexities is complex and is subject to another discussion, and is a future goal of Relational Science.
Regarding material complexity, if we look at nature and notice the entities that have been discover as building blocks in this complex world, we quickly find the results of science have given several levels of entity description. Through scientific consensus the words quanta, particle, atom, molecule, cell, organism, family, and society represent classes of entities that appear identifiable in some of the scientific disciplines. These words as concepts are useful in terms of a very naive definition of the word complex. If we take the simple usage of something is complex if "it is made of parts", then we find that a society is composed of families, a family is composed of organisms, an organism is composed of cells, cells are composed of molecules, molecules are composed of atoms, atoms are composed of particles, and particles are composed of quanta (bosons, leptons, quarks). This usage will serve as the basis of our notion of material complexity. It should be noted that in regard to functional complexity, the parallel concept is something is complex if "it is made of components", which is fundamentally different because concepts of "part" and "component" are different.
This notion of material complexity at first glance seems correct in the intuitive aspect of common usage of word "complexity" and gives a nice ranking of complexity that seems natural. That is, for example, societies are more complex than molecules because societies at some level are composed of molecules. Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker [8] uses this notion of complexity to discuss the evolution of life. But, this simple usage of the word complex does not have a precise definition of "parts," and there is the problem of defining the extent of the whole. This naive notion of complexity, although intuitively correct, must also address what is relationship of the parts to the whole. And just as important, there remains the question of what is the definition of the whole. Part of understanding this part/whole relationship comes from examining the underlying process of increasing material complexity. This underlying basic process is hypothesized in the following section.

Apparent Chaos and Apparent Order: A Level of Complexity
Non-linear dynamics (dynamical systems and chaos theory) and the science of complexity have developed a characterization of physical phenomena into three basic regimes of matter. The first regime is the chaotic regime, where there is no coherent structure that can be predicted. The second regime, the order regime, is where the basic structure of matter does not change significantly. And the third regime is a phase transition between chaos and order. Langton [9] has illustrated an equivalence of this phase transition, which has been coined as the phrase "the edge of chaos," to the notion of emergent computation. Langton and others have attributed life as being on the edge of chaos. Crutchfield and his colleagues [10] have examined this notion of the edge of chaos and have noted that physical systems can perform computation at any point between order and chaos, but at a lesser degree, so the boundary of the "edge of chaos" is not distinct. Complexity is a matter of degree and kind.
We aim to illustrate that this characterization of these three regimes appears to be the underlying process structure of the increasing material complexity of existence. Abstractly, each level of complexity has three basic regions as depicted in Figure 2a: the chaotic region, the order region, and the edge between the chaotic and order region. Figure 2b depicts the major level of complexity 2 in terms of these three regions. The chaotic region of a level of complexity supplies the evolutionary energy for the growth of an "edge of chaos" for the next level of complexity. The order region is the "material" area for storage of dynamic structures that were created by the process at the edge of chaos. The order region largely preserves the information at a level of complexity in these dynamic structures. But in addition, these structures in the order region can be fedback into the edge of chaos by energy fluctuations created by the turbulence of the chaotic region into the dynamic structures of the order region. Another simple metaphor to visualize the level of complexity is view each level centered on a conceptual form of equilibrium in time and space, even though there is no such thing as equilibrium in reality. The massive equilibrium, which is not exactly in equilibrium replicates and dissipates from that time and space center.
-
A Level of Material Complexity Major Material Complexity Level 2
Figure 2a Figure 2b
In this paper, the discussion of levels of complexity will primarily center on major levels of material complexity. There are multiple levels of complexity between major levels of complexity, but characterization of these levels is difficult to define because the evolutionary nature of the edge-of-chaos process.
Material Systems and Functional Systems
The above characterization of a major level of material complexity depends on defining what are the individual micro-components and an overall macro-organization within a larger context. In this type of characterization there are two types of systems: "microsystems" and "macrosystems."
Microsystems are the dynamic structures that are combined to form more complex structures within macrosystems. Microsystems are the natural occurring building blocks that compose things: quanta, particles, atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, families, and societies. Microsystems are composed of several levels of underlying microsystems. A microsystem at major level N must have some forms of microsystems that are level N-1.
On the other hand, macrosystems form the context for microsystems. The universe, galaxies, star systems, planetary systems, and the earth's biosphere are examples of macrosystems. Macrosystems are dissipative/replicative structures embedded in the universe. Macrosystems are formed from the underlying process of chaos and order from within a larger context that has direct lineage to the involution of the universe. All microsystems and macrosystems are contained within at least one macrosystem context, that is, the universe.


