5. Galton's Message from the Ivory Tower

Sir Francais Galton was a Statistician who's work has speckled our history from the mid 1800's, to the early 1900's. He was the half-cousin of Charles Darwin, the father of Evolution. This influenced his perspective in such an interesting way. He believed that because of their common ancestry, they were better equipped to handle scientific postulation. That they were bred at a higher echelon of the genetic totem pole. He did not favor the minds of what he considered lesser people. He felt that the working class was incapable of taking part in representative democracy. Near the turn of the century, he set out to prove this. Ironically, he showed something of the contrary.

Galton wished to show that if people could not answer a seemingly easy question, that they could not be enlightened enough to offer up a vote in politics. He tested this by attending a livestock fair. At this fair was a contest which asked its contestants to guess the weight of an ox for a prize. However it would amuse me to know of his own guess. At any rate he must have believed this was a sufficient example to test lesser persons. He proceeded to record each contestant's guess, 800 in total. He was happy to find that each of the 800 individuals failed to guess the weight of the ox. However that was to change as he did what any good statistician would do with a large data set. Upon plotting the data, he noticed a striking resemblance to something he did not expect to see. What he found was that the data produced the Cumulative Distribution Function of the Normal Distribution! For those of you who don't know, the Normal Distribution is the bell curve. Taking the mean of the guesses yielded an approximation of the right answer.

Given some personal incentive, every participant offered up what they thought to be the right solution to the problem. All of which were wrong. However, together the group seemed to know the weight of the ox. How is this possible? Is this some kind of validation for collectivism? There is wisdom of crowds, but this does not validate collectivism. Rather it bolsters the contrary. Each participant had a personal incentive to guess the correct solution to the problem. A personal incentive is indicative of a want for personal gain. This however does not answer my question of how this is possible. Although, the clues to the answer of that question lie in what the data revealed. The Normal Distribution comes up all throughout nature. Why? I don't think anyone really knows why. Why does pi have the value that it does? Because it works? That to me seems like a half answer.

Consider the problem of being a tree. That is, the problem all life encounters which is persistence. What if there was only one solution to the problem of being a tree? There would only be one way in which to distribute your branches. One type of leaf to collect sunlight. One way in which to network your roots to provide stability and extract nourishment. Is it not obvious why this is not the case? Even within a species, variability provides adaptability in order to broaden your chances of survival as a species. More so, there is not one species of tree. Why? For the objective idea that is a tree to persist, would it not be beneficial to provide your own competition? This argument could go either way. However when discussing the persistence of the biological concept of what a tree is objectively, the concept enhances its survivability drastically by providing diversity within itself. This means that multiple species can better preserve the biological concept that is a tree while never attaining that objective reality. Not to sound cliche', but this brings new meaning to the phrase, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." Each species offers up its own solution to the problem of being a tree. Each in effect gets the problem wrong, but together and yet independently, the tree may forever exist.

Often Free Marketeers offer up the argument of the invisible hand, regulating prices, correcting investments and providing the most stable market place. While many would argue against such a statement, many overlook the subtleties of how the market produces prices for particular products. In the same light of the argument of the previous paragraph, consider the problem of being a product. Is there only one way in which you are produced? No. Each competitor offers up its own solution to the problem of producing a product. The result being a variance in costs and so a variance in price. This also implies a variance in the level of quality of the product and the demographic for which it favors the most. Much like competing species of trees which share the same canopy, each independent solution fills a niche' by means of doing so most efficiently. The same phenomena occurs in the market. This competition for efficiency gradually produces lower prices from lower costs given a sufficient amount of resources. Together, competitors forever strive to reach an unattainable equilibrium of prices independent of one another. Obviously the market is much more sophisticated than this, but at its basics, this generalization gives us some insights into the distribution of variance within an Evolutionary System.

