Progressive Chaotic Complexity, not Randomness
16th January 2014
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
Progressive Chaotic Complexity, not Randomness
Effectively complexity begets more complexity, because it has to. [It is inevitable].
It does this not as a straight progression of probability, but as a biased built in bias, as a consequence of the structures and additional qualities (properties, attributes, variables, dimensions and the like that do not "Exist" in the subunits of the new complex structures.
Note :-[The new complexity still retains all the qualities (properties, attributes, variables, dimensions and the like that already do "Exist" in the subunits of the new complex structures.
But they attain these new "properties" as well, by what I call "Step Level Complexity Progression"
Because of this "Step Level Complexity Progression", I say you can not use simple randomness probabilities to predict the probabilities of something occurring based on pure randomness.
Where this (Step Level Complexity) applies, your answers will be wrong, or just inaccurate.
Note : - [This accuracy will be dependant on your scale of exactitude, and may not make any practical difference to your intended outcome (which is fine). But it would be based on a completely different footing].
Complexity is based on levels or layers (I will define what I mean by "levels" and "layers", a bit later), and within a layer of complexity (sometimes I call a scale), you can use normal probabilities and randomness, as long as all the variables just reside in that layer.
With these probabilities the range will be the normal 100% to 0%, but as specified you are just simplifying the mathematics to suit your purposes for that level.
If on the other hand you are actually trying to compute all variables from different layers of complexity the range will never achieve the normal 100% or 0%, (I will clarify later, but I need to explain how the mechanism of the "Step Level Complexity Progression" actually proceeds first).
Note : - [You can have 100% or 0%, because your theoretical mathematics tells you so, but there is an apparent paradox when you apply this to anything "Real" in this Universe. Once you realise or know the difference between the two concepts, there is no "Real" absolute 100%, nor any "Real" 0%, except one, in which you can make the theoretical statement "If I consider 100% of the entire Universe as one", (yet, again, this needs quite a few concepts to be clarified, hopefully sufficiently later)].
I will give a little hint that may help some to carry on reading (always remember, go for tea break, and let the good bits sink in, and don't chuck out the good bits with the bad thoughts).
If you say something like I am going to take all the marbles you have. You see the other person has 100 marbles, you do the calculation and then say if I take those marbles I will have 100% of his marbles. You take 100 marbles from the other person.
Now, "Do you truly have 100% of his marbles?"
Well as always, I see an apparent paradox, (which I then try and solve).
The answer to this question is : - it depends if you want to know the whole truth, if not, then you will believe you have all his marbles and your answer will be yes. But then, you may, or may not, be 100% correct. If you do truly have all his marbles then you are correct in your initial assumptions, but if you made any errors in your initial assumptions, you are (100%, may need clarifying later for some) wrong in assuming you are right.
I now tell you something you didn't know when you did your initial calculations, that he had hidden in his pockets another 10 marbles.
Now: - you have 100 marbles, he has 10 marbles.
Now, I ask again "Do you truly have 100% of his marbles?"
Now go for tea break. I am going for tea as well. Things will start to fall into place when I get back.
In the meantime enjoy your tea break.
I'm back.
Note : - [My aim is to always try and explain the concepts first, which is in the abstract. Then try and use abstract "Real" things as examples, then give examples of "Actual" "Real" things or situations, (a bit of a mouthful, but just ignore it for now, it will make sense later)].
What is a layer?
I define "Layer" as : - Anything that can have a 'level' or 'levels' in it, but in terms of "Step Level Complexity Progression" it must contain all similar levels of complexity within it, that may react or influence that complexity in any way.
Note : - [This also means that it may contain a level of complexity from a lower layer of complexity, therefore if you are considering various levels of complexity then you may have a layer that has sub layers, (again it will become more clear, with examples later)].
What is a level?
I define "Level" as : - Everything in that level is the same (in terms of complexity) and has the same properties in that complexity level, I will explain next).
Now for the explanation. [Always noteting apparent paradoxes, which need resolving, (principles I explain elsewhere).
In simple terms, we start at the bottom. (Remember keep it as simple as possible, but as complex as required). We can call this Level 1 for the moment.
(Some of you may like to start at 0, but I reserve that for no complexity, just choose, if it makes you feel better, but when we finish the concept will be the same).
[We will imagine different model Universes, where All the initial states will have the same energy, so that the Universes can run on their own].
Let us imagine our first model Universe is made of little rods, all the same, and nothing but these little rods.
These little rods we want to give some properties to, so they can create some complexity behaviour, all on their own, without any help from us.
So we start simple and say they have the property of : - no friction (slippery little rods).