Figure 3. Involution of Our Existence: The Current Major Material Levels of Complexity
Figure 3 represents the current involution path of our existence, with the successive higher level macrosystems being a smaller and smaller part of the larger context.
Both macrosystems and microsystems are examples of material systems. Material systems exist and the issue of their function is unspecified except having a function of existence. In the process of involution, material systems also have more functional roles, but the characterization of functional systems is different and there is no one-to-one correspondance with functional systems with material systems. In general the second function that these materials serve is as primarily dissipators or primarily replicators depending on its stage its life. Further analysis is necessary to characterize what kinds of dissipators or replicators there are, which in essence will be a mixture of dissipation and replication. The corresponding major functional systems to macrosystems are xemespheres, and corresponding functional systems of microsystems are xemes.
Another view of a level of material complexity is the characterization of the phases of dynamic organization of microsystems. Figure 4a represents a phase space of a level of material complexity. Figure 4b represents the major level of material complexity 2. The morphogenesis of simpler entities into a dynamic structure represents the phase change from chaos to order. For the complexity level 2, the morphogenesis is from particles to atomic nuclei. The growth from nuclear ion to atom by capturing electrons represents the phase change from the edge of chaos to order. The concepts of "death," "ontogeny," "morphogenesis," "apoptosis" are suitably generalize to include non-life phenomena.
-
Figure 4(a) Figure 4(
A major level of material complexity phase space Major Complexity Level 2 Phase Space
To more concretely describe the process, we will use the example of the solar system as a major level of complexity 2. From a scientific point of view, this level of complexity is the probably the most understood level. On the other hand, ultimately, to fully understand a level of complexity, all the lower levels must be described also. However, to simplify the explanation of the process, the formation of hadrons and fermions in the complexity levels below level 2 will not be described.
In the solar system (complexity 2), the chaotic regime's center is at the center of the sun. The center of the sun is the most chaotic because of its temperature (15,000,000 degrees) and is reflected by the energy of elementary particles in the center. The entire sun is chaotic relative to anything more complex than nuclei of atoms, i.e., ions. The center of the sun is chaotic relative to individual atoms. In this chaotic region, no stable structure that consists of anything more complex can exist. That is, any matter of higher complexity that is drawn into the sun is subject to the destruction in terms of molecular structure and anything more, such as crystalline or cellular structure.
The order region (complexity 2) of the solar system encompasses the interstellar space affected by gravitation of the mass of the sun. This order regime surrounds the chaotic region centered in the sun. The order region (complexity 2) contains atoms wherever particular regions of mass that are not part of the sun and small enough and far enough away from the center of the sun to cool below nuclear reaction temperatures.
Any matter that is not frozen in the order region is between the order and chaos regimes. Thus, the geological active planets are on the edge of chaos of the solar system. Nevertheless, some frozen material in the order region such as comets and asteroids can be eventually pulled back into the edge of chaos by virtue of their long-term trajectories and interaction with the established planets. In fact, the planets were formed by an aggregation process, where the largest planetesimals formed by gravitational and electromagnetic waves of entire stellar mass served as centers on the edge of chaos (complexity 2) of the solar system.
The next major level of material complexity
The edge of chaos at one major level of material complexity contains the chaotic region for the next higher level of material complexity. A molten center of a planet is on the edge of chaos of solar system (complexity 2) which serves as the atomic chaotic center (complexity 3) to form molecular compounds. Figure 5 represents the phase space of major level of material complexity 3.

Figure 5. Major Material Complexity Level 3 Phase Space

Figure 6. Two levels of Major Material Complexity.
Figure 6 illustrates the arising of the next level of complexity from the level below. The edge of chaos region N-1 contains the chaotic region N. The illustration is conceptual, because the next higher level of complexity is physically contained in the lower level of complexity. Moreover, the region between order and chaos, "the edge of chaos," is a not physically continuous region, and the edge of chaos is very small compared to the order and chaotic regions. ("The edge of chaos" is probably approximately 10-7 smaller in mass-energy than the chaos region and approximately 10-7 smaller in space-time than the order-region.)
Functional Complexity
At a major level of complexity, there are four possible functions of the microsystems: decomposition, dissipation, replication, composition. (All four functions are an instance of Replication/Dissipation: dissipation is Replication of randomness, replication is dissipation of order, decomposition is replication of dissipation, and composition is dissipation of replication). Decomposition and composition assume some form of material complexity. The type of function varies with the three material regimes. The chaotic regime dissipates "energy", replicates "mass". The order regime dissipates "mass," replicates "space." The edge-of-chaos/edge-of-order dissipates and replicates "mass and space" with its primary function of composing or decomposing processes. The context (the surrounding chaos and order) at the lower level of complexity is a function of decomposition.



