Wednesday, May 14, 2008

The Universe - Hierarchies defined(2)

Now the model is nice and all but it does not entirely show how the universe is really made up. It just assumes hierarchies exist and goes from there.

It shows that apparently everything is defined by a quantum mechanic, but as I said earlier, once you get above a few levels of complexity you cannot explain the object. This is why chemists stay in their realm of chemistry even though it effects all matter that we know. Now I am afraid that the last post was getting a bit too abstract so I will begin to use real examples to show that this hierarchy is both relative, hyper dimensional, and effectively neither quantum nor continuous (or both depending on the perspective). As everything is in fact relative, the starting point I choose to define much of this hierarchy is rather arbitrary. So I will pick one and go as far as i can conceptually go in both directions.

My chosen starting point is the single cell in an organism. As a whole it effectively works as one organism(as seen in single celled organisms) but it used as just a part of an tissue in an organ in a body of the whole organism (all of which are intermediate hierarchies). Now lets say this organism was a human. That human is part of a family, which is part of a neighborhood, part of a city part of (occasionally) a state, which is finally part of a country. This country is finally part of a group for the most part is the entirety of the human race. The human race is a part (albeit a large one nowadays) of the global environment which is the arrangement that is particularly one step above us as a whole. But what of the other parts of the global environment, being all the other species in the world, as well as the physical conditions of the world(atmosphere content, average temperature etc.) These simply are other arrangements that are part of the world but came from a different hierarchical path. In any case the global environment is a complex entity on the earth which is a planet among others part of this solar system, which is part of the galaxy, which is finally part of the universe. Here we get to our stopping point because at this point no one has an explanation past this point of hierarchy as much as some believe they do.

Now I will go back and go the other direction. I started with a single human cell and now I will break it apart. The cell has individual live support systems consisting of organelles, one being the nucleus. The nucleus contains DNA information (one of the most detailed entities in existence). This DNA is consisting of all of its parts including nucleotides. These nucleotides consist of the basic elements which finally come down to the subatomic particles. These subatomic particles are treated with quantum rules. Interestingly enough though, we do not really know the make up of these subatomic particles in great detail. It has been proposed through string theory that they are consisting of hyper dimensional strings but we neither can conceptualize this, nor has it entirely been proven. In the end the theory is that matter is a complex formation of the elusively arbitrary concept of energy. Energy however is the basest object that we can conceptualize, and we have barely any base understanding of its makeup. We get to another point where it is too difficult to definitively define a smaller object than energy.

Now this outline seems to run on, but understanding of the hierarchy was necessary. It shows a number of important points in the continuum that can be quantized. These in turn can be seen as the only important parts of the universe while everything else are bridging connections between them. At this point, from simplest to most complex it seems they are energy, atoms, DNA, and finally the brain*. Two points must be made, with this idea, to make sure all the correct questions are made, it should be assumed there is another increment below energy, and yet another increment (which may or may not exist in time yet) above the human brain. The other point that must be made is that in truth the brain is not really the step above DNA, it is instead the medium for which the increment exists: The Idea. This concept is by far the most important one I will use in the Blog, and is therefore beyond the scope of this particular entry.

The importance of these discrete objects is that it leads to the ability of evolution. Evolution has in general become associated only with DNA, but as it will be shown, when made more general, the rules of evolution apply to everything and anything with the ability to be created in one way or another. This will be left for another article.

Monday, May 12, 2008

The Universe - Hierarchies defined(1)

As I stated before the brain is as complex as the universe. To be fair this is not entirely true. Because of the efficiency of biology, the brain is only as complex as it needs to be to get the job of understanding its environment done. But, what is this environment? this universe?

The short answer to this question is "I don't know; and no one knows exactly." The big questions about it are unanswered in a real (meaning proven) way. These include questions such as "where did the universe come from," "is there anything important that we cannot see," "how did it start," and "how it will end," among others.

However because we do know so much about this unknown entity, we can make a few good guesses about the real structure. Unfortunately the difficult part is finding where to start. The two major points that need to be understood in depth are hierarchies, and evolutions. This article will only deal with hierarchies.

I will start with a viewpoint that is used by Richard Dawkins, but I will expand on it greatly. He professed at one point an acceptable way of interpreting reductionism. I believe he called it relative reductionism. This view sets up everything in the scope of hierarchies. In this view you cannot explain something in terms of its smallest unit as it would be too complex. Once you get down to 3 or 4 levels of complexity under what you are trying to explain, it begins to get fuzzy and too complicated. Noone can explain a human heart using only the building blocks of subatomic particles, but when using the mechanisms of blood flow and muscle contraction, the explanation is relatively simple. Now this is key: Complexity is relative for what you are attempting to explain.