I have stated before that I believe an Evolutionary System to contain a sufficient amount of variation within itself. That a probability distribution would best represent such a system. I have also stated that Evolutionary Systems evolve and diversify according to rules precedent in Thermodynamics. That, evolution has more to do with how energy is distributed throughout a system, than it does with the result of this process. What probability distribution would best represent an Evolutionary System?

The Heat Equation is a partial differential equation which models how heat is distributed through a given medium with given boundary conditions and source of heat. The boundary conditions show how insulated the medium is. In fact you may recognize some of this language. All throughout my previous posts, I have been making a case for the Heat Equation to be my prime candidate for analytically testing my ideas. It wasn't until this past year that I learned something which I hold to be semi-conclusive in my assumptions. The solution of the Heat Equation is a multivariate of the Normal Distribution. Another interesting property of the Normal Distribution is that it is one of the distributions which reflects the Principle of Maximum Entropy. While the Principle of Maximum Entropy is reserved mainly for application in Information Theory, I believe the arguments there have great merits here for I believe even abstracts such as Information are also Evolutionary Systems. For a few years now, I have been asking myself where I should begin searching for a proper representation of a probability distribution, and yet here under my nose was my first best guess.

The moral of story here is that the best solution to any one problem is all solutions no matter how wrong each of them are. Let me elaborate and bring into focus my choice for the title of this post. No matter how enlightened a person or group is, they can never fully achieve what is to be an absolute solution to any one problem. When we provide solutions, we provide them with some degree of error always. Chaos Theory shows us that when we assume a solution to be accurate to within some degree of error, under iteration the error can grow in magnitude to be that of the solution itself. This concept is known as Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions, or what is commonly referred to as the Butterfly Effect. So to assume that your enlightened solution can provide lasting relief to any given problem is ridiculous. Over time, as the solution is processed through the feedback loop of generations, the solution will become distorted. As the solution becomes more and more distorted, the probability that it creates more problems increases.

We often hear of the idea that global problems must have global solutions. This is an oxymoron. There can never be a single solution to a global problem which will not present us with future global problems. Meaning global solutions will always present us with more global problems. Problems are resolved most efficiently at more local levels with higher degrees of efficiency because when local solutions fail drastically, the probability that they have drastic repercussions on larger scale environments is very small. If my farm this summer fails, it will only affect myself and maybe some of my closest friends who may receive the fruits of my labor. The probability that it will affect the global market is nearly nil. However when a nation subsidizes, mandates and regulates the Farming Industry, this could have greater implications. The problem inherit with doing so never comes into being until these national solutions fail. The probability that this drastically affects the global market must be higher than if my own personal farm failed. This example illustrates very plainly the cons of collective solutions.

My argument here is that no one can fully understand what the absolute solution is, because that kind of certainty does not exist. The absolute solution can only ever be approximated, whether it be at local or global degrees. The ramifications of those solutions are better distributed at more local levels, insuring society with a sense of stability. Be weary of the solutions which the Ivory Tower presents us. They are naturally distanced from reality. Some may argue here that because of our population size and voter turn out, that we are offering approximate solutions at each echelon of our Nation's government. Though I would remind those persons that our society is very much polarized. Our form of government currently only ever offers two approximate solutions to any one problem. Both tend to have harsh repercussions. This is the irony of government. They exist only to solve the problems for which they have created by solving previous problems.

Until next time, safe travels.

4. The Hierarchy of Einstein and the Universe.

What is the probability of Einstein ever existing? What is the implication of even pondering such a question? What necessary events had to occur in order for Einstein's life to unravel for all the reasons we take care to remember? While seen as a pioneer, Einstein mostly synthesized already known ideas. The difference between him and another who may have done the same is the conclusions he came to. These conclusions not only changed things, but they changed almost everything on this small blue world. I know in my life, that I would be most proud to have changed only a fraction of things to occur. We all should feel that way. What is the difference between the probability of Einstein existing, and myself, or even you? What is the difference between Einstein existing and the Universe?

