Complexity Theory: a look into a not so closed closed system
Part I: Establishing the Base
Before we begin, there are a few points that need to be understood.
Point A: I am not a Complexity Theory scientist.
Point B: Complexity Theory is not a developed science.
Point C: Because I don’t have full knowledge of the field, and full knowledge of the field doesn’t even exist, a lot of this will be based purely on reasoning and logic, not empirical data. Sorry Tim.
Now, let’s start with an explanation of complexity theory. Most, if not all, of my quotes and references will come from a book entitled Simply Complexity, a clear guide to complexity theory by Neil Johnson. Therefore, I think it is fitting to start much in the same way he does.
Complexity Theory is, essentially, the reaction that occurs when you get a group of individuals competing for a limited resource. I think an example would do more than a definition though.
Imagine that you have dropped a one hundred dollar bill [in a busy shopping mall]. You organize a search-team, stating that they will all share the money when it is found. If the search-team is a large one, you will have great difficulty in coordinating everybody’s actions – hence you might never find the money. By contrast, if you tell everyone that the money is theirs if they find it, their individual selfish drive will likely be so strong that the money is found very quickly.(Johnson, 8 )
In that example, complexity theory would examine the action of the individuals searching for the money. Eventually, we hope to be able to understand what drives each individual and their interaction with each other and therefore control the situation. Take a stock market as a better example of this point. If we could understand what drives each of the individuals involved, and their interaction with each other, we could essentially stop drastic market crashes. Now, using these two examples, imagine the millions of other areas in which it could be used. Traffic jams, cancer treatment, counter terrorism, the housing market, competing companies etc. So I’m sure you now understand the vastness and usefulness of complexity theory.
Part II: Orderly Disorder, and Other Incorrect Assumptions
With the basic understanding out of the way, I want to present, explore and expand on a more specific area of complexity theory; disorder. This is where I will deviate from the book, and perhaps even disagree. But for the reader’s sake, I want to present the specific passage that caught my eye.
We have seen that a collection of objects will, in the absence of any feedback, tend to become increasingly disordered. Unfortunately, it turns out that the same is true of the Universe as a whole, and everything in it – including us.
Let me explain the background of this horrifying news. All the evidence gathered so far by scientists suggests that the Universe is isolated. It doesn’t touch anything and nothing touches it. Most importantly, there is no feedback of any kind from other Universes. In technical jargon, the Universe is a closed system – and unfortunately there is a fundamental law of physics which states that; The amount of disorder in a closed system increases as time goes by.
This tells us that no matter how hard we might try to stop it from happening, the Universe as a whole is heading towards total disorder. (Johnson, 28)
This is a chopped version, but the main point is there. We are headed for disorder. I found three basic premises in this passage and I want to lay them out, in order to prove that we are indeed headed for disorder.
Premise A: The Universe is a closed system.
Premise B: The Universe has been in existence for an extremely long amount of time.
Premise C: The amount of disorder in a closed system increases as time goes by.
Conclusion: Because the Universe is closed, and because extremely large quantities of time have gone by, the quantity of disorder must be extremely large and ever increasing.
The conclusion is where I found myself diverging from the reasoning of Mr. Johnson. Let me explain why. According to these premises, we should be in a state of disorder. Such a vast quantity of time has gone by that, statistically speaking, we should not exist. Unless the law of physics (The amount of disorder increases as time goes by) is rewritten as; The amount of disorder increases in an extremely slow and sometimes even nonexistent manner as time goes by, we have to conclude that (given the extreme amount of time that has gone by) disorder should rule right now. I, however, do not see this disorder. I look around me and I see quite the opposite in fact. What we have is a world in which civilizations thrive (maybe not thrive in some cases, but exist nonetheless), and are capable of rebuilding themselves. Take, for instance, the earthquake in Haiti. While in no way am I being insensitive, I want to point out that life will indeed go on. They will rebuild themselves. Certainly disorder ruled for a month, year, maybe even ten years, but in the end, they will resume order. This seems the exact opposite of what our conclusion is telling us though. Because the Universe is closed and disorder has been increasing for all this time, surely Haiti should not be able to reorder itself. Once something drops into chaos, it should not be able to bring itself out of it. However, time after time this proves not to be the case. Hurricane Katrina, Haiti, every war ever fought. The point is, there is chaos. But it is not the fundamental state of being. In fact, it seems that order is the state of being, and disorder simply intrudes on it sometimes. So the conclusion we have reached is that our previous conclusion is incorrect. Therefore, one of the premises has to be incorrect. The surprising part, though, is which one exactly.