The Initial state (of this first model Universe) is orderly rods.
Now we will let them get on with things, and see (observe, calculate, etc.) what complexity that they can get up to on their own. (Over a time period).
Well they can't do much, they are all the same (which we wanted anyway) they just stay as individuals all on their own (one big bunch of rods is now our (first) little Universe model).
The End state is mixed rods (distributed randomly). (At the end of a fixed length of time).
Now no matter how many times you run this little Universe it always ends up with the same level of complexity, just randomly different end positions for the rods.
(You may think that if you run this sufficiently many times you may end up with some unlikely ordered state).
So that we remember later, we are going to just call this complexity level 1.
That was boring, I hope you all expected that.
(They can't do anything, so, 1 complexity seems ok, for now, although some still prefer 0).
Now we go to another level of complexity.
We still want all our little rods to be the same, with each having the same properties, every time we create a new little model Universe.
Note : - [We do this for 2 reasons, obviously we want to keep it simple so we can understand the concepts first, but secondly I want to make you eventually understand, that it is, in theory possible, to actually come up with a model, that can actually do this for our 'Real' Universe. I explain and show you how in another Tea Break Book of mine].
Anyway back to our rods. Let us give them another property, let us say they are a 'little sticky' on their ends, and nowhere else. (All the same stickiness). (Once the ends stick together, they stay stuck).
Now what do we see?
Well from our point of view only, we can line them up like little soldiers and say the top is sticky, and the bottom is sticky. But for the little rods it is the same thing, they have no tops that are different to their bottoms, they just turn around when you are not looking and they look and feel the same. All simple so far (things will change rapidly later, but we have to remember the boring stuff first).
The Initial state (of this second model Universe) is orderly rods.
Now we leave them alone, and see if anything more complex arises that is different than the previous level 1.
Well this time they seem to have a choice (but in reality they can't help themselves, yet).
Option 2,1 they can stay as individuals, (unlikely)
or option 2,2 they can stick to another rod, end to end. (The rate of growth of the strings will be the same for all strings once a string starts)
(Top to top, bottom to bottom, top to bottom).
Now this is another level of complexity, they are doing something that the previous rods could not do (stick to each other). (Not surprising). If left to their own devices you would end up with one big clump of rods, not one rod on its own, because they would all eventually stick to at least one other rod.
The End state is mixed rods plus various lengths of paired rods (or strings, probably like long poles), (apparently distributed randomly). (At a fixed length of time).
The End of Universe as they know it. This can now be a different level of complexity. (I am not at this stage going to give it a number (I will explain).
Now no matter how many times you run this (second) little Universe it always ends up with the same level of complexity (more complex than the first), just randomly different end positions for the rods (and strings of rods).
(You may think that if you run this sufficiently many times you may end up with some unlikely ordered state).
Now let us change things again, but instead of giving them another property, I am going to stick to simple, and give them a different one, so they are still all equal, and have the same number of properties as the last rods.
This time let us say the property is that they are 'only slightly sticky on one end only'.
They will still all behave the same, (all sticky one end). (Just for clarification, because they are only slightly sticky let us say that if two sticky ends join together they stay together permanently, but if one sticky end joins to a slippery end they can come apart).
The Initial state (of this third model Universe) is orderly rods.
Let them loose, what do we observe this time?
Well this time it is something completely different.
Now if you were to line them up like soldiers, they would have a different top to a different bottom. (Only one end is sticky).
They could do one of three things now,
option 3,1 stay alone, (unlikely)
option 3,2 join with another in pairs (bottoms to bottoms).
(Only bottoms, let us say for consistency, that it is the bottom that is sticky)
or option 3,3 they could start making strings of rods, (bottoms stuck to tops). (The rate of growth of the strings will be different than our second model once a string starts). (It has one sticky end and one slippery end).
Now it may not seem that much complexity can occur, but it can, so let us look a little closer at 4 final outcomes (options).
Final results.
Option 3,1. They are very happy, and due to an incorrect probability that will never occur (especially when you realise what "Step Level Complexity Progression" is about), although pure probabilities can predict such an outcome. They all decide to stay alone.
End of Universe. (Single rods). No more complex than our first model.
Option 3,2. They start alone but over time they all pair up one with each other.
End of Universe. (Only pairs of rods).
Option 3,3. They start alone but over the course of the Universe they all get used up. At the end of this Universe there are no individuals left. (They are sticky at one end so they will eventually stick to another rod and form stings of rods).
End of Universe. (Varying lengths of strings).
When they finish pairing at the end of their Universe, in option 3,2, what do we see?