The difference must be a number. Be careful to assume that it is less likely for the Universe to exist, than it is Einstein. For Einstein to exist, the Universe must have first existed. We must change our point of view of what defines existence. What is the probability of an event occurring which directly influences to some degree, all proceeding events within some locale of time and space? In this case, the event known as the existence of the Universe has less of a probability of happening than Einstein. This means that because the Universe happened, it directly influences all proceeding events. That given the Universe, Einstein is likely to happen and not as often as me or you. I am not trying to discredit our lives in any way. Rather, I am illustrating just how much we can accomplish with our lives. That our accomplishments are all the events which we influence, both during and beyond our lives.

To equate this to my model for Evolutionary Systems, we must establish what Einstein was to his system. He among many prominent members of the physics community diversified physics. Prior to these peoples lives, Physics had exhausted its resources in understanding. It was inevitable for it to evolve and diversify. Its only other choice was stagnation. For these reasons, we can assume that Einstein, and many others of his caliber, contribute to the ordered part of their evolutionary system. Further, that the probability of Einstein existing forced Physics as an evolutionary system to evolve, and subsequently diversify, because the probability of high caliber individuals existing is lower than that of the rest of us. We have already established in previous blogs that the systems we discuss as being evolutionary, are best represented as a probability distribution. But which distribution? This is not a question I like answering at this stage, but if I were to guess, I would guess that the distribution would be very closely related to the normal distribution. I will give you my full reasoning for this in a later blog.

The less likely that something exists implies its capacity to influence its environment is greater than the average member of its population. This is observable and evident in any evolutionary system. For example, it is less likely for a lion to be born who happens to be stronger and faster than the rest of the members of its pack. The implication of it being stronger and faster means that it is more capable of making the kill than the next. This changes the environment that the entire pride exists in. It further forces the prey to evolve, to be stronger and faster still. This in turn provides pressure on the pride as a whole to evolve further still. This is what it means to be less likely to exist. The more ordered part of the system has less of a chance of existing, because if it was otherwise, the evolution of the system would lead to more detrimental implications to the environment of which it persists. This in turn undermines and mutates the system into homogeneity. There is a fine line, a optimal hierarchy for every evolutionary system to have. It is at the point where the system's progress in evolution does not undermine its future generations. When that line is crossed, the system homogenizes and it becomes something else than what it once was.

Imagine for a moment, that nothing else exists. Instead, everything that is, is a nearly perfect sifted space of energy. It is static, and of near perfect inhomogeneity. What is the probability of an event occurring which directly influences to some degree, all proceeding events within some locale of time and space? The answer is "a very small probability", nearly infinitesimal. There are many lesser order states which could occur more frequently, but they are not ordered enough to ever make an irreversible set of events from ever happening. A nearly infinitesimal probability of an event occurring in this environment would bring into existence a nearly perfect ordered system. This is under the basis of everything I've discussed in this blog, given my assumptions to be correct. While the probability of this super ordered state to exist is nearly infinitesimal, it will still exist eventually. When you take into account all of time, as we understand it, a nearly infinitesimal probability could occur nearly an infinite amount of times, given all of time for it to occur. What is this super ordered state? By our understanding of entropy, it's first course of action is to break down into a more diverse population of lesser ordered systems. It must do this, because it must correct itself for ever existing, by distributing its energy to ever more local levels. This now is the inflationary period of the birth of our universe. Every transaction between ordered states and the energy needed to sustain them, takes place after this point. It leads the universe to producing things such as you and me, and all the Einsteins to come.

Until next time, safe travels.

Ex:1. The Case for a Free Society

All along my journey in understanding Evolution, I have found myself sidetracked. Though in some sense, I believe that the subjects that sidetracked me have helped me further this understanding. There is something to be said for taking the long road to ones goal. More recently like so many others, it was the state of the economy and government which has sidetracked me. The concept of what Liberty truly means has introduced me to a philosophy of which I had always taken for granted. During this detour in my life I broaden what I already had an intuition for, and it subsequently taught me more about my own philosophy of the Dynamics in Evolution. For these reasons, I will plead my case for Evolution by pleading my case for a Free Society in my first example.

