Meem wrote:
Good night, there is a clean and simple solution to every possible problem, if one is able to picture it.

Mako wrote:
I can't picture reconciling quantum theory with relativity....although somebody just might accomplish that someday.

Meem wrote:
quantum, four points, 6 distinct locations in space/time, we imagine linear movement as matter/time-the vertical function on the graph is space/energy ..idk gibberish but it's close!

ying wrote:
Close? Any reconciliation between quantum mechanics and relativity probably has to figure in a quantum theory of gravity... Good luck finding a clean and simple solution to that one.

What's more philosophically interresting to me though, is asking a rather big question, namely "why does the universe apparently strive towards higher levels of complexity" or, to put it in physicist terms, "why did a strong force and subsequently a nuclear force develop?" It doesn't stop there though. How does DNA figure into this 'story' about the universal buildup of complexity? I believe it's either teleological for some or the other reason (I can already immagine the intelligent design people having a field day over that one...) or it's chaotic, explaining this move to complexity as a sort of attractor. My bets are on chaos theory (simply stating "oh, it's teleological" isn't really philosophically sattisfying to me), but this still doesn't explain why such a vector (trajectory) is present...

Yahadreas wrote:
It's that law of thermodynamics. The tend towards entropy. Chaos is more 'complex' than order.

J. Random Hacker wrote:
Entropy destroys complexity.

ying wrote:
"Entropy destroys complexity?" Apparently not, since there still is a constant maintenance of nuclei, atoms and molecules. Maybe in individual cases, particles decay. But as a whole, our system (the universe) is maintaining a rather constant level of complexity (maybe even moving forward). Saying that one concept destroys another is mere abstraction. Empirically speaking, the move towards more and more complexity can be witnessed every day, even more so if you consider technology, as it also is an expression of beings within the universe, and as such an expression of the universe itself. Apparently entropy doesn't have much to do with the complexity vector (attractor)... And just in case you wanted to bring this up, notions of such things as the big crunch have become increasingly unreliable, thanks to chaostheory. This is noted in an article published in 1986, called “The Recently Recognized Failure of Predictability in Newtonian Dynamics,” in which Sir James Lighthill "expressed regret on behalf of all scientists for having misled the general educated public by spreading ideas about the determinism of systems satisfying Newton's laws of motion that, after 1960, were proved to be incorrect.-" (Steve Strogatz, Chaos guidebook, p. 28). In effect, chaostheory makes any long term prediction rather unreliable, since even small disturbances might upset the predictive power of models.

J. Random Hacker wrote:
Have you watched the "Big History" lecture? You're confusing complexity levels with the total amount of entropy in the universe. Complexity levels are increasing in spite of entropy but that doesn't contradict what I said. Entropy destroys complexity. When bodies die they decay. It takes work to maintain complexity. Entropy decreases the available energy to do work.

ying wrote:
Yeah, finished all of them. I don't think you're getting what I'm saying though. I already acknowledged decay of individual bodies. But the universe doesn't seem to revert back to quantum states. When a star for example, goes supernova, it creates a nebula which "births" new generation stars. Individually, it does revert back to a previous state of complexity (in this case, the nebula), but as a part of the whole, it becomes generative and maintains or even creates new, complex objects. This cycle apparently maintains or even advances levels of complexity on a horizontal scale, just like any form of genetic reproduction does (life). I'm not talking about that though. On a vertical plane, the layers of complexity are maintained by such things as the strong force and nuclear force. This, to me, is perplexing. It doesn't seem like they are decaying or affected by entropy... That is, the layers as a whole. I'm just hypothesizing here, but at some point, the entire universe must have existed only on a quark level. Then this complexity thing kicked in. Then, new 'layers' emerged, in the sense that an atom universe was built on top of the previous layer. Then a molecular layer. And so on. This maintenance of layers is, to me, quitte perplexing.

cadrache wrote:
Mmm... original quantum states. The interaction between different particles might make up different 'primary' particles. Haven't read your stuff yet; but I hope to.

J. Random Hacker wrote:
The reason why the binding energy of the strong nuclear force is not a problem for entropy is because it can't be used to do work. You need to understand what makes some atomic nuceli are stable and others are not. If stable nuclei did decay that would be the problem.

cadrache wrote:
If you take it as energy patterns; The combining of various patterns create stronger/weaker connections. Dependent upon which angle each original particle intereacted at; the high/weak link in each pattern would be different. When the particles cease interacting with each other; it is possible they divide at the weakest link.

ManiacJack wrote:
Why does entropy not create complexity?

If the universe is becoming ever more random, then we are in ever more need of new classification systems that simplify this randomness.