http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc?format=rss Tribe.net. Local Connections http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#09798777-0ca2-4888-8b76-23c6ef12eb6f I can think of arbitrarily complicated things :) Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:10:40 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#09798777-0ca2-4888-8b76-23c6ef12eb6f Dzikus 2008-12-05T20:10:40Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#50c45646-aa69-4048-93e1-deead8b6b224 great question, I'll have to read all of these when i have a little time. the most compicated thing i can think about is this question. " Please think of something that you can't think of " end of story. lol Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:40:55 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#50c45646-aa69-4048-93e1-deead8b6b224 Spirit 2008-12-02T00:40:55Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#4f736296-b8d5-4a6b-907e-9a4fe52c9a05 Yeah, I agree......the most complicated thing, now is what is not understood, The Theory of Everything. I also think we don't understand death........the human mind does not want to go where it cannot comprehend..... ..........defining death, as the absence of existence, the absence of reality.......going into nothingness. We don't understand the reason for dreaming. We as a species, certainly don't seem to understand how to control violence. Do we understand the world.......after........the singularity? Do we even understand the difference between our own fantasies, including defenses, and reality? Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:25:29 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#4f736296-b8d5-4a6b-907e-9a4fe52c9a05 J 2007-12-30T01:25:29Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#8f28e03d-1203-434f-a809-5ddbdaaa141a The most complicated thing that I think exists, is the way in which one thing can find a way to give and receive when there is no other thing to give and receive. I propose that this is the most complicated thing that is going on; while at the same time I recognizing that it is also the simplest thing. I am not sure whether or not this can be proved mathematically or not, but if I'm correct, there would be no one else to prove it to anyway. I agree that more complex things than that can be fabricated to an infinite degree, but I propose that those things are just that, fabrications; or maybe I should say, further fabrications. I look forward to hearing other perspectives. Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:02:03 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#8f28e03d-1203-434f-a809-5ddbdaaa141a Rekmel1 2007-09-19T01:02:03Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#bcc94a08-4b5f-48db-ad0b-df01f8dd3199 "The history of the universe is a history of motion. The universe, as we know it, in this one of it's many lives, began in one expansion that was so big and so fast that we can talk about it, but we cannot in any truth understand it, or even imagine it. The scientist call this great expansion the BigBang, although there was no explosion, in the sense of a bomb or something like that. And the first moments after that great expansion, from the first fractions of attoseconds, the universe was like a rich soup made out of simple bits of things. Those bits were so simple that they weren't even atoms yet. As the universe expanded and cooled down, these very tiny bits of things came together to make particles. Then the particles came together to make the first of the atoms. Then the atoms came together to make molecules. Then the moecules came together to make the first of the stars. Those first stars went though their cycles, and exploded in a shower of new atoms. The new atoms came together to make more stars and planets. All the stuff we are made of came from those dying stars. We are made out of stars, you and I. None of these things, none of these processes, none of these coming together actions are what one can describe as random events. The universe has a nature, for and of itself, something like human nature, if you like, and it's nature is to combine, and to build, and to become more complex. It always does this. If the circumstances are right, bits of matter will always come together to make more complex arrangements. And this fact about the way our universe works, this moving towards order, and towards combinations of these ordered things has a name. In the western science it is called the tendency toward complexity, and it is the way the universe works. The universe as we know it, and from everything that we can learn about it, has been getting always more complex since it began. It does this because that is it's nature. The tendency toward complexity has carried the universe from almost perfect simplicity to the kind of complexity that we see around us everywhere we look. The universe is always doing this. It's always moving from the simple to the complex. It is moving toward something. It is moving toward some kind of ultimate complexity. Everything in the universe is moving toward it. And that final complexity, that thing we are all moving toward, is what I choose to call GOD. "- Shantaram I had to share this idea from the book Shantaram by Gregory Roberts. I think it explains the universe to the fullest. The book in itself is amazing, I really believe that it wasn't me that found the book, but the book that found me. -G Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:15:43 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#bcc94a08-4b5f-48db-ad0b-df01f8dd3199 Genevieve 2007-09-16T02:15:43Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#94a3997c-52b2-40c9-9788-a709277839c2 " The Brain - is wider than the Sky - For - put them side to side - The one the other will contain With ease - and You - beside - The Brain is deeper than the sea - For - hold them Blue to Blue - The one the other will absorb - As Sponges - Buckets - do - The Brain is just the weight of God - For - Heft them - Pound for Pound - And they will differ - if they do - As Syllable from Sound - " ~ Emily Dickinson Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:37:53 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#94a3997c-52b2-40c9-9788-a709277839c2 GreenRabbit 2007-03-23T16:37:53Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#02ac1e93-7752-4927-a309-7fab84d90c40 your mom. Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:53:55 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#02ac1e93-7752-4927-a309-7fab84d90c40 deadletter b 2007-02-07T04:53:55Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#405c37ba-eeb6-44b2-80b9-b96210b824b3 Right, nothing/everything, is a linguistic construct. Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:17:12 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#405c37ba-eeb6-44b2-80b9-b96210b824b3 Tony 2007-02-07T00:17:12Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#aa932af0-ae02-4bfe-b729-ed975d55c4d1 For in mind there is complexity theory, and the most pernicious of complexities can co-exist in contradictory forms in mind. Where mind to exist in theory or even in the brain then music would have to exist in a radio or a CD player. If music were the information on the CD then beetovan was a bunch of 1s and 0s. It is reductionistic think that an explanation of a phenomena has anything to do with the phenomena apart from being a symbolic representation in the mind. The body too, is a representation in the mind. Mind is a representation in the mind. Hence Being is most complex though we may percieve it simply. Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:39:42 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#aa932af0-ae02-4bfe-b729-ed975d55c4d1 Douglas 2007-02-06T01:39:42Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#ec0c94b3-4e93-445b-ba15-861481d45d7c yeah, I'm god. You probably are too. Welcome to the "Co-creating Reality Through Focused Will and Action" show. So, lets all be god. It'll be really awesome. Mon, 25 Dec 2006 00:56:59 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#ec0c94b3-4e93-445b-ba15-861481d45d7c Veru Mamo 2006-12-25T00:56:59Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#43a3dfd5-967d-4ab3-839d-8cbd74547bcc Whatever I experienced last night was simultaneously the most simple and complicated thing I could have never imagined. It was pure love and joy erupting from my heart, attempting to clear out a sickness that I formed myself around growing up. As for whether or not it can be mathematically mapped or described...we'll find out. The mathematicians have been trying forever. I know this...it can be shared. Mon, 25 Dec 2006 00:53:36 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#43a3dfd5-967d-4ab3-839d-8cbd74547bcc Veru Mamo 2006-12-25T00:53:36Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#65417925-57d1-46b3-bda1-76d7fa012afb I agree...it's beyond our conscious awareness and thus, is just...is Phenomenology is a meager attempt at explaining (ironically) why this is. Our experience of the world is one example...or trying to understand the experience of another being Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:03:56 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#65417925-57d1-46b3-bda1-76d7fa012afb Rafe 2006-12-23T05:03:56Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#d265dd5d-59f0-4a1d-9f06-2eb5be508f00 You cant make a postulate out of it..Nor can you break it down further..It just is... you know? Sat, 23 Dec 2006 03:15:20 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#d265dd5d-59f0-4a1d-9f06-2eb5be508f00 $item.owner.firstName 2006-12-23T03:15:20Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#7fe819b5-643d-4a3f-a45c-737112ba322e the most complicated thing is- simple Sat, 23 Dec 2006 03:13:21 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#7fe819b5-643d-4a3f-a45c-737112ba322e $item.owner.firstName 2006-12-23T03:13:21Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9d88b499-cc50-47d6-af6e-507df393cfbc I've skimmed through this board and noticed a dichotomy between answers. What should first be considered before any such debated is started is the parameters by which you want to argue (i.e. "rules of engagement"). That is to say, "What is the most complex thing you can think of?" holds a large set of subject-dependent definitions of exactly "what" it means for something to "complex". With this in mind, you will never come to a definitive answer to all this debate-playing and will just be speculating until definition-rules are layed down. So, if you are defining complexity as the dictionary might define it ~ "characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts" with the next key term to define being...complicated ~ "difficult to analyze, understand, explain" which we could then in turn set down complexity as meaning "that which is very difficult to analyze, understand, or explain which involves a characterizable arrangment of parts" Then we can level the playing field and determine such complex "things" and eventually come up with some answer. BUT....if you take a non-reductionistic approach...as some of you have, and consider the primacy of human pre-reflective (unconscious, lower level brain processesing) perception/experience as the initial mediating interface between any such interpretations of the world we can create through abstraction and objectification of our original experiences, then you have a whole new ball of wax....complexity can no longer be considered a reducable thing, but something that can only be grasped in full.... For example, as I read the text I am typing...sure, someone with a highly nuanced understanding of the underlying biochemistry and biophysical processes of such a behavior might see typing on a laptop as something with imense complexity (from our first definition). However, does this fully capture what I am doing...what is going on in the world? What of the subjective, first hand, immediate apprehension of what I am doing? It must be considered considering it's subsuming, all-encompassing nature to all reflective thought (which is exactly what we are doing here) I experience myself as typing out this message on a latop in my living room...all of which is completely context dependent and . I do not experience such as the light waves bouncing off my retina, being transduced into neural impluses that are traveling through various axon terminals all over the brain. We - as embodied human beings - created such scientific physical models of experiential processes as a way to make our lives "better" as human-beings-in-the-world. That is what all this complexification - abstraction - of things-in-the-world does. To say that science knows it all and is the "way" to figuring it all out would be a very "malnourished" view of reality. Surely, science - abstraction, induction, and objectification - has its uses as human "tools" to aide our travels....but by no means is it like a teleportation device into the realm of pure reality - the realm "theories of everything", where everything can be known and chance has no existence. So, what the hell does all that talk of phenomenology and experience mean to the subject at hand? Well, to have a conversation on complexity we immediately introduce reflective, conscious thought. Ergo, we don't even have words to describe our experiences in full and - to me at least - that seems the most incredible, magnificient, deep, and complex "thing" we can ever talk about. it's a little like asking, can our