Using Complexity Science to Search for Unity in the Natural Sciences

[Jonathan]

Using Complexity Science to Search for Unity in the Natural Sciences

Eric J. Chaisson
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 USA
www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson


(excerpts)


Introduction

Nature writ large is a mess. Yet, underlying unities pervade
the long and storied, albeit meandering, path from the early
Universe to civilization on Earth. Evolution is one of
those unifiers, incorporating physical, biological, and
cultural changes within a broad and inclusive cosmic-
evolutionary scenario.

Complexity is another such unifier, delineating the growth
of structure, function, and diversity within and among
galaxies, stars, planets, life, and society throughout
natural history.

This brief essay summarizes a research agenda now underway
not only to search for unity in Nature but also, potentially
and more fundamentally, to quantify both unceasing evolution
and increasing complexity by modeling energy, whose flows
through nonequilibrium systems arguably grant opportunities
for evolution to create even more complexit


This essay proffers a different strategy. It goes beyond mere
words, indeed beyond specialized disciplines, in an attempt
to explore widely, deeply, and phenomenologically a process
that might characterize complexity quantitatively across many
scientific domains.

I have explored a great array of systems, sought commonalities
among them all, and examined a single, uniform metric that
arguably quantifies changes toward increased complexity.
The result is an expansive evolutionary scenario covering
the known history of time to date yet one revealing strong
similarities among systems as disparate as stars, life,
and society.

Evolution is a universal phenomenon; including changes in
physical, biological, and cultural systems, evolution is
a unifying principle throughout natural science.

Energy is a common currency; energy rate density generally
correlates with system complexity and may drive, at least
in part, the process of evolution itself.

Selection and adaptation are ubiquitous; the emergence,
maintenance, and fate of complex systems are often determined,
again partly, by their ability to utilize energy.


Physicists tend to notice large trends and general patterns
in Nature, often seeking grand unifications or at least
global explanations based on few and simple principles.

Biologists, by contrast, concentrate on minute details and
intricate mechanisms, often noting quite rightly rare
abnormalities in the sweeping generalities. Such dual
attitudes perhaps signal the true value of this
coarse-grained, phenomenological approach, for only when
the devilish details are reconciled with the bigger picture
will we be able to call it a “complexity science” that
synthesizes both for coherent understanding of ourselves,
our world, and our Universe.



https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/reprints/ASUessay_revised_for_CUP_old.pdf

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

Eric J. Chaisson wrote,
www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson

"I have embraced the concept of energy largely because I can define it, measure it, and clearly express its units. I have furthermore endeavored to quantify this decidedly thermodynamic concept in ~a reliable and consistent manner for a full spectrum of organized systems from spiral galaxies and fusing stars to buzzing bees and redwood trees, indeed to sentient humans and our technological society."

"...This, then, has been and continues to be my working hypothesis: Mass-normalized energy flow, termed energy rate density and denoted by Φm , is potentially the most universal process capable of building structures, evolving systems, and creating complexity throughout the Universe."

"A suggested definition: Energy rate density is the amount of free energy thermodynamically
flowing through a system per unit time and per unit mass."

"What seems inherently attractive is that energy flow as a universal process helps suppress entropy within increasingly ordered, localized ~systems evolving amidst increasingly disordered, surrounding environments, indeed a process that arguably governed the emergence and maturity of our galaxy, our star, our planet, and ourselves. If correct, energy itself is a central mechanism of change. And energy rate density is an unambiguous, weighted measure of energy flow enabling us to gauge all complex systems in like manner, as well as to examine how over the course of time some systems were able to command energy and survive, while others apparently could not and did not."

To Jonathan:

Thank you for posting this. In Chaisson's "Mass-normalized energy flow," : What is flow? What are its vectors? What is the relationship between Brownian motion and Chaisson's flow?

Can you post anything about his ideas on flow in terms of physics in relationship to biological systems?

SC RED

[*Hemidactylus*]

Given:

"A suggested definition: Energy rate density is the amount of free energy
thermodynamically flowing through a system per unit time and per unit
mass."

"Cosmic evolution extends the central idea of evolution—ascent with
modification, generally considered—to embrace all structured systems."

"Complexity is a state of intricacy, complication, variety or involvement,
as in the interconnected parts of a system—a quality of having many
different, interacting components."

He seems to think evolution ascends and our technologies surpass all in
Lamarckian fashion for extent of flow. Bleck evolutionary metaphors.
Smartphones seem to be at the top of the chain of being in that so much
knowledge is available at the tap of a finger. A smartphone is a thing to
behold in terms of how complexity is defined above and occupies an exalted
position in the noosphere. But granted the still primitive state of voice
interaction we have a ways to go to get an ape, pig, or magpie's level of
awareness and deliberate manipulation.