Well simply that there is now half as many rods as before, because they have paired up, but that they are twice as long (obviously, because two have joined), and slippery both ends.
But now you must ask the question : - "Is this complexity at the end, any more complex than the beginning"?
As usual I have introduced (I didn't really introduce it, it was there all along, I am just pointing it out) there are apparent paradoxes in this question.
From the point of view of the little rods, they all started as single little rods (I didn't specify how long to start with) so at the end, you still end up with single rods (I know you now know that they are twice as long, but if you had no reference between one Universe and another (and I am not saying that there are no others at this stage, remember keep it simple) you could not tell the difference. In terms of complexity a rod is a rod, they are all single at the beginning, absolutely no different from the very beginning of our very first model. Single rods with no sticky ends (slippery things).
So they would therefore react in the same manner as our original (first) model, and do nothing from then on (distributed randomly).
End of Universe. Complexity exactly the same as our original Universe.
Now, is the time for a tea break, and some biscuits. Do not read the note below before your tea break. (Any of my Tea Break readers should know what I mean by now). I will continue with the more interesting option 3,4 after tea.
Note : - [Side note for anyone that has read any of my other Tea Break Books. When I say you have to distinguish between "Real" and abstract, people think they understand what I have said, but I know they don't appreciate the significance of it because they don't see all the apparent paradoxes. E.g. When someone tries to work out a really unlikely probability of some event, I know they are going to come up with some strange number in billions upon billions upon..... lots of trailing zeros behind it. They will then conclude that how on earth have we got here by this vast unlikely number, or the opposite that the likelihood of that happening is so so so small, but all the while they believe it is theoretically possible. I just think the answer is that it will be inevitable for the first option and never on the second option. 100% of the time, (i.e. theoretically impossible on both ends of the scale). Remember readers apparent paradoxes. The timing is what is important, and that is another Tea Break Book, explaining the different dimensions of time)].
Anyone who has not read any of my other Tea Break Books, should not have read this, or the previous note, before their tea break.
Final result.
Option 3,4. There is a mix of the above 3 options.
What happens here is part of what really happens.
What can happen?
Simple, options within options.
All individuals stay individual to the end. (Already said unlikely). (Complexity 1).
All individuals pair up. (Complexity 1).
All individuals form long strings (end to end).
(At a fixed rate of growth, Complexity 1). (One end sticky, other end not).
A mix of all the above.
It at first looks as if the first two options are the same as the first two models, which is basically correct, and now it seems that we have just added a third option, which is basically also correct.
So your first assumption may be just as things get more complicated, they just get more complicated to follow, also correct. Looks like a nice progression of complexity, and it would seem reasonable to work out normal probabilities. All this complexity is one layer of complexity.
But now look at what happens when we leave them to do their own thing.
All three models had the same number of properties at the beginning, just one slightly different from the other.
Would it not be reasonable to believe that the end result will end up with a similar level of complexity as the other two first options (models)?
Let us not answer that until we observe what could happen.
Of the options within options, one should know that you will never get an end result of 100% of just one of these. Obviously no one can accept this, not even myself, without further explanation, that will follow later. In the meantime we believe that anything is possible, even though extremely unlikely.
We expect an end result which will be a variable mix of all three options with varying probabilities.
What really happens?
Firstly we can get a mix of some of these options, which is the starting point, but what happens by the end of this little Universe. Once they get going, something else starts to happen that was not apparent in the beginning (obviously being a very simple Universe you will be able to work it out). But what is interesting is that at the end.
(In the "Real" Universe there is no such end, but then that is in another Tea Break Book).
To be fair to our little models, and for simplicity of comparison for us, let us pretend we understand time, and give them an equal amount of time to do their thing on their own. So if one model ends, then we stop and compare them at that stage. Otherwise if one continues it could assumably get more complicated because it had more time to do it.
Off they go, they all start as expected, individuals start getting used up, expected as before, some pair, expected as before, some start forming strings, expected yet again. Everything going to plan, complexity mixing.
So if you progress to the end, when all individuals are used up, (for the same reasons as before) you could just expect a mixture of all three types, of various degrees, every time you started again, you would get a different mix of these three forms, each time a different mix, but the same level of complexity. (Complexity 1).
Now before I give you a little bit more information, the end result, at the end of the same period of time, for each Universe, the complexity would be of a similar complexity, (but a different result of course for every time you let them start again, with the same initial conditions), because they all started with one property and ended up with similar properties or the same number of properties, more or less at the end, (generally just more complex at the end).
But if we try and analyse this a bit more, this is not what is actually going to happen.
What happens?