Figure 7. Information filling of the three material phases of existence
Returning to our material example of complexity level 2, in the initial formation of the sun, the matter not part of the hot, gaseous sun is on an edge of chaos (complexity 2). As the mass in the vicinity of formation of the sun collapses into a stable star, the matter farthest from the chaotic center crystallizes into frozen planets and asteroids. The frozen matter becomes part of the order region. Any atomic nuclei in the order region attract electrons to form atoms and then combine at the molecular-level (complexity 3) based on the geology of the physical mass in the area. Faster the cooling to solidification and crystallization, the fewer species of molecular chemicals have chance to form. If the dominant local population is of a gaseous nature at the temperature, then the nature will be of "chaotic order", that is, gas at near-equilibrium. If the dominant local population is of a solid nature at the temperament, then the nature will be "ordered chaos" reflecting the fact that atoms never stop moving, even in solids.
Figure 4b represents a type of phase space of the matter at the level of major complexity 2. Individual entities go through a morphogenesis process. At the solar system of complexity, complexity level 2, the aggregation process is a morphogenesis process that combines protons to create helium nuclei. Besides being the center of the creation of light nuclei, the sun has collected nuclei that were created from previous generation stars. These nuclei came from the order region of the galaxy (complexity 1). The heavy atoms of previous generations were stripped of any molecular structure by the high energy in the chaotic region of the sun. Sometime during and after the sun formation, the many of planets were formed consisting almost exclusively from these previous generated nuclei. As the planets formed, the many of nuclei in the planets and asteroids quickly matured and stabilized to atoms by acquiring the electrons because temperatures were below plasma temperatures.
All the planets that continue to cool but have not become geologically dead are still on an edge of chaos (complexity 2). In the formation of planets, the large planetesimals that served as the collection point of the planet define this edge of chaos (complexity 2). Once a planet has cooled sufficiently, there is the possibility of ions acquiring enough electrons to form atoms or combining with other ions to form molecular compounds. In the beginning the combinations would be simple. However, as the planet continued to be chaotic in movement of atoms (complexity 3), the forming and destroying of molecular compounds would continue to take place. It should be noted that even in "frozen" asteriods, there is to some degree exchange of electrons and ions or cations (most notably on the surface), atoms and molecules are dynamic to a degree forgotten by normal abstraction.
In the gas giants, gravitation can retain the dominant atomic species of hydrogen and helium, thus the dominant molecular species would be hydrogen and helium molecules. In the smallest planets or moons, the geologic processes will continue for some time after formation, but lose most of the light gases into interplanetary space. These smaller bodies are left with the heavier elements dominating the geologic processes.
The next level of major complexity above the star system (complexity 2) is the planetary system (complexity 3). With geologic processes continuing on the planets, the creation of more complex molecules would proceed. Each planet is a center of atomic chaos (complexity 3), that is because of the heat from radioactivity and pressure; no molecular bonds can be maintained. The planet surface and the interplanetary space is the order region (complexity 3). The chaos, edge of chaos, order regions of complexity 3 are contained in the edge of chaos (complexity 2). Typically, an edge of chaos of complexity 3 is the planet's surface. In the case the gas giants, their geologically active moons are also on an edge of chaos (complexity 2). If there is no interaction between the spatially separately atomic chaotic centers, then there are separate region of edge of chaos (complexity 2) for each atomic chaotic center (complexity 3).
The earth provides a stable source of atomic chaos because of its size, having a singular moon, and its distance to the sun. The earth appears to be the closest planet to the middle of the edge of chaos of the solar system. The earth's surface is the center for the moderately complex elements of carbon, oxygen, etc. The earth is the only example that humans can observe at present that sustains higher, major levels of material complexity than three.
Summary