As for energy rate density, I don't know how to scale or quantify it, but
how does a smartphone compare at its size with efficient miniaturized
components to a behemoth building sized vacuum tube computer of yesteryear?
Does the smartphone have less or more energy rate density? And should we
somehow take its relatively higher complexity in task capacity versus the
behemoth?

Yet the bacteria living on the skin slime on the external substrate of the
smartphone are unimpressed at this feat of technology as it hasn't
supplanted them. They are still Modal as Gould argued. Despite
self-concerned declarations of ascent and progressive energy flow in our
technology, we are but an unimportant twig on an evolutionary bush on an
unimportant planet.

Cosmic "evolution" is as productive of a flake of moon dust as it is us or
a lowly tapeworm. So much for the ratcheting of energy rate density from
the Milky Way to Formula One race cars. It as a "trend" only has
significance to the people who ponder it.

Yet from Chaisson's diagram: "The Φm values and historical dates plotted
here are estimates, each with ranges and uncertainties; yet it is not their
absolute magnitudes and specific quantities that matter most as much as
their perceived trend with the march of time."

[Ernest Major]

On 13/08/2017 21:31, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Yet from Chaisson's diagram: "The Φm values and historical dates plotted
> here are estimates, each with ranges and uncertainties; yet it is not their
> absolute magnitudes and specific quantities that matter most as much as
> their perceived trend with the march of time."

I have my doubts about his choice of data points.

For stellar evolution stick in the T-Tauri phase, and the white fading
to black dwarf and neutron star endpoints, and I suspect that the trend
disappears.

For galactic evolution, what are the numbers for the more highly evolved
giant elliptical galaxies?

If I understand correctly, active galactic nuclei were more frequent in
the past, but they would have a higher number than quiescent spiral
galaxies.

--
alias Ernest Major

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

Allow me a re-edit please:
Eric J. Chaisson wrote,
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/reprints/ASUessay_revised_for_CUP_old.pdf

"I have embraced the concept of energy largely because I can define it, measure it, and clearly express its units. I have furthermore endeavored to quantify this decidedly thermodynamic concept in ~a reliable and consistent manner for a full spectrum of organized systems from spiral galaxies and fusing stars to buzzing bees and redwood trees, indeed to sentient humans and our technological society."

"...This, then, has been and continues to be my working hypothesis: Mass-normalized energy flow, termed energy rate density and denoted by Φm , is potentially the most universal process capable of building structures, evolving systems, and creating complexity throughout the Universe."

"A suggested definition: Energy rate density is the amount of free energy thermodynamically
flowing through a system per unit time and per unit mass."

"What seems inherently attractive is that energy flow as a universal process helps suppress entropy within increasingly ordered, localized ~systems evolving amidst increasingly disordered, surrounding environments, indeed a process that arguably governed the emergence and maturity of our galaxy, our star, our planet, and ourselves. If correct, energy itself is a central mechanism of change. And energy rate density is an unambiguous, weighted measure of energy flow enabling us to gauge all complex systems in like manner, as well as to examine how over the course of time some systems were able to command energy and survive, while others apparently could not and did not."

If Chaisson's flow is:
..."this decidedly thermodynamic concept"...whereby more ordered systems of that flow suppress entropy, then Chaisson heirarchy of order of suppressing entropy must include the flows of energy of 1) photons and 2) electrons.

For example,
1) Photonic flow is what NASA engineers are thinking of using in nanocrafts. A while ago RS Norman posted the nanocraft story. 2) Electron flow is what engineers use at Tesla autocraft. These two kinds of "flow" are energies and free and complex and reduce thermodynamic entropy. Ok. But they are technological. Let us look at biology and the suppressions of entropy.

In bio-systems, bio-luminescence is a more complex bio-system than in like species without it. And in humans our slower metabolisms are more complex than the apes, thereby suppressing more entropy in us than that of the apes, which lead to our longer life spans. More complexity extends the flow of energy, and the kinds of energies introduced into biosystems, extend their life spans. These energies are similar in tech-craft and biology. I think this is what Chaisson is implying. But I could be wrong? I would be interested in reading more of his thinking on this.

SC RED

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

Correction:

These energies are similar in tech-craft and biology.

Should be:
These energies are similar in tech-craft and biosystems.