OK, let us go and see, off they go again, suddenly a new thing is created, that didn't happen with the first two Universes, one of the individual rods terminates the string at one end of a string (in the second model, rods stuck to both ends, both ends sticky and both ends stayed sticky). Now from this point on, this individual string is different to the other strings (it now has two ends that are slippery, it had one end slippery and one end sticky) it is now growing at a different rate than all the others. If you remember in the (second) double end sticky Universe, they would all be sticking at both ends of any string at the same rate, therefore all the strings that are created will be growing at the same rate and would over time be approximately similar in length at the end. You are still going to get variations in the number of strings that are formed every time you run that little Universe, but there will be similar distributions in length.
This is not what happens here. Every single loose individual at any time during the course of this little Universe can terminate any string and change its rate of growth. (Having one sticky end will grow faster than no sticky ends). The end result of any run of this Universe will end up with a vast number, (stick as many noughts that make you happy at the end of it), such that instead of having billions of SIMILAR lengths of strings in different proportions , you will end up with billions of DIFFERENT lengths of strings in different proportions. (I know some of you knew that, so no real surprise).
Now this may not sound much, but before, when they where similar, and the Universe ended, they all had similar properties. Let us highlight a property we are going to call length.
Because this is still within normal probabilities, and is still level 1, it is difficult to explain the next step. But think of it like this, in terms of time, and make it simple, and say we are only going to look at strings in both examples (i.e. A string is formed now or later), but everything is going to be a string at the end. To simplify this even further without going into statistics, let us say in both examples that the same number of strings start at the same time in both Universes. So we don't get into the confusion that there will be a different number of strings in each Universe.
Making it absolutely clear. If one universe ends up with a billion strings at the end the other will also have a billion strings at the end, and both let us say half a billon half way.
Option 3,4,1. The growth rate is always constant and fixed (at both ends).
In the first half of the Universe any strings that start in this first half would all grow at the same rate in the second half, whatever length they already had at that time, they would all grow longer in the same proportions, none of these strings can be short.
The only strings that can end up short are the ones that statistically got away (in theory) these can only grow in the second half, again once formed, again growing in the same proportions to the end.
You should see that you will end up with a lot more long strings than short strings at the end.
Option 3,4,2. The growth rate is always fixed but can be changed at any time for any individual string, by an individual rod, at any time from the beginning to the end of the Universe.
Now from the very beginning you can get terminating strings, and everything in the terminating strings will have a different rate of growth, both in the first half and in the second half of the Universe.
For all the strings terminating during this Universe example (option 3,4,2), every single one of the them will be shorter than the corresponding string in the other Universe (option 3,4,1). So you will get a higher proportion of shorter strings. (The statisticians are going to have a field day here), because if we really did this experiment you would end up with a similar distribution curve in the end.
This result is due to time. What would happen in actual fact is the one that didn't slow down would end and the other would keep on going, because it was growing slower it would take longer to end.
What is my point? unfortunately because I am writing this on the go, I have realised too many apparent paradoxes have appeared, to make my point clear.
In any event you can see they grow at different speeds, so one stunts growth or complexity and the other doesn't, so the outcome will change with time.
If I could explain it more clearly, what ends up happening is that new structures are created with new properties that create a different level and speed up complexity and make it inevitable and not just probable.
In the first model all rods began slippery both ends and ended slippery both ends.
In the second model all rods began sticky both ends and ended sticky both ends.
In the third model all rods began sticky one end only and ended up with either one of the above options (option 3,1 & 3,2) or sticky one end only option 3,4,1. But option 3,4,2 ended up with some slippery both ends, some sticky one end only, and both had different lengths every time.
As time proceeds 3,4,2 becomes more and more likely, new properties emerge, I.e. Complexity has to occur.
In models 1 & 2 time does not increase any property, the complexity stays the same, only the positions change.
You have to see the 'Real' model to see how easy it does create new properties that create new levels of complexity and therefore more complexity is inevitable with ³Time.
24th January 2015
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
I changed a few things above, but I am not happy with it. Another example where a new property is created that did not exist in the level below. An individual brick (lower level) does not have the property of a building within it. But buildings can be created by bricks, which then creates new properties such as windows (level higher).
Dark energy (lower level) has no light, but it creates the property of light (higher level).
5th January 2017
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
The 'APE's which are the dynamic quantum spaces that I use to build the 'Real' Universe have a property that they are their own opposite half of the ²time(not ³time temporal time).
Individually they are not chiral, which means you can't distinguish a left or right handed 'APE' over ³time, but as a complex of 'APE's you can get fixed left or right handed complexes that don't change over ³time. These can then complex even further to form left right spins, ups and downs, etc.