Let’s start with premise B. The Universe has been in existence for an extremely long amount of time. While this is certainly an ongoing debate between theologians and secular scientists, we are going to grant them this premise based on the empirical data of carbon dating. Exactly how long ago is under question though. The most common response is between 13 and 15 billion years ago. Either way, the Universe has been in existence for a long time.
Premise C: The amount of disorder in a closed system increases as time goes by. This one is most easily proven with a simple example. Take five molecules, and put them in a five inch by five inch box. The molecules are going to randomly fly around, and definitely won’t arrange themselves into a pretty pentagon shape. Now imagine that you have five million molecules in a five foot by five foot box. The longer you leave them in there, the less likely you are to find them in their original position. So without going into technical detail, we assume the law of physics is indeed a law.
So that leaves premise A. The Universe is a closed system. From our previous work, we have concluded that the conclusion is wrong, but premise B and C are correct. Therefore, premise A must be incorrect. Not only must premise A be incorrect though, we must somehow come to understand the force or forces acting on the Universe. So let’s break it down. If the Universe is maintaining order, there must be a force (or forces) causing this order. The first step is to determine whether it is A. one force or B. two or more forces. Let’s assume that it’s fifteen different forces acting on the Universe. The problem now is that these forces, because they are competing for a limited resource (maintaining balance in the Universe), are going to act in a way that will benefit them. This will, essentially, create a whole new level of complexity which will have to be governed by a whole new series of forces. This will turn into a vicious never ending cycle. So because a complex system cannot govern a complex system, without having an entirely different complex system governing it, the Universe cannot have multiple governing forces. Please allow me to elaborate. Let’s say, you and a group of 14 are put in charge of fixing a stock market crash. You all get together and immediately start arguing about how to best go about it. You have a few people with good intentions arguing with the selfish ones. You have a few dumb people arguing with the intelligent ones. The point is, a complex system has been created in order to solve a complex system. While eventually, the stock market may be restored, it will be untimely and extremely consequential. The amount of damage done will perhaps even overshadow the success of fixing it. Now take the stock market, and add a billion more variables into it. Imagine having a complex system try to solve that complex system. It would never work. Therefore, in order to govern an extreme complex system (like the Universe) you must only have one governing force. Now that we have proven that there is one force acting on the Universe, we can begin to dissect what this one force must be like. Take into consideration that a force of this magnitude is going to have possibly infinite amounts of characteristics, and I in no way intend to cover all of them. I do, however, want to point out some of its characteristics and draw some parallels. Let’s begin.
Part III: The (real) Force
Characteristics of The Force which governs our Universe
A. It must be separate from our Universe.
In order for a force to be able to govern our Universe, it must be separate from our Universe. An example is our best bet here. Imagine that you are stuck in a traffic jam, and someone puts you in charge of un-jamming the jam. From your perch inside the jam, there is no way you would be able to whom to do what. Certainly you can do it, call a helicopter for a view from above, call each driver and tell him what to do, etc. But because you would be involving other factors competing for the same result, you would create another complex system, and as we have pointed out, complex systems cannot solve complex systems.
B. It must be incredibly intelligent.
This is a given. You cannot have a random force telling things what to do. It must be able to discern what needs to be done, and it needs to be able to process large quantities of information instantaneously.
C. It must be capable of producing and feeding energy.
In order for a system to come out of disorder, energy must be pumped in. In order for a car to move, it must have gas in it. The difference is, in our universe, the force puts energy in as opposed to us putting the energy in. The problem with energy though, is the waste produced. Gas produces fumes which create disorder in the ecosystem. Therefore:
D. It must be capable of producing and feeding perfectly clean energy.
The Force must be able to pump energy in without creating any sort of waste. Imagine if cars ran purely on water. You put H2O in; it uses pressure created by that water and then releases pure H2O. This is what The Force would have to do, except I doubt the Universe runs on Water.
