The question of why something exists, rather than being nothing, is usually asked in the sense of where our universe comes from, and what i...
The question of why something exists, rather than being nothing, is usually asked in the sense of where our universe comes from, and what is the origin of our material world. But to answer this question in any serious sense still seems hopeless amid the absence of our relevant knowledge. We think it is certain that there was a beginning of the existence of our material world, before which what we know today did not exist, but we still cannot answer why our universe came into being.
However, the original question asked can still have meaning in a specific form that we can search for, and perhaps we can even find a convincing answer. If the question does not refer to the material origin of our world, but rather, why something exists instead of nothing in the sense of why our material world did not remain, or become, after its birth, the bunch of particles that merely coexist, why our world was formed, why it could be formed into what we see it is? Why can there be structures, why can there be complexity in our world, instead of everything just being the same?
It must be noted that our world was already in such a state, soon after its birth, in the state of heat death, thermal equilibrium, when everything was the same. According to our concepts, the universe came out of this state through the expansion of space. The origin and explanation of complexity is more generalized in this thought.
The answer to the origin of complexity seems simple. It seems as if it is enough to say that the world as we know it is formed because of the working of gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong interactions shape matter. Indeed, along with the existence of matter particles, these are the forces that shape and form our known world. However, the question should be interpreted much more generally, and a more general answer should be sought.
Let's try to answer the question of what a world should be like in which complexity exists, rather than being nothing, i.e. everything that exists is the same. The answer still seems simple: let the world be like ours. However, if we insist on this answer, we must also need to answer the question of why the world we know as ours is common, why only a world that is exactly like ours can exist.
It seems reasonable to assume, however, that not only the world we know is possible. Our world is probably only one of many possible. So, let's ask the original question in the sense that if many different worlds can exist, what must the world be like in which there is, can there be complexity. And now let's not be satisfied with the particular case of our world, let's try to find a more general answer to the question. When, and why, can complexity exist, instead of everything just being the same?
What is complexity?
Complexity is a unique arrangement of multiple components that create a structure that forms a cohesive whole. Complexity is typically associated with the interaction of uniquely arranged components. In the case of interaction, we can speak of a complex system, which can be characterized by unique system-specific functioning.
Why do the components of a multi-element system arrange themselves into cohesive units?
Our earlier answer, that because there are interactions between the constituent parts cannot be a fulfilling answer, because the existence of the interactions actually cannot be sufficient condition, so it is not the only necessary cause of complexity. The appropriate reason might be that the formation of structure must result in a kind of more advantageous state than just remaining in independent existence.
The orderly state, as a necessary consequence, comes from the fact that a system consisting of many components typically reaches a more favorable state if it consists of fewer independent components, when the internal degrees of freedom of the system decrease, and, at the same time, as a consequence, the number of degrees of freedom characteristic of the system as a whole increases as new properties that are specific to the system as a whole emerge. The degree-of-freedom transfer associated with the formation of ordered structures creating a more preferred state is a process well recognized in our world as well.
An interesting counterpoint is that the formation of structures is typically associated with a decrease in entropy. However, statistical thermodynamics states as a law that a closed system cannot be characterized by a spontaneous decrease in entropy. Yet the state of a structure is typically more favorable, so this kind of state must be able to form spontaneously. The apparent contradiction can be resolved by considering that entropy is not in fact a physical property of complex systems, but a concept that refers to the probability of a given state of arrangement of the system. In a closed system consisting of several elements, the ordered state with lower entropy is a unique, special arrangement, so its existence has a low, usually negligible probability due to the many other possible states. Consequently, an ordered state is unlikely to arise even if it results in a more favorable state. This correlation can be clearly observed in the relationship between ordered state and temperature.
At the level of community consisting of complex constituent parts, such as human society, the rule of the advantage of unification works also. A married couple generally requires fewer resources to survive than two independent individuals, i.e. a more favorable condition. Of course, concrete stability can often be overridden by specific circumstances in this relation, which can even be paralleled to the role of temperature. However, as a general rule, even at this level, it can be stated that communities function more efficiently if they form a cohesive structure, if they behave as a complex system.
The rule also applies to such a complicated social phenomenon as politics, and the advantage of aspiration for uniformity also applies to the maintenance of political power. It is typical of the activities of politicians who seek to maintain and increase their own power tend to divide what they cannot control and to unify what they can control under their power. This is the rule for the exercise of political power.