Morph your mind with Morphological at
apepes.com
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
Progressive Chaotic Complexity, not Randomness
Effectively complexity begets more complexity, because it has to. [It is inevitable].
It does this not as a straight progression of probability, but as a biased built in bias, as a consequence of the structures and additional qualities (properties, attributes, variables, dimensions and the like that do not "Exist" in the subunits of the new complex structures.
Note :-[The new complexity still retains all the qualities (properties, attributes, variables, dimensions and the like that already do "Exist" in the subunits of the new complex structures.
But they attain these new "properties" as well, by what I call "Step Level Complexity Progression"
Because of this "Step Level Complexity Progression", I say you can not use simple randomness probabilities to predict the probabilities of something occurring based on pure randomness.
Where this (Step Level Complexity) applies, your answers will be wrong, or just inaccurate.
Note : - [This accuracy will be dependant on your scale of exactitude, and may not make any practical difference to your intended outcome (which is fine). But it would be based on a completely different footing].
Complexity is based on levels or layers (I will define what I mean by "levels" and "layers", a bit later), and within a layer of complexity (sometimes I call a scale), you can use normal probabilities and randomness, as long as all the variables just reside in that layer.
With these probabilities the range will be the normal 100% to 0%, but as specified you are just simplifying the mathematics to suit your purposes for that level.
If on the other hand you are actually trying to compute all variables from different layers of complexity the range will never achieve the normal 100% or 0%, (I will clarify later, but I need to explain how the mechanism of the "Step Level Complexity Progression" actually proceeds first).
Note : - [You can have 100% or 0%, because your theoretical mathematics tells you so, but there is an apparent paradox when you apply this to anything "Real" in this Universe. Once you realise or know the difference between the two concepts, there is no "Real" absolute 100%, nor any "Real" 0%, except one, in which you can make the theoretical statement "If I consider 100% of the entire Universe as one", (yet, again, this needs quite a few concepts to be clarified, hopefully sufficiently later)].
I will give a little hint that may help some to carry on reading (always remember, go for tea break, and let the good bits sink in, and don't chuck out the good bits with the bad thoughts).
If you say something like I am going to take all the marbles you have. You see the other person has 100 marbles, you do the calculation and then say if I take those marbles I will have 100% of his marbles. You take 100 marbles from the other person.
Now, "Do you truly have 100% of his marbles?"
Well as always, I see an apparent paradox, (which I then try and solve).
The answer to this question is : - it depends if you want to know the whole truth, if not, then you will believe you have all his marbles and your answer will be yes. But then, you may, or may not, be 100% correct. If you do truly have all his marbles then you are correct in your initial assumptions, but if you made any errors in your initial assumptions, you are (100%, may need clarifying later for some) wrong in assuming you are right.
I now tell you something you didn't know when you did your initial calculations, that he had hidden in his pockets another 10 marbles.
Now: - you have 100 marbles, he has 10 marbles.
Now, I ask again "Do you truly have 100% of his marbles?"
Now go for tea break. I am going for tea as well. Things will start to fall into place when I get back.
In the meantime enjoy your tea break.
I'm back.
Note : - [My aim is to always try and explain the concepts first, which is in the abstract. Then try and use abstract "Real" things as examples, then give examples of "Actual" "Real" things or situations, (a bit of a mouthful, but just ignore it for now, it will make sense later)].
What is a layer?
I define "Layer" as : - Anything that can have a 'level' or 'levels' in it, but in terms of "Step Level Complexity Progression" it must contain all similar levels of complexity within it, that may react or influence that complexity in any way.
Note : - [This also means that it may contain a level of complexity from a lower layer of complexity, therefore if you are considering various levels of complexity then you may have a layer that has sub layers, (again it will become more clear, with examples later)].
What is a level?
I define "Level" as : - Everything in that level is the same (in terms of complexity) and has the same properties in that complexity level, I will explain next).
Now for the explanation. [Always noteting apparent paradoxes, which need resolving, (principles I explain elsewhere).
In simple terms, we start at the bottom. (Remember keep it as simple as possible, but as complex as required). We can call this Level 1 for the moment.
(Some of you may like to start at 0, but I reserve that for no complexity, just choose, if it makes you feel better, but when we finish the concept will be the same).
[We will imagine different model Universes, where All the initial states will have the same energy, so that the Universes can run on their own].
Let us imagine our first model Universe is made of little rods, all the same, and nothing but these little rods.
These little rods we want to give some properties to, so they can create some complexity behaviour, all on their own, without any help from us.
So we start simple and say they have the property of : - no friction (slippery little rods).
The Initial state (of this first model Universe) is orderly rods.