I'll begin by establishing the notion that Sovereign Nations are Evolutionary Systems. Do not mistake me for over generalizing what is a truly dynamic system. A Nation or Society is a collection of Evolutionary Subsystems. Meaning they all interact and influence one another accordingly. If we wish to understand a System fully, we would have to study it both from a macroscopic and microscopic point of view. For Instance, take a particular Subsystem of a System. To understand that particular Subsystem in full, we would have to understand how it reacts not only from the System from which it is contained in, but all other subsystems as well. This admittedly is a completely ludicrous undertaking. Alas we must simplify the problem enough to understand the basics of how a Evolutionary System is Dynamic. So while a Society may be a collection of Subsystems, we can begin by generalizing how Subsystems interact and exchange influence with their parent System, the Society. This will give us an understanding of how Subsystems interact and exchange influence between each other so that we may make more specific arguments in the future.

We must also establish what the source and type of energy that Societies utilize as an Evolutionary System. There are many, so we must isolate which best represent our argument. Currency is one form of energy in a society, but so is equity, securities and all other forms of monetary exchange. However our argument here is for a Free Society. Some may argue that money buys Freedom, I however do not believe that using money in this context of the argument is most suitable right now. If we were discussing Capitalism this may be a different story. A societies raw resources is another source of energy, but again this isn't the appropriate context. Resources may have more to do with how a society develops than how it is governed. Is governance a form of energy? Governance is not necessarily exchanged, but rather maintained. Governance is the ordered part of a Society in this context, so what is the exchange we are looking for?

The fact of the matter here is that there is no good conventional nomenclature for the representation of energy. I'd invite you to take a guess. Most of the time in passing conversation about this subject, I usually refer to this type of energy as Influence. While this sounds absurd or maybe too abstract, I did not come to that word so easily. In fact, most of the time when I talk about these ideas in conversation, I always tend to use the word Influence as a generalization, because it is anything but absurd. When we talk about a subsystem, in the environment of it's system, we talk about how it is influenced accordingly. How does the environment influence a system, or how does one system influence the next. So although there may be a better word for what I am arguing here, I will push forward to what I am used to, rather than make this post any longer than it has to be.

The last step is to pull it all together. To do this we will examine the argument from two perspectives. On one side of the argument, we will define the Evolutionary System to be society with a mostly centralized state with stringent boundary conditions. On the other side of the argument, we will consider a Society with a far less centralized state and more open boundary conditions. I have yet to explain how boundary conditions play a role with Evolutionary Systems, so consider this exercise and introduction to the topic.

With respect to the boundary conditions, the difference between the two societies is the flux of influence. For a centralized state to persist it must not allow outside influence to affect it's population. This says nothing for how it influences other systems in the same environment. When thinking about this, imagine a coffee mug, which is highly insulated. The temperature of the coffee inside tries to remain constant. If there was a magical internal source of heat which counteracted the heat lost through even these stringent boundary conditions (the insulation), then you would have the same type of system as we defined as the centralized state. The "magical heat source" being the centralized state in the society dictating how evenly distributed the influence (or heat) is throughout the system. So the boundary conditions tell us just how homogeneous the system will be, where more stringent boundary conditions give us a more homogeneous system than more open boundary conditions, which give us a more diverse system.