Thus, the constituents of a multi-component system give up the freedom that comes with independence because they are potentially better off functioning as a unit, together have potentially greater capabilities, than if they remain independent.
Being together is an advantage, but why are the components able to arrange themselves, to form a structure, to function as a system? What is the necessary condition for structure to form?
As mentioned above, it is obviously a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for complexity to emerge that interactions are present between the components. Interaction can manifest itself in an important way from the point of view of the creation of the structure, for example as attraction or repulsion between the constituent parts. In our world there are well-recognizable interactions, which we typically describe as forces.
From between the simplest to the most complex components, interactions acting as forces can be recognized. While the science of physics can describe the forces between the simplest elements in our world in a precise way, as the complexity increases, the precision decreases, up to the unpredictability of the appearance of sympathy between people or the events of social revolutions.
However, the phenomenon is general and must therefore be valid for all possible worlds. Structures can arise because there is interaction between the component parts.
Why and when can there be interaction between individually existing elements? Interaction can exist if and when the component parts have properties. The more diverse, mutually similar properties the components have, the more components are able to affect each other, the more interactions are possible between them. This connection can be easily recognized in our complex world as well.
However, property does not need to be exactly specified, just need to be similar for the interaction to occur. This rule is to be general and thus it can apply to any possible world.
Having components with similar properties is a necessary condition for interactions and as a consequence, the formation of structures, but in what case do components with similar properties create different structures? Beyond the existence of interactions, what else is necessary for complexity to arise?
Obviously, to achieve complexity, the same and global identity of the structure being built is not sufficient. Complexity requires difference in and between structures. The necessary condition for the formation of different structures is that there must be a relative difference in the extent of properties between the constituent parts. Since being difference of the constituent parts must not be a required condition for their existence, the difference in the extent of the properties can be manifested in the relative movement of the constituent parts in relation to each other. If there is relative motion between the constituents, there will be a difference in the extent of interaction even if the constituents are identical, i.e. have the same properties.
The similar properties of the constituent parts lead to interactions, which creates a more preferable state of structure from the constituent parts, and the relative difference of the movement between the constituent parts results in a difference between the interactions, which results in the formation of distinct but still interacting structures, hence leads to the emergence of complexity.
The possibility of all these conditions is provided by the implicitly assumed space in which the components, interactions and movement exist.
(This general description also adequately explains the previously mentioned escape of the early universe from the state of heat death.)
So how is a world being built in which complexity exists?
In a space that allows separation and movement, there should be a number of components, even identical ones, with mutually similar properties, and the component parts should be in relative motion among themselves. A system that exists in this way is potentially complex, because necessarily, through interactions, structures are spontaneously formed in it, structures form with emergent new properties that create new types of structures, and the process continues continuously over time.
It should be noted that in this chain of thoughts, we only looked for reasons for the origin of complexity, not for the origin of space, matter and properties.
Beyond the material origin of the world, any material world in which the components have similar properties and are characterized by non-uniform motion is a complex world. Conversely, a material world in which motion is uniform and/or the components do not have similar properties cannot be a complex world. The consequence is that complexity can only arise in a material world of similar components when there is no uniform motion or when uniform motion ceases.
This statement may point to the origin and existence of complex worlds, and with it, can point to the existence of our own world too. Complexity, our complex world, can exist until then, and our existing complex world can end when all movement becomes uniform. And even our complex world could have arisen in such a way that a structure performing uniform movement ceased to be uniform.
Finally, we returned to the originally unanswered question, the origin of our material world. We do not know the origin of matter with properties, but if we assume a space that can somehow create constituent parts (matter) with similar properties, which components can be in relative motion with respect to each other, complexity will necessarily appear in this world.
The idea of space as it functions both as the foundation that contains and also creates our material world is not a foreign concept to scientific thinking, just as similar ideas exist among models of the physical foundations of our material world. Among these ideas, one such idea is the grid model described in the thoughts. If we recognize that space is actually capable of creating our experienced material world, then the question of origins is pushed back a step further and no longer relates to the origins of our material world, but seeks to explain the existence of the space that creates our material world. Hence, the most fundamental question of the existence of the world is what space is, and the most fundamental question of the origin of the world is where the space that is capable of creating and carrying our experienced world comes from.
The existence of a complex world, such as ours, can be traced back to a few general conditions. The fulfillment and termination of these conditions can result in the birth and expiration of the world carrying complexity.
No comments