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.