We have briefly introduced the notion of major levels of complexity as a way of viewing and understanding the underlying structures and processes of the world. It is hypothesized that there are three basic regimes of matter: chaos, edge of chaos, and order. The combinations of these regimes form a level of complexity. Within an edge of chaos there can be more levels of complexity, and thus forming a material hierarchical organization of increasing complexity. This increasing complexity is called involution. In this brief paper, a major level of material complexity was illustrated by an example of the solar system. Other levels of complexity have been worked out, but have not been presented here.
There remains a great deal of work to detail all the major levels of complexity and start classifying levels of complexity between the major levels. There is a great need to begin the field of comparative complexity, which can help in understanding our world better.
Appendix
Word Usage: Complex
An entity X is complex if it has "observable" parts P (i) that can "observed" as entities outside the entity X. To "observe" P (i) outside of X, P (i) must be able to "operate" and maintain its internal organization in the manner it did inside of X until the "observation."
Word Usage: Major Material Complexity
The property of being complex. An entity X has major material complexity of one more than the maximum of the major complexity of its material parts. A entity X is more complex than another entity Y if all the parts in Y exist in X and there exists a part P(i) in X that cannot exist in Y as a part of Y without destroying fundamental organization of the entity Y and the part P(i).
Word Usage: Fundamental organization of material
A structure with material parts: where relationship of the parts are defined in terms of an ongoing process that requires all of the essential parts of an entity. Without the process continuing, the all parts in the structure will no longer maintain their same physical interaction with the other parts.
Example 1: A molecule is more complex than an atom. E.g., a there exists a part P (i) (the oxygen atom) in a molecule X (carbon dioxide) that cannot exist in the atom Y (silicon). In other words, one cannot take the oxygen from a molecule of carbon dioxide and put it in the atom silicon and keep atom oxygen without destroying the identity of the silicon atom and the oxygen atom. Atomic fusion of silicon and oxygen destroys the fundamental organization of the entity, the silicon atom, and the oxygen part of the molecule carbon dioxide. Combination of the atom silicon and the oxygen part of the molecule carbon dioxide can occur to form silicon oxide; however, this is a molecule and the oxygen part is not a part of the atom silicon.
Example 2: An organism is more complex than a cell... E.g., a there exists a part P (i), the human cell, in a human organism X that cannot exist in the cell Y (bacteria). In other words, one cannot take a cell from a human organism and put it in the cell bacteria and keep the human cell without destroying the identities of the bacteria cell and the human cell. Cell fusion of between bacteria and human cell destroys the fundamental organization of the entities: the bacteria cell and the cell of part the human organism. Combination of the bacteria and the human cell of the can occur, such as E. coli in the human gut. Nevertheless, this combination is a part of an organism and the human cell part is not a part of the cell bacteria.
References
Lovelock, James, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford University Press, 1987.
Volk, Tyler, Gaia's Body, Springer-Verlag, 1997.
Vernadsky, Vladimir, Biosphere, Copernicus Books, 1998
Stock, Gregory, MetaMan, Simon and Schuster, 1993
McMenamin, M. and D. McMenamin, Hypersea: Life on Land, Columbia University Press, 1994.
[1] Cohen, J., and I. Stewart, The Collapse of Chaos, Penguin Books, 1994
[2] Prigogine, I. and I. Stengers, Order out of Chaos, Bantam Books, 1984.
[3] Kauffman, S. The Origins of Order, Oxford University Press, 1993.
[4] Gell-Mann, M., The Quark and the Jaguar, WH Freeman, 1994.
[5] Wolpert, D., The relationship between Occam's Razor and Convergent Guessing, Complex Systems, pp 319-368, Vol 4, 1990.
[6] Bennett, C.H., In Emerging Syntheses in Science, D. Pines, Ed. 1988.
[7] Lloyd, S. and H. Pagels, "Complexity as thermodynamic depth,” Annals of Physics, pp 186-213, 1988.
[8] Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, Norton & Company, 1987.
[9] Langton, C., Computation at the Edge of Chaos, Phase Transitions and Emergent Computation, Physica D, pp12-37, Vol 4, 1990.
[10] Mitchell, M., J. Crutchfield, and D. Hraber, "Dynamics, Computation, and the Edge of Chaos: A Re-Examination, G. Cowan, D. Pines, and D. Melzner (editors), Integrative Themes, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings Volume 19. Reading, MA


SIZE=14][SIZE=7][COLOR=blue]

users.viawest.net/~keirsey/eofchaos.html - 4k - Cached - Similar pages
i give credit to the site who posted this his url is listed above