Now we will let them get on with things, and see (observe, calculate, etc.) what complexity that they can get up to on their own. (Over a time period).
Well they can't do much, they are all the same (which we wanted anyway) they just stay as individuals all on their own (one big bunch of rods is now our (first) little Universe model).
The End state is mixed rods (distributed randomly). (At the end of a fixed length of time).
Now no matter how many times you run this little Universe it always ends up with the same level of complexity, just randomly different end positions for the rods.
(You may think that if you run this sufficiently many times you may end up with some unlikely ordered state).
So that we remember later, we are going to just call this complexity level 1.
That was boring, I hope you all expected that.
(They can't do anything, so, 1 complexity seems ok, for now, although some still prefer 0).
Now we go to another level of complexity.
We still want all our little rods to be the same, with each having the same properties, every time we create a new little model Universe.
Note : - [We do this for 2 reasons, obviously we want to keep it simple so we can understand the concepts first, but secondly I want to make you eventually understand, that it is, in theory possible, to actually come up with a model, that can actually do this for our 'Real' Universe. I explain and show you how in another Tea Break Book of mine].
Anyway back to our rods. Let us give them another property, let us say they are a 'little sticky' on their ends, and nowhere else. (All the same stickiness). (Once the ends stick together, they stay stuck).
Now what do we see?
Well from our point of view only, we can line them up like little soldiers and say the top is sticky, and the bottom is sticky. But for the little rods it is the same thing, they have no tops that are different to their bottoms, they just turn around when you are not looking and they look and feel the same. All simple so far (things will change rapidly later, but we have to remember the boring stuff first).
The Initial state (of this second model Universe) is orderly rods.
Now we leave them alone, and see if anything more complex arises that is different than the previous level 1.
Well this time they seem to have a choice (but in reality they can't help themselves, yet).
Option 2,1 they can stay as individuals, (unlikely)
or option 2,2 they can stick to another rod, end to end. (The rate of growth of the strings will be the same for all strings once a string starts)
(Top to top, bottom to bottom, top to bottom).
Now this is another level of complexity, they are doing something that the previous rods could not do (stick to each other). (Not surprising). If left to their own devices you would end up with one big clump of rods, not one rod on its own, because they would all eventually stick to at least one other rod.
The End state is mixed rods plus various lengths of paired rods (or strings, probably like long poles), (apparently distributed randomly). (At a fixed length of time).
The End of Universe as they know it. This can now be a different level of complexity. (I am not at this stage going to give it a number (I will explain).
Now no matter how many times you run this (second) little Universe it always ends up with the same level of complexity (more complex than the first), just randomly different end positions for the rods (and strings of rods).
(You may think that if you run this sufficiently many times you may end up with some unlikely ordered state).
Now let us change things again, but instead of giving them another property, I am going to stick to simple, and give them a different one, so they are still all equal, and have the same number of properties as the last rods.
This time let us say the property is that they are 'only slightly sticky on one end only'.
They will still all behave the same, (all sticky one end). (Just for clarification, because they are only slightly sticky let us say that if two sticky ends join together they stay together permanently, but if one sticky end joins to a slippery end they can come apart).
The Initial state (of this third model Universe) is orderly rods.
Let them loose, what do we observe this time?
Well this time it is something completely different.
Now if you were to line them up like soldiers, they would have a different top to a different bottom. (Only one end is sticky).
They could do one of three things now,
option 3,1 stay alone, (unlikely)
option 3,2 join with another in pairs (bottoms to bottoms).
(Only bottoms, let us say for consistency, that it is the bottom that is sticky)
or option 3,3 they could start making strings of rods, (bottoms stuck to tops). (The rate of growth of the strings will be different than our second model once a string starts). (It has one sticky end and one slippery end).
Now it may not seem that much complexity can occur, but it can, so let us look a little closer at 4 final outcomes (options).
Final results.
Option 3,1. They are very happy, and due to an incorrect probability that will never occur (especially when you realise what "Step Level Complexity Progression" is about), although pure probabilities can predict such an outcome. They all decide to stay alone.
End of Universe. (Single rods). No more complex than our first model.
Option 3,2. They start alone but over time they all pair up one with each other.
End of Universe. (Only pairs of rods).
Option 3,3. They start alone but over the course of the Universe they all get used up. At the end of this Universe there are no individuals left. (They are sticky at one end so they will eventually stick to another rod and form stings of rods).
End of Universe. (Varying lengths of strings).
When they finish pairing at the end of their Universe, in option 3,2, what do we see?
Well simply that there is now half as many rods as before, because they have paired up, but that they are twice as long (obviously, because two have joined), and slippery both ends.