SC RED

[Jonathan]

On 8/14/2017 1:22 PM, scienceci...@gmail.com wrote:
> Allow me a re-edit please:
> Eric J. Chaisson wrote,
> https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/reprints/ASUessay_revised_for_CUP_old.pdf
>
> "I have embraced the concept of energy largely because I can define it, measure it, and clearly express its units. I have furthermore endeavored to quantify this decidedly thermodynamic concept in ~a reliable and consistent manner for a full spectrum of organized systems from spiral galaxies and fusing stars to buzzing bees and redwood trees, indeed to sentient humans and our technological society."
>
> "...This, then, has been and continues to be my working hypothesis: Mass-normalized energy flow, termed energy rate density and denoted by Φm , is potentially the most universal process capable of building structures, evolving systems, and creating complexity throughout the Universe."
>
> "A suggested definition: Energy rate density is the amount of free energy thermodynamically
> flowing through a system per unit time and per unit mass."
>
> "What seems inherently attractive is that energy flow as a universal process helps suppress entropy within increasingly ordered, localized ~systems evolving amidst increasingly disordered, surrounding environments, indeed a process that arguably governed the emergence and maturity of our galaxy, our star, our planet, and ourselves. If correct, energy itself is a central mechanism of change. And energy rate density is an unambiguous, weighted measure of energy flow enabling us to gauge all complex systems in like manner, as well as to examine how over the course of time some systems were able to command energy and survive, while others apparently could not and did not."
>
> If Chaisson's flow is:

> ...."this decidedly thermodynamic concept"...whereby more ordered systems of that flow suppress entropy, why does Chaisson eliminate the two other major suppressing entropy flows of energy: namely, 1) photons and 2) electrons?
>




He's using the general term when he refers to energy rate density
so it can apply universally to stars, trees and societies.

Electrons or photons would only come into the 'equation' if
dealing with a specific system where energy flow depends
on them.

Other specific versions of the general term energy rate
density could be a myriad of others such as metabolic
rate or power density and on and on.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_rate_density



> For example,
> 1) Photonic flow is what NASA engineers are thinking of using in nano-spacecrafts. A while ago RS Norman posted the nanocraft story. 2) Electron flow is what engineers use at Tesla autocraft. These two kinds of "flow" are energies and free.
>
> SC RED
>

[Jonathan]

On 8/13/2017 12:13 PM, scienceci...@gmail.com wrote:
> Eric J. Chaisson wrote,
> www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson
>
> "I have embraced the concept of energy largely because I can define it, measure it, and clearly express its units. I have furthermore endeavored to quantify this decidedly thermodynamic concept in ~a reliable and consistent manner for a full spectrum of organized systems from spiral galaxies and fusing stars to buzzing bees and redwood trees, indeed to sentient humans and our technological society."
>
> "...This, then, has been and continues to be my working hypothesis: Mass-normalized energy flow, termed energy rate density and denoted by Φm , is potentially the most universal process capable of building structures, evolving systems, and creating complexity throughout the Universe."
>
> "A suggested definition: Energy rate density is the amount of free energy thermodynamically
> flowing through a system per unit time and per unit mass."
>
> "What seems inherently attractive is that energy flow as a universal process helps suppress entropy within increasingly ordered, localized ~systems evolving amidst increasingly disordered, surrounding environments, indeed a process that arguably governed the emergence and maturity of our galaxy, our star, our planet, and ourselves. If correct, energy itself is a central mechanism of change. And energy rate density is an unambiguous, weighted measure of energy flow enabling us to gauge all complex systems in like manner, as well as to examine how over the course of time some systems were able to command energy and survive, while others apparently could not and did not."
>
> To Jonathan:
>
> Thank you for posting this. In Chaisson's "Mass-normalized energy flow," : What is flow?

Chaisson is using the term as the flow of energy through a
non equilibrium system of given mass measured in erg/s/g

Is that what you're asking, or more generally?



> What are its vectors?



He's talking about flow through a system, not flux through
a surface.

> What is the relationship between Brownian motion and Chaisson's flow?

Chaisson's flow increases order, Brownian motion diffuses.
Or it's the relationship between the non equilibrium
self organizing system and the nearer equilibrium
environment.

>
> Can you post anything about his ideas on flow in terms of physics in relationship to biological systems?
>

His ideas are placed in universal form so they apply
to both equally.



> SC RED
>

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

SC RED wrote,

>If Chaisson's flow is:

> ...."this decidedly
>thermodynamic
>concept"...whereby more
>ordered systems of that flow >suppress entropy, why does
>Chaisson eliminate the two
>other major suppressing
>entropy flows of energy:
>namely, 1) photons and 2) >electrons?

Jonathan answered,

"He's using the general term when he refers to energy rate density so it can apply universally to stars, trees and societies."