reductionistic, natural, scientific perspectives ever really capture or fully model things beyond our conscious awareness. Its complexity is that far beyond our primate-evolved cortices. It can't be done...in the end, this conversation of whats the most complex is just a game...where we make of rules of engagement and cock fight till a victor avails - whether we come to a determinable end or a question that begs another answer or a level of complexity that leads us to a deeper level of complexity. We just play to play - to experience. (btw, a lot of what I'm saying has roots in Merleau-Ponty's embodied phenomenology...you all might want to check it out) Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:22:34 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9d88b499-cc50-47d6-af6e-507df393cfbc Rafe 2006-12-19T06:22:34Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#46d4d97b-6ae0-4455-81db-20736b668277 The theory proving the theory of everything (and any and every future theory of everything) incomplete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem THAT is the most complicated thing, because it shows that nomatter how much mathematical mapping, scientific observation, or creationism we employ, there is no such thing as a logical theory of all things that is both consistent and able to prove all true statements contained in its system. I mention creationism half in jest but half because this theory is really the best defense for the existence of a god despite science. Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:16:11 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#46d4d97b-6ae0-4455-81db-20736b668277 D 2006-10-25T11:16:11Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#3628a90d-547c-4c52-8e88-d18ef1cdb62a Time, how and why does it exist? Life, again, how and why does it exist? Evolution, since we are here, how did we become to be here and where will we be next? Are we here for a time to live to evolve? Into what? A complex structure that will be an omnipotent being. I pick the eye. It can see something, and with its internal brain that evolved, and body that it doesnt need no longer, it can feel, smell, taste what it sees, moving on its own free will, colliding with other eyes, joining to be one structure, and taking over a world. Exhausting it. maybe. the last part I have thought of for many years and still cant quite put it into text. Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:06:46 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#3628a90d-547c-4c52-8e88-d18ef1cdb62a Jason 2006-06-22T09:06:46Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#abef5a4f-e293-49b1-9b58-68d0b55942cb " it was untill it devoured it's self by becoming an answer." hey now, leave that stuff for over in the zen tribe :) Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:37:20 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#abef5a4f-e293-49b1-9b58-68d0b55942cb Peter 2006-06-14T20:37:20Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#b4612ee4-8dd0-41c2-9482-fee702213d71 myself... Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:37:39 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#b4612ee4-8dd0-41c2-9482-fee702213d71 rainbo 2006-06-03T19:37:39Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#0284b733-ed3b-4df6-8798-a6a56e62dcc2 it was untill it devoured it's self by becoming an answer. Tue, 02 May 2006 23:46:43 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#0284b733-ed3b-4df6-8798-a6a56e62dcc2 Expatasapien 2006-05-02T23:46:43Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#2d795884-778f-47c7-86e8-0764acd9a030 Inventive. Tue, 02 May 2006 06:52:18 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#2d795884-778f-47c7-86e8-0764acd9a030 barnaby 2006-05-02T06:52:18Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#f93ef8f7-ada1-4bd4-bf54-2cdbcddeef8b “What is the most complicated thing you can think of?” The answer is encompassed in the question. The most complicated thing must surely exceed the limits of comprehension, if not it is not the most complicated thing, for at the moment of comprehension some greater complexity exists in potential. So the answer is *The question*, a question, the question in it’s abstract form, and most all encompassing range for it alone behaves in this way. Always waiting to be answered, always leading to another question, a question which could not be asked if the former had not been answered. So the question leads to the answer and the answer to another question and this process to order, and order to entropy etc. Tue, 02 May 2006 06:36:28 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#f93ef8f7-ada1-4bd4-bf54-2cdbcddeef8b Expatasapien 2006-05-02T06:36:28Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#7ea390a1-dfbe-4e01-94d5-8bf2b2d4ed46 indeed, however, it's a case of definition. Do you want to define only the physical characteristics of that thing? or do you include the relationships to its peers, which invariably is part of what that thing is? My LCD screen I'm looking at now isn't much without the computer attached; a quark isn't so much without quantum mechanics. Relationships change everything. just ask my wife, heheh. what was the question? ;) Sat, 31 Dec 2005 22:25:11 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#7ea390a1-dfbe-4e01-94d5-8bf2b2d4ed46 ®ah-jah 2005-12-31T22:25:11Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#b2ca2f0e-bc5f-40ed-a76a-8d258046eaa3 Life... as in all life in one interactive system. Self organizing matter creates more intricate sub-systems dependent on ever increasing variables to sustain or go extinct. Throw in behavioral complexities and environmental variants, and the whole ecology is an ever-shifting coalescence of competing/cooperating interests. Try plugging that into a computer program. Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:50:03 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#b2ca2f0e-bc5f-40ed-a76a-8d258046eaa3 - 2005-12-28T19:50:03Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#8e4f8ced-08a8-422f-97a4-2d1719ab34c3 That can be true, but it's not necessarily true. Many phenomena have a high degree of internal regularity. Crystals, for example, have a simple structure, as do many gases. Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:43:52 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#8e4f8ced-08a8-422f-97a4-2d1719ab34c3 barnaby 2005-12-28T00:43:52Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9d9b257d-1225-44dd-9860-cdd84f4fc9be the most mundane is horribly complex at a high enough resolution. how fractal of me to think so ;P Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:13:16 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9d9b257d-1225-44dd-9860-cdd84f4fc9be ®ah-jah 2005-12-27T08:13:16Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9c08f3b3-b38d-4df9-8142-5e9b66c81d6e > the computational complexity outlined above is exactly what Chaitin has done! Thanks for the tip - I'll check it out. I find this sort of thing very interesting. Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:40:28 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9c08f3b3-b38d-4df9-8142-5e9b66c81d6e barnaby 2005-12-17T03:40:28Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#2433ec99-1b91-4dac-ab0a-38d23a59665d "In fact, one could consider that the evolution of any particular thing in the universe is the sum of all the dynamical constraints operating on that thing. If it is true that no particular thing is intrinsically bounded, then each 'thing' might be a kind of local solution to the 'universal equation'." I wanna steal that! ok, ok... borrow, then... with credit... *s* Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:37:05 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#2433ec99-1b91-4dac-ab0a-38d23a59665d zen mama temple monkey 2005-12-16T23:37:05Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#ee364cf9-37e9-4872-a2a9-c452e065149f nicely argued barnaby... the computational complexity outlined above is exactly what Chaitin has done! Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:05:47 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#ee364cf9-37e9-4872-a2a9-c452e065149f Peter 2005-12-16T20:05:47Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#a737d7d7-6779-4023-8ef9-696239c8f992 Thanks brianX, that's very interesting. I find it interesting to contemplate the degree to which a visual graph of the approximate solution to the Mandelbrot set and the equations themselves are 'equivalent'. What could this mean? This will probably strike some as a Philosophy 101 question, but I find it interesting. It seems like the relationship between equation and solution is in some sense analogous to the relationship between DNA and an organism, in that the code define the dynamics that produce the 'end product', if you will. In a way, it's almost like organisms are infinite-resolution solutions to the equations encoded in their DNA. Of course, there are many other variables involved in the formation of an organism than simply the DNA, but nonetheless, I think there's something interesting there. In fact, one could consider that the evolution of any particular thing in the universe is the sum of all the dynamical constraints operating on that thing. If it is true that no particular thing is intrinsically bounded, then each 'thing' might be a kind of local solution to the 'universal equation'. I think Liebniz was saying something in this ball park when he wrote "Monadology". Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:59:58 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#a737d7d7-6779-4023-8ef9-696239c8f992 barnaby 2005-12-16T01:59:58Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#042f1ee5-15ec-492c-a3db-ae82a28c24c1 interesting, the mandelbrot is complex in two ways, and NOT complex in one way. the algorithm to display the M-set is definitely NOT complex in terms of the length of program code (there are actually several algorithms which could be used to calculate roughly the same thing). The M-set is actually the set of points which forms the SEPARATRIX (boundary) between two BASINS (regions) of points. The points, c, on the interior of the M-set, will produce trajectories which remain bounded when they are used as a parameter input the recursive equation f(z) = z^2 + c, where c,z are complex (2-dimensional) numbers and the initial z = 0. The points ouside the set, will produce trajectories which blow-up toward infinity for the same equation. The M-set IS complex in the one way because we are dealing with complex numbers, such as 3+4i. But you could easily produce analogous objects using quanternions (4-dimensional numbers). The M-set IS complex in a second way because it would take an infinite amount of computing time to actually define the M-set, which is impossible. So, in practice, you set a reasonable amount of time (# of iterations) for calculating the trajectory of each point, and then decide whether it has gone to infinity or not. Therefore, all images of the M-set are appoximations which varying degrees of resolution depending on how long you want to wait for your computer to stop smoking. This is a point which I think is largely overlooked. The idea of computational complexity is more related to the length of time neccessary to compute a solution, as opposed to the number of lines of code in the program that generates the solution (the time scale can range from microseconds, to minutes, to days, to months, and beyond). refer also to the topic post titled: complex vs complicated, + xaos The magic of complexity science is rooted in discovering more ingenious methods for calculating previously intractable problems in a reasonable amount of time. Moreover, the M-set, which forms the boundary between the two regions mentioned above, is a fractal set, which means essentionally that its dimension is greater than a "line" and less than a "plane" (in general the dimension in non integer) for more details about the complexity of the Mandelbrot and Julia sets, check out: Complex Quadratic Dynamics: A Study of the Mandelbrot and Julia Sets http://www.gaianxaos.com/complex_quadratic_dynamics.htm ciao complex people, bX gaianxaos.com Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:30:27 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#042f1ee5-15ec-492c-a3db-ae82a28c24c1 brianX 2005-12-16T00:30:27Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#fade8d1a-02b3-4513-b799-ffeda9e5cef8 Rather, 'the solution to the Mandelbrot set'. Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:15:48 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#fade8d1a-02b3-4513-b799-ffeda9e5cef8 barnaby 2005-12-15T02:15:48Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#83a8e5e8-0424-49aa-8bf7-100e23cd9366 > Roughly, it says that something is "complicated" to the degree that the smallest program (or Turing Machine or whatever) that generates it is large. Do we really want to say that the Mandelbrot set is not complicated? That seems a little odd. Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:15:12 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#83a8e5e8-0424-49aa-8bf7-100e23cd9366 barnaby 2005-12-15T02:15:12Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#a5dc2238-a9e4-4e5c-8910-fe9c5f2d18b8 There is actually the Theory of Everything emerging forthwith, discovered! The kinds of things in the universe are only 4, depending on how you look at it: 2 types of nodes, their one-way connections, and the wandering Point of Change. It's simple, yet forms the basis and structure of all we see... Anyway, sort of distilling the above, it seems like the most complex things are whatever strains our understanding, but aren't TOO complex, such that we can't even fathom them. Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:55:57 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#a5dc2238-a9e4-4e5c-8910-fe9c5f2d18b8 $item.owner.firstName 2005-12-14T22:55:57Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9dd0ea1e-32cb-465f-8b0a-87cfb3b71cbe The least arbitrary measure of complexity that I know about is Kolmogorov Complexity (KC for the rest of this post). Roughly, it says that something is "complicated" to the degree that the smallest program (or Turing Machine or whatever) that generates it is large. BOOK: "An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications" http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulv/kolmogorov.html So the digital expression for "pi to a jillion digits" (ie 3.14159265... (but finite)) is "not so complicated" because it can be generated by relatively short programs. "True randomness" could basically only be generated by hardcoding each random symbol in the generating program and so (under this formalism) is extremely complex. In practice KC gives rise to an intractably large search space. And in theory the "perfect KC calculator" is uncomputable. Mostly KC used as a theoretical tool about which boundary proofs can be constructed (as in "this complexity measure is almost as good as KC but is tractable"). If you want to smash your head against some math: http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/loconet/node2.html Almost every case where I've seen someone try to practically apply KC (like get quantitative about it), they end up approximating it with compression programs. Example Of This Approach: "An information-based sequence distance and its application to whole mitochondrial genome phylogeny" http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/2/149.pdf Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:34:33 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9dd0ea1e-32cb-465f-8b0a-87cfb3b71cbe Jennifer 2005-11-29T00:34:33Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#d801a589-4987-4ef0-87f5-6d446ef0c273 Reality, the universe, everything. And no. At least not yet. That's what physicists are struggling with, isn't it? A Theory Of Everything? Damn. I actually spent a few minutes thinking about this, and thought I'd come up with a wonderfully profound and impressive answer. Instead it seems I was only able to produce rather simple output to this complex question. Try asking something simple, that might get me rambling :) With that out of the way, there were some interesting things said here. I am left wondering wheter complexity isn't a rather arbitrary measure. Never could get the hang of entropy vs. order: Order from whose perspective? Chaos/mess says who? Your mom when she comes for a visit? Granted, we have only ourselves to use as yardsticks, but what our brain recognizes as pattern might not be the only form of organization. Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:52:54 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#d801a589-4987-4ef0-87f5-6d446ef0c273 Benjamin 2005-11-22T13:52:54Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#e29bfa4c-b7dd-4b45-83ee-2060c7a9eb3b Perhaps all the various ways to connect between Nothingness, and the Universe ? Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:58:36 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#e29bfa4c-b7dd-4b45-83ee-2060c7a9eb3b John 2005-11-15T10:58:36Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#f047ed94-31e2-402d-b979-23b4b0db412b The most complicated thing I can think of is also the simplest, the concept of "Nothing". Tue, 15 Nov 2005 02:51:45 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#f047ed94-31e2-402d-b979-23b4b0db412b Andrew 2005-11-15T02:51:45Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#faf17077-a535-4326-bf95-2e7924b69250 self organisation is the key don't get caught up in thinking the standard model is gospel! Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:10:51 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#faf17077-a535-4326-bf95-2e7924b69250 Peter 2005-10-28T01:10:51Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#b12ffb7a-9b88-4f48-815b-c1676e7d4dc3 This has disturbed me for a long time as well. It has always seemed to me that the initial plasma state following the Big Bang (and I'm not sure if I entirely agree with that explanation, either) would already have the universe at its highest level of entopy, uniform and at the same temperature. The fact that this uniformity dissolved (in seeming defiance to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) in favor of stars and galaxies, etc. is bothersome enough. Then I take in all the self-organization which occured and is constantly repeated and I either begin to see the hand of God or get a splitting headache or both. Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:51:10 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#b12ffb7a-9b88-4f48-815b-c1676e7d4dc3 Steve 2005-10-27T20:51:10Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9216731e-128c-4f9d-b208-3dc5b55029b4 Maybe I am being simple-minded, but "the universe" would appear to be the most complicated concept we have since it would consist of of all we can concieve of and all the interrelationships. Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:25:09 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9216731e-128c-4f9d-b208-3dc5b55029b4 Rene 2005-10-18T22:25:09Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#aa489dfb-7961-4e00-820e-9290d5a0a0dd I think I love you. Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:17:43 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#aa489dfb-7961-4e00-820e-9290d5a0a0dd Erin 2005-09-15T01:17:43Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#dcd51bab-1aa6-4ce3-983c-76a99182cefa Thanks for the link - I tend to laugh out loud when I'm reminded of Goedel's theorems, so I expect I'll have a lot of fun reading Chaitin. I like Lewis Carroll on irreducibility (in Sylvie and Bruno): Mein Herr: "We actually made a map of the country, on the scale of a mile to a mile!” [...] “we now use the country itself, as its own map, and I assure you it does nearly as well.” Sat, 10 Sep 2005 19:01:31 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#dcd51bab-1aa6-4ce3-983c-76a99182cefa zen mama temple monkey 2005-09-10T19:01:31Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#5bf20804-2f13-4478-a35e-bdb0c8898932 the most complicated thing cannot be thought of, or modeled- the world is irreducible. Per Heraclitus, Zeno, and through Goedel and the latest results by Chaitin: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/ But what is the most complicated thing you can think of or map? Hmmm, I think the possibilities are endless! We just keep digging the hole deeper, and deeper, falling, falling... Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:24:31 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#5bf20804-2f13-4478-a35e-bdb0c8898932 Peter 2005-09-10T17:24:31Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#96566aac-9a4f-4dc9-bcbe-2773627e664d The most complicated thing I can think of; a roomful of monkeys with typewriters. Fri, 19 Aug 2005 22:43:14 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#96566aac-9a4f-4dc9-bcbe-2773627e664d jon 2005-08-19T22:43:14Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#6778c356-1492-434c-8821-1ed22b112cde thats why i cant imagine that life goes on forever! geeze! its like the story of the draggon fly that can never make it back under the water. Fri, 19 Aug 2005 22:33:14 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#6778c356-1492-434c-8821-1ed22b112cde $item.owner.firstName 2005-08-19T22:33:14Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#5ee43ece-73ca-466b-ab5f-24f8cdc4ece7 my life, the way im spending it a minute at a time, the thought that someday it will be over, everything will be over, and there might be, well id hope that there was some sort of redeeming somethng that happened so that eternity was spent in a comfortable place, if eternity has a place, the notion of life and growth is a complexity that im not sure i wil ever understand fully even though it has been mapped and mathematically described. Fri, 19 Aug 2005 22:27:43 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#5ee43ece-73ca-466b-ab5f-24f8cdc4ece7 $item.owner.firstName 2005-08-19T22:27:43Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#35e7b26e-fa9a-45e8-9545-c4d35cced813 The brain cannot be isolated. It, too, exists only in relationships. This question to me seems misleading, as though a thing exists. This thing of which we're all a part is the most complex. It is unending, all-inclusive, and ever-changing. We are made of change moving through change. Intimate experience of this renders isolation, hierarchy, and superlatives invalid. Any time I see something marvelously complex (or any other adjective), I say to myself, "Wow, look at us!" This practice also expands the sense of identity, making it consistent with Systems and revokes feelings of jealousy. Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:14:07 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#35e7b26e-fa9a-45e8-9545-c4d35cced813 Erin 2005-08-18T22:14:07Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#06c38641-7328-4221-98f8-4e22544b5f29 I am a woman, and still it is women. Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:08:24 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#06c38641-7328-4221-98f8-4e22544b5f29 Erin 2005-08-18T22:08:24Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#29cd79fa-6338-4255-b092-5664f3d2ebfd Is the Mandelbrot set bigger than the 'instructions' that give rise to it? Tue, 16 Aug 2005 02:00:04 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#29cd79fa-6338-4255-b092-5664f3d2ebfd tuk tuk 2005-08-16T02:00:04Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#f28105e0-d4f8-4c49-815e-c480faf98b8f Hmmm....after surfing through this topic again and wondering about the complexity of reductionism has anyone given some consideration to the concept of gestalts, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I tend to look at these as the interactions that arise from interactions and so on down the line. The Mandlebrot set appears to point at this. Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:05:34 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#f28105e0-d4f8-4c49-815e-c480faf98b8f George 2005-08-14T20:05:34Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#4b0264a3-148d-48cc-926e-ebf80e8a1308 Not sure if this counts but i still have problems programming my VCR! Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:28:21 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#4b0264a3-148d-48cc-926e-ebf80e8a1308 john 2005-08-14T17:28:21Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#b863dabb-bd65-43bd-9f10-f4498ad1e5c7 Posted the first Anarchism manual too If I remember right... qb Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:09:40 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#b863dabb-bd65-43bd-9f10-f4498ad1e5c7 qb 2005-06-06T19:09:40Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#2bfbe3d8-e956-470b-b2f0-c19aa5f02dfa I can certainly be gnomic at times, but I'll explain this one. It's a joke that only Internet old-timers would get. There was this famous kook on Usenet named Robert McElwaine who posted tons of crank science rants all over the place. At the top of each one he wrote "UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED". Tim Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:51:00 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#2bfbe3d8-e956-470b-b2f0-c19aa5f02dfa scalefree 2005-06-06T18:51:00Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#94c7db76-229a-4005-8747-dc01f7477980 Tim K, this appears to me as if you don't wish to be understood. If you really cared about communicating you would say it in a less gnomic fashion. And if you are simply trolling that's okay too. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:24:35 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#94c7db76-229a-4005-8747-dc01f7477980 Kanch 2005-06-06T16:24:35Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#40e5f751-5ade-4981-9617-44e3c627f1ee Tim K... I get it in a way... But you can take a horse to the river. You can't force it to drink. qb Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:43:51 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#40e5f751-5ade-4981-9617-44e3c627f1ee qb 2005-06-06T14:43:51Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#a2b0ab51-8255-4d48-8ef9-9bdd39936a96 Unaltered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED. (I bet I'm the only person here who gets this) Tim Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:35:07 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#a2b0ab51-8255-4d48-8ef9-9bdd39936a96 scalefree 2005-06-06T13:35:07Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9a5cf8a7-74f1-4578-abff-f5981cbe2186 Shit!! Great one... pointing out the limits of my thinking! If I'm gonna suppose that strings are the most complex thing, then what about the space between them, the pure nothingness - THAT has to be the most complex thing by my reductionistic definition. Excellent! Rgds, Paul Bard. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:58:22 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9a5cf8a7-74f1-4578-abff-f5981cbe2186 Kanch 2005-06-06T12:58:22Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#85cdaaee-c017-4e64-b1dc-b4d7dd56d106 BUT STOP AND THINK... DEFINE IT : NOTHING AT ALL MAP THIS : PURE NOTHINGNESS qb To map something yo must have reference and observation. Not because you have those two that you can map something. You need a predefined, agreed, non fluctuating unit of measure. Since Curvature of space is a FOLD, and according to Twin Photo experiments speed of transfer bends BEYOND physical observed speed of ligh. It means that Between a pair of TWIN PHOTONS there is NOTHING! Thus : Measure that NOTHING ! MAP IT ! qb Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:32:27 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#85cdaaee-c017-4e64-b1dc-b4d7dd56d106 qb 2005-06-06T10:32:27Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#e7d2816a-c6e2-4e5b-9f7e-5881d63fb4c1 Barnaby your post about emergent phenomena is spot on, but unfortunately we won't be able to answer for a few more years. To restate your statement as a question: If we knew enough about the micro structure of a butterfly (and had the technology available) could we replicate the butterfly itself? My sense is yes absolutely. But even if we can create automata giving all the signs of consciousness, we still cannot solve the problem that we feel ourselves to "be". Indeed, consciousness itself may prove the most complex thing. Then the logical fallacy: if one cannot define the emergent property in terms of its aggregates, then how can it be said that it relates at all to the aggregates, causally or in nonlinear ways? The emergent property just appeared like a buddha out of nothing??? So either aggregates MUST relate to the emergence of complexity, or complexity itself is some unmanifest or implicate order or domain. If the latter, we are in the realm of metaphysics. If the former, then we are still within the bounds of science itself. Anyhow, great post mate. Aristotle was most concerned with the idea that everything had a "substance". But he wasn't being a hardassed materialist like Democritus sounds like: he was saying that if you add up everything you know about a thing, then subtract everything that is not either (in the case of an organism) germinal to its functioning, or (in the case of knowledge), universally common and ubiquitous - then you would have true knowledge, he felt. This process in various bastardised forms became known as reductionism. It merely means to focus on what matters most to me, as a general tendecy, than some hardcore discipline. So yes, in the sense of what matters most, you may say that subatomic strings matter most not because they are the basic constituents of matter but because they are ubuiquitous, unversal, and have the most potential to reveal true knowledge for the longest term. Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:04:35 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#e7d2816a-c6e2-4e5b-9f7e-5881d63fb4c1 Kanch 2005-06-06T08:04:35Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#929f374f-2982-4982-91f2-5cb97d1306ca > The merit of these theories is not in the scale of action in how broadly they explain the whole. That's a very good point, but I question whether descriptions at the smallest levels are truly broader. To take an analogy, does knowledge of the genetic makeup of an organism, or its celular structure, give us knowledge about the organism's behavior? Ultimately, the organism depends on its constituent parts, but large-scale phenomena aren't necessarily comprehensible with reference to their constituent parts. Emergenct properties are simply not explainable by understanding the aggregate of their components - they are a fundamentally different animal. > And could you explain what you mean about quantum weirdness being no more real the the macroscopic. What I am referring to here is some of the weird outcomes of experiments pertaining to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, or the 'Schroedinger's Cat' dilemma. It seems to me that we can look at the world of macroscopic (perceptable) phenomena and question their ultimate 'realness', in the sense that we can take them apart and decompose them to smaller parts that have different characteristics. We can't say a table is truly real, in and of itself, is we can easily break it and it is no longer a table. Democritus had the idea that eventually you would get down to atoms that cannot be divided, and that these things are more real than anything else. I think that's basically been the presumption - that atoms are more real than molecules, which are more real than plants or rocks. The problem is, on the quantum level you have the reverse problem of the macrsoscopic level. Nuclear particles exhibit perplexing behavior insofar as they are indeterminate or non-local. Take the problem of entanglement, for example, where you have particles locked in a fixed relationship. If you make a change to one of the particles, say, you reverse its spin, the other will change instantaneously, ignoring the spatial difference between them. Our attempt to identify macroscopic phenomena as 'fundamental' is confounded by the problem that they can be decomposed into parts. Our attempt to identify atomic and sub-atomic phenomena as 'fundamental' is confounded in that they exhibit a character and behavior that is non-local in indeterminate. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 18:06:31 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#929f374f-2982-4982-91f2-5cb97d1306ca barnaby 2005-06-05T18:06:31Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#1778b144-11d8-4c41-9df4-d547d5376676 saying that reductionism defines things by the smaller seems to me reducing the explanatory power of the very very very small. The merit of these theories is not in the scale of action in how broadly they explain the whole. Or am I missing your point completely, Barnaby? And could you explain what you mean about quantum weirdness being no more real the the macroscopic. What is the macro level for you? How are quantas unreal? Sun, 05 Jun 2005 06:40:18 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#1778b144-11d8-4c41-9df4-d547d5376676 Kanch 2005-06-05T06:40:18Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#f3dbd1fc-db5f-4f08-adb5-1b3c4a83d14b > the realm of string theory is the most complex, being the most foundational, aspect of reality? Well, this is interesting, because in the West since at least the time of Democritus we have tended to view parts as more real than the whole. But I do wonder if 'smaller' really means 'more foundational'? I suspect a lot of the weirdness associated with quantum