But now you must ask the question : - "Is this complexity at the end, any more complex than the beginning"?
As usual I have introduced (I didn't really introduce it, it was there all along, I am just pointing it out) there are apparent paradoxes in this question.
From the point of view of the little rods, they all started as single little rods (I didn't specify how long to start with) so at the end, you still end up with single rods (I know you now know that they are twice as long, but if you had no reference between one Universe and another (and I am not saying that there are no others at this stage, remember keep it simple) you could not tell the difference. In terms of complexity a rod is a rod, they are all single at the beginning, absolutely no different from the very beginning of our very first model. Single rods with no sticky ends (slippery things).
So they would therefore react in the same manner as our original (first) model, and do nothing from then on (distributed randomly).
End of Universe. Complexity exactly the same as our original Universe.
Now, is the time for a tea break, and some biscuits. Do not read the note below before your tea break. (Any of my Tea Break readers should know what I mean by now). I will continue with the more interesting option 3,4 after tea.
Note : - [Side note for anyone that has read any of my other Tea Break Books. When I say you have to distinguish between "Real" and abstract, people think they understand what I have said, but I know they don't appreciate the significance of it because they don't see all the apparent paradoxes. E.g. When someone tries to work out a really unlikely probability of some event, I know they are going to come up with some strange number in billions upon billions upon..... lots of trailing zeros behind it. They will then conclude that how on earth have we got here by this vast unlikely number, or the opposite that the likelihood of that happening is so so so small, but all the while they believe it is theoretically possible. I just think the answer is that it will be inevitable for the first option and never on the second option. 100% of the time, (i.e. theoretically impossible on both ends of the scale). Remember readers apparent paradoxes. The timing is what is important, and that is another Tea Break Book, explaining the different dimensions of time)].
Anyone who has not read any of my other Tea Break Books, should not have read this, or the previous note, before their tea break.
Final result.
Option 3,4. There is a mix of the above 3 options.
What happens here is part of what really happens.
What can happen?
Simple, options within options.
All individuals stay individual to the end. (Already said unlikely). (Complexity 1).
All individuals pair up. (Complexity 1).
All individuals form long strings (end to end).
(At a fixed rate of growth, Complexity 1). (One end sticky, other end not).
A mix of all the above.
It at first looks as if the first two options are the same as the first two models, which is basically correct, and now it seems that we have just added a third option, which is basically also correct.
So your first assumption may be just as things get more complicated, they just get more complicated to follow, also correct. Looks like a nice progression of complexity, and it would seem reasonable to work out normal probabilities. All this complexity is one layer of complexity.
But now look at what happens when we leave them to do their own thing.
All three models had the same number of properties at the beginning, just one slightly different from the other.
Would it not be reasonable to believe that the end result will end up with a similar level of complexity as the other two first options (models)?
Let us not answer that until we observe what could happen.
Of the options within options, one should know that you will never get an end result of 100% of just one of these. Obviously no one can accept this, not even myself, without further explanation, that will follow later. In the meantime we believe that anything is possible, even though extremely unlikely.
We expect an end result which will be a variable mix of all three options with varying probabilities.
What really happens?
Firstly we can get a mix of some of these options, which is the starting point, but what happens by the end of this little Universe. Once they get going, something else starts to happen that was not apparent in the beginning (obviously being a very simple Universe you will be able to work it out). But what is interesting is that at the end.
(In the "Real" Universe there is no such end, but then that is in another Tea Break Book).
To be fair to our little models, and for simplicity of comparison for us, let us pretend we understand time, and give them an equal amount of time to do their thing on their own. So if one model ends, then we stop and compare them at that stage. Otherwise if one continues it could assumably get more complicated because it had more time to do it.
Off they go, they all start as expected, individuals start getting used up, expected as before, some pair, expected as before, some start forming strings, expected yet again. Everything going to plan, complexity mixing.
So if you progress to the end, when all individuals are used up, (for the same reasons as before) you could just expect a mixture of all three types, of various degrees, every time you started again, you would get a different mix of these three forms, each time a different mix, but the same level of complexity. (Complexity 1).
Now before I give you a little bit more information, the end result, at the end of the same period of time, for each Universe, the complexity would be of a similar complexity, (but a different result of course for every time you let them start again, with the same initial conditions), because they all started with one property and ended up with similar properties or the same number of properties, more or less at the end, (generally just more complex at the end).
But if we try and analyse this a bit more, this is not what is actually going to happen.
What happens?