"Electrons or photons would only come into the 'equation' if dealing with a specific system where energy flow depends on them."

He is talking about "radiated" Φm flow because he made the parameter a thermodynamic one when he wrote: "... this decidedly thermodynamic concept..."

At some point the thermodynamic radiated flow of photons must be contained in order to get to Φm for which are the Stars, the trees, etc are organized. They are the containers, they have mass-normalized rates and they embody Φm.

My question is: why do they get organized when the scatter to flow to organization occurs with general free energy going on, in the form of mc^2? Scattering is about and somehow it gets converted or transfered from mc^2 to Φm in the idea of "energy" as E or ΔE. How?

I know this is process evolution, that Chaisson is engaging the reader in, not mechanism. But he used a mechanistic term "flow" to mean something about mass in the form of Φm. I just want to see more texts by him on flow to clarify this stuff?

SC RED

[Jonathan]

On 8/16/2017 6:04 PM, scienceci...@gmail.com wrote:
> SC RED wrote,
>
>> If Chaisson's flow is:
>
>> ...."this decidedly
>> thermodynamic
>> concept"...whereby more
>> ordered systems of that flow >suppress entropy, why does
>> Chaisson eliminate the two
>> other major suppressing
>> entropy flows of energy:
>> namely, 1) photons and 2) >electrons?
>
> Jonathan answered,
>
> "He's using the general term when he refers to energy rate density so it can apply universally to stars, trees and societies."
>
> "Electrons or photons would only come into the 'equation' if dealing with a specific system where energy flow depends on them."
>
> He is talking about "radiated" Φm flow because he made the parameter a thermodynamic one when he wrote: "... this decidedly thermodynamic concept..."
>

But he's dealing with non equilibrium thermodynamics, systems which
are being pushed far from equilibrium, where self organization
or spontaneous order, entropy suppression, emerges.

> At some point the thermodynamic radiated flow of photons must be contained in order to get to Φm for which are the Stars, the trees, etc are organized. They are the containers, they have mass-normalized rates and they embody Φm.
>
> My question is: why do they get organized when the scatter to flow to organization occurs with general free energy going on, in the form of mc^2? Scattering is about and somehow it gets converted or transfered from mc^2 to Φm in the idea of "energy" as E or ΔE. How?
>
> I know this is process evolution, that Chaisson is engaging the reader in, not mechanism. But he used a mechanistic term "flow" to mean something about mass in the form of Φm. I just want to see more texts by him on flow to clarify this stuff?
>
> SC RED
>

Below is a more recent paper where he discusses energy flow, but
his first line may reflect what is bothering you.


Energy Flows in Low-entropy Complex Systems
Eric J. Chaisson 1,*
1 Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts,


1. Introduction

"This article risks alienating both entropy specialists and
information theorists."
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1512/1512.04981.pdf



But your question "why do they get organized" may
be answered by the core science behind emergent
order, or far from equilibrium thermodynamics
which is the science of self organization.

Originally many called Kauffman's self organization
the 'Fourth law' of Thermodynamics, creating order
balancing the Destruction of the Second law.

Or, when the Second Law creates total disorder
or chaos, that provides the ideal initial
conditions for spontaneous cyclic order, or
self organization as seen by the field of
random boolean networks. A random network
as created by the Second Law, when perturbed
often spontaneously created cyclic order
or self organizes.

The basic idea is that when a system is pushed
far from equilibrium and held near it's internal
tipping point, spontaneous order, or evolution
emerges. Reducing entropy in relation to it's
environment by a constant flow of energy
between the two.



Here's a nice intro to self organization
http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/archive/sosfaq.html


And another nice intro to complexity science
http://www.complexity.soton.ac.uk/theory/



Here's Kauffman's original writings that started the
entire field

Fourth Law Stuff

(one excerpt)

iv. The emergence of collectively self-consistent linked webs
of work and tasks is, like the emergence of collectively
autocatalytic reactions networks where the number of reactions
increases faster than the number of molecular species, abetted
by the fact that any work done creates low energy structures,
coherent motions, or flows whose own manifold causal consequences
can be “jury rigged” in a wide variety of ways. As this variety
and diversity of causal consequences increases, it is easier
to achieve collective coherence.

http://www.cap-lore.com/books/Kauffman/Investigations.html

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

Jonathan wrote,

"Below is a more recent paper where he discusses energy flow, but his first line may reflect what is bothering you."

"Energy Flows in Low-entropy Complex Systems
Eric J. Chaisson 1,*
1 Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts,"

Thank you.

SC RED