mechanics has to do with finding out that smaller things are no more real than macroscopic things. Sun, 05 Jun 2005 06:02:19 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#f3dbd1fc-db5f-4f08-adb5-1b3c4a83d14b barnaby 2005-06-05T06:02:19Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#70228423-1da7-4b5d-88e3-11c320d4ca11 barnaby you rock: "In the words of Emo Philips, I used to think that the brain was the most fascinating thing there is. Then I realized, well, look who's telling me that." The other answer I really appreciate is also self-reflexive: the timeline itself is an artefact of complexity. Worst of all, complexity arises from the timespace realm so is there a meta-complex level? Would that imply that the realm of string theory is the most complex, being the most foundational, aspect of reality? Sun, 05 Jun 2005 04:00:02 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#70228423-1da7-4b5d-88e3-11c320d4ca11 Kanch 2005-06-05T04:00:02Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9d3f4178-fea6-412a-802c-170a0d280137 I believe complexity is the outcome of measurement, and is basically arbitrary. In this context, I can't help but think of what Gleick refers to as the Shoreline problem. The length of the shoreline of an island is a function of the length of the yardstick you use - the smaller the yardstick, the more little nooks and crannies you can measure. In the same way, in many cases complexity is largely an outcome of scaling. Ignoring relationships reduces complexity, and which relationships we deem to be important is fairly arbitrary. If you throw a handful of sand onto a steel tray and decide that the total of relationships formed by a straight line drawn between any two grains is important to your measurement, then that's pretty goddamend complex. The question of what relationships ARE important tends to be constrained by what we can call control parameters. That is, what are the relationships which seem definitive to the dynamics of the system? Those are the ones we want to pay special attention to, and good modeling often boils down to the search for good control parameters. Another way of saying that is, how much information can we ignore and still make accurate predictions? In the case of the brain, it seems that the state space of the significant relationships relative to the predictions we are interested in making are vast - ergo it appears to be an object of enormous complexity. But what if the only prediction we were interested in regarding the brain was its macroscopic structural integrity? Suddenly all that complexity goes away. We can take it for granted that most people will think the interesting behavior of the brain that is worth modeling/predicting is its cognitive behavior, but all that means is that in some cases most humans agree on what behavior is worth measuring. In the words of Emo Philips, I used to think that the brain was the most fascinating thing there is. Then I realized, well, look who's telling me that. Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:52:00 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#9d3f4178-fea6-412a-802c-170a0d280137 barnaby 2005-06-03T18:52:00Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#2be6ce50-8985-4232-b2a9-598da046384a Define it. How would you know there is Pure Nothingness ? No : matter, vibration, continuum, un-existence... perception. PURE NOTHINGNESS qb Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:07:14 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#2be6ce50-8985-4232-b2a9-598da046384a qb 2005-06-03T18:07:14Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#75a1c5a0-0212-4e1f-ad39-3b7e29b4f04d For me it's a time-path. How the HELL did a relatively uniform (if very large) blob of basically just hydrogen gas start to form stars...galazies...planets, etc.? I mean, the amount of fine-level structure in the universe is just mind-paralyzing. Thinking about how all that structure came into being makes me tired. Fri, 03 Jun 2005 03:27:37 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#75a1c5a0-0212-4e1f-ad39-3b7e29b4f04d Dr. Ivo 2005-06-03T03:27:37Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#a3386ae2-9eff-454e-85e0-dc66e58780a3 The Whole Shebang... or whatever you choose to call it. Mapped or described? Well, people *try*. There are good maps, if you consider a good map to be an accurate representation of the most relevant features, but there's no such thing as a complete map. Whether you think a particular map is good depends on which features you consider relevant as well as its accuracy. .. or does a "thing", in your definition, have the property of being differentiable from everything else ("not-thing")? Then I can't conceive a "most complicated" thing. Thing boundaries are arbitrary, so once I've thought of some thing, I can always shift the boundaries to include, for example, some part of not-thing and the relationship between the two. This new compound thing is more complex than the first thing. In some views it could be considered a less complex thing - the "parts" are atomised and conceptually awarded some degree of uniformity, and for the sake of modelling this is necessary. But the base units don't actually lose any complexity when the system modeller chooses to portray them in simpler form. Once the larger system has been mapped reasonably accurately, it remains possible to expand the mapping of the subsystems. (The same can be said of the original thing conceived, but taking a step back before diving in seems to help somehow.) Tue, 31 May 2005 23:18:54 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#a3386ae2-9eff-454e-85e0-dc66e58780a3 zen mama temple monkey 2005-05-31T23:18:54Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#b6f44c48-dbb6-4a0c-b9ed-7c757901d07c Women. ;-) Unless you are one, in which case it would be men. Tue, 31 May 2005 20:29:52 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#b6f44c48-dbb6-4a0c-b9ed-7c757901d07c hoco 2005-05-31T20:29:52Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#3c028944-fde3-4cc8-a4be-8251c9fb93ab The human brain is widely recognized as the most mathematically complex object we know of. We're still working on mapping & describing it, but I assume it'll be finished eventually. Tim Tue, 31 May 2005 20:20:12 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#3c028944-fde3-4cc8-a4be-8251c9fb93ab scalefree 2005-05-31T20:20:12Z http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#c1da5cee-d1d8-415a-8646-20644b1f5a22 What's the most complicated thing you can think of? Can it be mathematically mapped or described? Tue, 31 May 2005 16:27:54 GMT http://complexitytheory.tribe.net/thread/8eaa0513-b26a-45f7-af2c-9a0ddb89e6cc#c1da5cee-d1d8-415a-8646-20644b1f5a22 Kanch 2005-05-31T16:27:54Z