OK, let us go and see, off they go again, suddenly a new thing is created, that didn't happen with the first two Universes, one of the individual rods terminates the string at one end of a string (in the second model, rods stuck to both ends, both ends sticky and both ends stayed sticky). Now from this point on, this individual string is different to the other strings (it now has two ends that are slippery, it had one end slippery and one end sticky) it is now growing at a different rate than all the others. If you remember in the (second) double end sticky Universe, they would all be sticking at both ends of any string at the same rate, therefore all the strings that are created will be growing at the same rate and would over time be approximately similar in length at the end. You are still going to get variations in the number of strings that are formed every time you run that little Universe, but there will be similar distributions in length.
This is not what happens here. Every single loose individual at any time during the course of this little Universe can terminate any string and change its rate of growth. (Having one sticky end will grow faster than no sticky ends). The end result of any run of this Universe will end up with a vast number, (stick as many noughts that make you happy at the end of it), such that instead of having billions of SIMILAR lengths of strings in different proportions , you will end up with billions of DIFFERENT lengths of strings in different proportions. (I know some of you knew that, so no real surprise).
Now this may not sound much, but before, when they where similar, and the Universe ended, they all had similar properties. Let us highlight a property we are going to call length.
Because this is still within normal probabilities, and is still level 1, it is difficult to explain the next step. But think of it like this, in terms of time, and make it simple, and say we are only going to look at strings in both examples (i.e. A string is formed now or later), but everything is going to be a string at the end. To simplify this even further without going into statistics, let us say in both examples that the same number of strings start at the same time in both Universes. So we don't get into the confusion that there will be a different number of strings in each Universe.
Making it absolutely clear. If one universe ends up with a billion strings at the end the other will also have a billion strings at the end, and both let us say half a billon half way.
Option 3,4,1. The growth rate is always constant and fixed (at both ends).
In the first half of the Universe any strings that start in this first half would all grow at the same rate in the second half, whatever length they already had at that time, they would all grow longer in the same proportions, none of these strings can be short.
The only strings that can end up short are the ones that statistically got away (in theory) these can only grow in the second half, again once formed, again growing in the same proportions to the end.
You should see that you will end up with a lot more long strings than short strings at the end.
Option 3,4,2. The growth rate is always fixed but can be changed at any time for any individual string, by an individual rod, at any time from the beginning to the end of the Universe.
Now from the very beginning you can get terminating strings, and everything in the terminating strings will have a different rate of growth, both in the first half and in the second half of the Universe.
For all the strings terminating during this Universe example (option 3,4,2), every single one of the them will be shorter than the corresponding string in the other Universe (option 3,4,1). So you will get a higher proportion of shorter strings. (The statisticians are going to have a field day here), because if we really did this experiment you would end up with a similar distribution curve in the end.
This result is due to time. What would happen in actual fact is the one that didn't slow down would end and the other would keep on going, because it was growing slower it would take longer to end.
What is my point? unfortunately because I am writing this on the go, I have realised too many apparent paradoxes have appeared, to make my point clear.
In any event you can see they grow at different speeds, so one stunts growth or complexity and the other doesn't, so the outcome will change with time.
If I could explain it more clearly, what ends up happening is that new structures are created with new properties that create a different level and speed up complexity and make it inevitable and not just probable.
In the first model all rods began slippery both ends and ended slippery both ends.
In the second model all rods began sticky both ends and ended sticky both ends.
In the third model all rods began sticky one end only and ended up with either one of the above options (option 3,1 & 3,2) or sticky one end only option 3,4,1. But option 3,4,2 ended up with some slippery both ends, some sticky one end only, and both had different lengths every time.
As time proceeds 3,4,2 becomes more and more likely, new properties emerge, I.e. Complexity has to occur.
In models 1 & 2 time does not increase any property, the complexity stays the same, only the positions change.
You have to see the 'Real' model to see how easy it does create new properties that create new levels of complexity and therefore more complexity is inevitable with ³Time.
24th January 2015
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
I changed a few things above, but I am not happy with it. Another example where a new property is created that did not exist in the level below. An individual brick (lower level) does not have the property of a building within it. But buildings can be created by bricks, which then creates new properties such as windows (level higher).
Dark energy (lower level) has no light, but it creates the property of light (higher level).
5th January 2017
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
The 'APE's which are the dynamic quantum spaces that I use to build the 'Real' Universe have a property that they are their own opposite half of the ²time(not ³time temporal time).
Individually they are not chiral, which means you can't distinguish a left or right handed 'APE' over ³time, but as a complex of 'APE's you can get fixed left or right handed complexes that don't change over ³time. These can then complex even further to form left right spins, ups and downs, etc.
Morph your mind with Morphological at
apepes.com