E. It must be able to feed this energy in a way that it sees fit.
In the same way that if we put gasoline into our windshield wiper fluid nothing would happen, The Force must be able to put gas in the gas tank, so to speak. This goes hand in hand with B.
F. It must be capable of producing order through its feeding of energy.
Even if we put gas into our tanks, we cannot un-jam a jam this way. The Force must be able to put the precise amount of energy, in a way that will cause a reaction, into an object to bring about order.
We now have a list of characteristics of The Force which governs our Universe. Now, however, I want to delve deep into a specific part of The Force; order. We understand that it is The Force which brings about order into our Universe. Can we learn anything about this Force by examining the order it brings then? I have to say yes.
Part IV: From Star Wars to The Synoptics; Putting it all Together.
At this point, I would like to present my final (and most significant) theory. First, let’s sum up what we know as a series of premises.
Premise A: The Universe is an open system.
Premise B: There is only one acting force on the Universe, which maintains all order.
Premise C: This acting force must be intelligent, independent from the Universe, and omnipotent.
The conclusion is my theory.
Conclusion: YHWH, the God of Christianity, is The Force.
Now let me be clear. The jump from the premises to the conclusion is not the most obvious or even logical one. It is going to require quite a bit of rationing and stepping to get from premise to conclusion. So if you have yet to lose interest (for which I would not blame you at all) just hold out for a few more points and we will achieve a rational proof of the existence of YHWH
We are going to skip premise A, as it is not relevant to the who question. Let’s start at premise B. There is only one acting force on the Universe, which maintains all order. To prove that God is this force, I’m going to present two cases. Case A: Hear O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. In accordance with the theory that there can only be one Force, the LORD God is only one God. For this reason, all polytheistic religions, all dualist religions and all pantheistic religions are thrown out. This alone narrows it down significantly. But Jehovah is One God. Case B: The entire account of Genesis. Creation ex nihilo and with no negative release (think carbon release from cars), bringing order out of disorder, creating of a system which maintains order etc. Jehovah created energy with no side effect, created order and maintains order.
Premise C. This acting force must be intelligent, independent from the Universe and omnipotent. Again, I will use Biblical references in order to prove this premise to be Jehovah. The first part, must be intelligent, is seen in 1st Corinthians 1:19: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate. In order to frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent, you must be of supreme intelligence. Think about it this way. In order to beat the New York Yankees, you have to be better than them at the game of baseball. In the same way, God is smarter than the smartest human (which even that does His intelligence no justice). The second part, Independent from the Universe, cannot be proven with a certain scripture. Actually, let me rephrase that. To my knowledge, there is no scripture which says explicitly, God is independent from the Universe. Now if I’m wrong, please correct me, as that would only strengthen my argument. However, because I still want to prove this, I will go about it in a logical manner. In order to create something, you cannot be part of that which you create. For, if you were a part of it, you could not have existed when it did not exist and therefore could not have caused it to come into existence. If I am a page in a book, how can I create the ink and paper, which is what I am? This is certainly not the easiest thought to put on paper, but I think the gist is there. If God is part of the Universe, how could He exist before the Universe existed? He couldn’t have. Therefore, God is separate from the Universe. Finally, the force must be omnipotent. In the book of Job, we see the clearest demonstration of God’s power. Starting in chapter 38, God begins a list of rhetorical questions. Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Who shut the sea behind doors? Have you ever given orders to the morning? Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Job then replies: I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. Based purely on authoritative knowledge we can prove that God is omnipotent.
So in conclusion to this section, there is no other being that fits the description of The Force. Oddly enough, YHWH holds up to all scrutiny, and matches all of the characteristics that are necessary for a force which brings order to the Universe.
Part V: Conclusion: What does it all mean?
So far we have identified what complexity theory is, we have looked in depth at complexity theories closed Universe, and we have determined that this closed system is actually not closed, but governed by an individual, whom we identified as Jehovah. So essentially, what we have come to, is yet another non-empirical proof of the existence of God. While it is certainly a broad exploration, and as such very susceptible to holes in our logic, it gives a stable foundation off of which you can reason, for yourself, the existence of God. However, because there is no way (yet) to empirically prove this method, it will still be cast aside by atheists and some agnostics. I hope, however, that it will become a tool with which we can have, at least slightly, intelligent discussions with our scientific friends.
