Live data from Hacker News

Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex

quantamagazine.org

41–50 of 109 posts

Re: Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex

#41
post #38

Tried reading the paper [1]. I understand the authors are academics, which is why I'm surprised the paper reads like a layman's attempt at a contributing to a "theory of everything", or at best, an inquiry written by a 18th century European philosopher of science. - "identification of conceptual equivalencies among disparate phenomena were foundational to developing previous laws of nature" - what exactly is a "conce…

I think speculative science always starts out as philosophy. This is as true now as it was in the 18th century. If you look at any thinker on the edge of human understanding you'll find something similar (e.g. I was reading Michael Levin's stuff on bioelectricity recently and it also has a heavy dose of philosophy).

I don't really have an issue with any of the points you raised - why do they bother you?

The interesting stuff is the discussion about "functional information" later in the paper, which is their proposed quantitative measure for understanding the evolution of complexity (although it seems like early stages for the theory).

It's "just" a slight generalisation of the ideas of evolution but it applies to nonbiological systems and they can make quantitative predictions. If it turns out to be true then (for me) that is a pretty radical discovery.

I'm looking forward to seeing what can be demonstrated experimentally (the quanta article suggests there is some evidence now, but I haven't yet dug into it).

Re: Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex

#42

I remember reading somewhere that maybe the purpose of life is to increase entropy in the universe. If that is true and we haven't found any sound evidence of life elsewhere, I don't know.

I mean purpose is assigning too much agency, but it's relatively easy to show cells are entropy pumps - they survive by producing a lot more entropy in their environment then is recovered from dying.

Re: Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex

#43
“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.” ― Arthur Eddington, New Pathways in Science

Re: Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex

#44
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you read this? "Purpose" is a very loaded word. If life has any purpose at all, it's to reproduce and propagate one's genes. Additional entropy just sounds like an inevitable side-effect of that.

Could be. Could also be that reproduction and propagation is the inevitable side effect of that, no? We cant dissipate energy when we're dead.

Rather a way to accomplish that. Life reproducing in order to accelerate the generation of entropy, in other words.

Re: Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex

#45

I remember reading somewhere that maybe the purpose of life is to increase entropy in the universe. If that is true and we haven't found any sound evidence of life elsewhere, I don't know.

I think it was from Sean Caroll's book The Big Picture.

The statement is a category error, but that criticism distracts from the very valuable insight he does provide regarding entropy, life and complexity.

He did a series on minutephysics explaining it quite well, worth a watch. He does explain why complexity increases as entropy increases (with some additional qualification).

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoaVOjvkzQtyZF-2VpJrx...

Re: Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex

#46
post #33

The thing that is often missed in debates about entropy and Universe is that the classical notion on entropy is not compatible with General Relativity. Richard Tolman almost 100 years ago proposed an extension that was compatible. One of the consequences of that extension was a possibility of a cyclic universe. On expansion one sees that classically defined entropy increases but then it will decrease on contraction.…

There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

If I had to bet money on it, I would say it's right, especially in light of things like this: https://phys.org/news/2025-03-ai-image-recognition-universe....

Re: Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex

#47
post #38

Tried reading the paper [1]. I understand the authors are academics, which is why I'm surprised the paper reads like a layman's attempt at a contributing to a "theory of everything", or at best, an inquiry written by a 18th century European philosopher of science. - "identification of conceptual equivalencies among disparate phenomena were foundational to developing previous laws of nature" - what exactly is a "conce…

I believe model and concept can be equivalent, not sure about the required formal terminology in English.

Complexity is probably most formally modeled in entroy in thermodynamics, although it behaves in the opposite direction that these ideas and oberservations suggest it should.

It still asks questions about the reason for this complexity and there is no scientific answer aside from "propably accidental complexity".

Science is curious so it probably shouldn't be dismissed by unmet formal requirements that aren't specified. "Layman" is unspecific, so what would your requirements be exactly?

Re: Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex

#48
post #7

I'm fairly sure this is already in the usual canon of statistical mechanics. "When one compares a hotplate with and without a Benard cell apparatus on top, there is an overall increase in entropy as energy passes through the system as required by the second law, because the increase in entropy in the environment (at the heat sink) is greater than the decreases in entropy that come about by maintaining gradients withi…

The abstract heresy innuendo'd here seems to be about an increase in global (aka universal) "complexity"* (Think: no heat death!) Related to another heresy understated by qmag just this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43665831 In that case, qmag didn't (dare to?) shout loud enough that the para-particles are globally ?distinguishable.. That's like a very restricted version of TFA's claim though.. Another t…

> "correlated" or "anticorrelated" with complexity.

Also the value of entropy has different signs in thermodynamics and computer science for example. Not helpful either...

Re: Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stafford Beers, " The Purpose of a System is What it Does (POSIWID) ", very hot right now.. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

When Beers says: > According to the cybernetician the purpose of a system is what it does... The "according to the cybernetician" part makes it pretty clear that we're now entering some kind of abstract space that cares not for the stated intentions of humans. It seems that what's "very hot right now" is to ignore the first part. I think it's an especially reasonable position to take when the system in question has n…

> we're now entering some kind of abstract space that cares not for the stated intentions of humans

But that's the thing about systems: they may involve humans but they don't necessarily reflect the intentions of the individual humans involved. Even when a system is created with a stated intent (i.e. for a stated purpose) that doesn't mean it will actually behave in a way that aligns with this intent. Logically you then shouldn't take the human intent into consideration when analyzing a system's actual effects and outcomes (except to determine whether it aligns with those but that's secondary).

IOW the purpose of a system (i.e. "what it exists for") can be different from the purpose for which it was created (i.e. "what it is meant to do"). I guess "purpose" in this case is an overloaded term because the former more uses a meaning that more closely aligns with "function" (like the function of a predator in an ecosystem may be controlling prey population but that doesn't suggest intent nor design) and the latter uses a meaning that more closely aligns with "intent" (like during wildfires controlled burns are performed with the intent of stopping the spread of the wildfire).

But I'd say it's a stretch to apply this to statements like "the purpose of organisms is to increase entropy" because that strongly implies intent rather than function (because the latter could also be simply expressed as "organisms create entropy").

Re: Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex

#50

The law of increasing complexity holds at least for the software that I write, so yeah—plausible...

Software complexity can decrease though. Very, very unlikely, but there is the possibility of the 12 year old kid from the internet that does a better job than you despite your hard work and long professinal career.
Post reply on HN