I will attempt to create a model that holds true for any complex object. This will actually be seen to hold true for every object, because any object is complex from some lower perspective. I will do this with definitions of only a few abstract entities:

Hierarchy: Order of Arrangements from the "highest"* complexity to "lowest"* complexity

Arrangement: Single generalized entity of lower arrangements connected by lower relations

Relation: Border or connection between arrangements that is categorized by frequency of events between such arrangements. Defined as a steady state between differing lower arrangements and relations

Event: Any significant** change in relations or arrangements. There are only a handful of distinct events such as creation, destruction, and aggregation. There are also a few that are combined versions of these.

Property: Complex combination of simple arrangements relations and events that create a general tendency of the larger arrangement (eg. destructive property commonly destroys that which is around it)

Void: Partly unknown. All that can be said is that it is either an arrangement of such low complexity that it has its own unique properties, or it is complex in a completely different direction making it difficult to understand know and understand. Possibly the only hole in the logic because this model assumes the definition of all that exists, and that non-existence does not exist. In any case voids appear to be relative as well; space is a void to a planet, air is a void to a human and water is void to a plankton.

*assuming high and low complexity are all relative and hypothetically go infinitely in both directions. High complexity is defined as complex and low complexity is defined as simple.
**significance is also relative and dependant on the perspective

The most interesting facet of this model is the recursion of the 3 key ideas: Arrangements, Relations, and Events. Arrangements are combinations of simpler arrangements and relations. Relations are combinations of simpler events and relations. Events are effects in time on simple relations and. I will stop here for this article, but the story definitely does not end here.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Introduction

Well, I finally decided to put my ideas down. I feel almost hypocritical using a Blog for this as I hold a distaste for them in general, but sometimes there is only 1 option available to you.

This Blog will be about my interests in general, which are surprisingly specific. From the onset the bulk of information will be mixed between two subjects: The Brain, and Neutrality

The first is a collection of theories on the human brain (some cited and some self-concocted) and its implications on the whole of the world including religion, philosophy, society, and morals among others. For the record I consider myself an atheist, while at the same time I feel I am more faithful and hopeful than any other person I come in contact with(including the religious). I believe that the most significant factor that has shaped all of human history is the mechanism of the brain. In all of human history it has been the only true constant. We live in a real world that is highly complex, but in that complexity there are only a finite number of true relations between conceptual objects. The human brain only has to be as complex as the world around it to understand it, and it is. It however is not perfect. The ability to hold a belief is also implicates the ability to hold a false belief. The most significant false belief was due to our inability to understand the world around us like we do now: Religion. Now I am not going to say the stereotypical atheistic idea that all religion is wrong, at least not in such a blatant way. It is my belief that most all religions were interesting and highly believable explanations for the world around us. But why were they so believable? Because they utilize the brain's own system to insert itself into and even sometimes abuse it. The range of this Blog will go into detail about this through history as well as show how science and religion should not be opposed as they are now. The real picture is unknown and that is sure, but with this view, religious events as well as scientific theory can help each other to find the truth. This gets to my second topic: polarization.

I have a general distaste for polarization in any kind. I believe the world has lost its ability to compromise intelligently. Everywhere we look there is the overarching concept of black and white, right and wrong. This groups everything into collections of opposing forces. In the chaos confusion causes all that are involved into believing that black and white are synonymous with wrong and right, but in actuality, they are nothing but opposing. Once this happens the question of right and wrong is lost, and these arbitrary collections are all that matter. Now this is semi-abstract, but examples make it sound like I am talking specifics. I can make this sound like a socio-political object by listing examples of Republicans vs. Democrats, Arabs vs. Israelis, science vs. religion, but these are just what they are: examples, nothing more. The bigger picture is the fact that there is no real Gray Force, that understands the arbitrary conflict of hate for the sake of hate, and attacks that conflict itself. It would understand that there just because there is a dispute that neither side is necessarily right, that each side is usually based in something truthful but has lost its roots. However, this is not a gray annoyance, it is a Force, and it would use all its power to find that which is right and that which is truth. This is a world that is in dire need of the so-called radical moderate, whom fights and fights hard for neutrality.

Now it appears that the two interests are completely divergent, but in time the ideas come full circle. It is a funny thing to be noted that in millenia past science, religion, and philosophy were essentially the same entity. But now science and religion became polarized due to differing views on truth. Philosophy, a neutral entity in the conflict is left in the dust to waste away with quiet philosophy students that will never speak outside their realm. My main hope here is to attempt not to revive archaic philosophy that in general is dying on its own. Instead I hope to create a new realm of thought that combines neuro-science, a selected few philosophical ideas and spiritual concepts, to make a coherent outlook of the human, and society that even the most secular person can have faith in, while the most religious person can accept.