Just because a system is centralized, does not necessarily mean that it will forever be void of diversity. In fact, because of entropy a centralized state must forever combat natures tendency towards diversity. To do this, it's only option is to centralize itself even more. With each generation of the system, the state becomes more centralized and the tendency for more diversity are in constant competition. In other words, centralization of the state undermines itself. The more ordered a system is, the higher the probability of that system fracturing into smaller less centralized states. A real life example of this is the fact that there are more sovereign nations in the world today than there was fifty years ago. Fifty years ago, there were more sovereign nations than there was one hundred years ago. For some unknown reason, there is a common misconception that it is a natural tendency for the world to move towards more globalization, when in fact no where in the universe do we have multiple things spontaneous grouping themselves into one highly ordered system for any lengthy period. Even the most ordered structures in the Cosmos, black holes, deteriorate in time as they create the most entropy possible in their environment. Another example is this; In the first generation of automobiles, how many different choices did we have? One. In the second generation, what were our options? One brand, with a handful of color options. In the third generation, what did we have to choose from? Multiple brands with multiple colors. What do we have to choose from today? It is inevitable for any ordered system to breakdown into lesser ordered components. If you are a centralized state, then the faster to approach totalitarianism, the sooner you will undermine your efforts and fail.

On the other side of the argument we have our decentralized Society with open boundaries. It is interesting here to note that this side of the argument is the same as the centralized society which has recently failed. That is, when centralized societies fail, they reduce themselves into Free Societies. If they have not done this, then they have yet to fail. With open boundary conditions, a Free Society is allowed to feel the effects of the environment in which they exist. These effects influence the Society, and it adapts accordingly. Both good and bad are permitted through open boundaries. This both rewards and punishes the subsets of Society for all its doing. I say subsets of Society, because a Free Society is inherently a Diverse Society. A Diverse Society is an adaptable Society which will always reap the benefits of open boundary conditions.

The most efficient distribution of governance can be seen now in a Free Society. Again imagine the centralized state at the height of its existence. I have stated prior that it will always undermine itself and fail. The definition of failure is a reduction of the Society into many lesser centralized states. This creates a more diverse system, but it is the nature of the universe to exploit ordered systems until they pop into lesser ordered systems. This means that even lesser centralized states will inevitably undermine themselves and also fail. Every time this cycle completes a revolution (no pun intended), a centralized Society will be reduced into a more Free Society than what it was at the beginning of the previous cycle. This all happens because this is the effect that Entropy has on any System. It distributes governance to the most efficient distribution. With every cycle, Society learns little by little, that the most efficient distribution is the basic unit of Society. That basic unit is you.

The lesson of this is that anytime the universe throws you a problem, it is better to attack that problem from every possible vantage point than it is to make bets on any one centralized solution. The smartest person in the world may be able to guess weight of a man at the fair, but that person's guess will never be as good as the average of all the participants guesses. Until next time, safe travels.

3. Entropy, Energy and Diffusion

One of the arguments against evolution by those who don't wish to be labeled as monkeys is often the argument of entropy. More often you have to explain that you do not believe that human's are direct descendants of monkeys, than you have to explain the subtle nature of entropy. Though never in these arguments did I ever believe that I would be able to use their own argument against their point of view.

What most people know of entropy is a brash over generalization of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. "Things tend towards disorder, so how is it we could have highly ordered evolutionary structures in a universe which tends chaos?" To really understand this, you need to understand the fine print of the Law. Yes, systems tend towards disorder, but they also will order themselves if and only if they can create a higher amount of disorder from doing so. Moreover, the word disorder is not the proper nomenclature. Because a system which is ordered can breakdown into many ordered states, which is more disorder than what you started with. So with all semantics aside, what does this really have to do with evolution?

We can begin by assuming that entropy in an evolutionary system is the tendency towards diversity within a system. This is a direct analogue to what entropy is for a physical system, except we are missing the conduit for this type of exchange from order to disorder. In a physical system, diffusion is the definition for this exchange. Diffusion is the method for which energy is distributed throughout a physical system given some criteria. In an evolutionary system, diffusion also occurs, and the source and dispersion of energy is dictated by Entropy. Much like a physical system, energy in an evolutionary system must be distributed by the most efficient means possible.

The term energy has many faces. Thermal, electromagnetic, kinetic, gravitational, and on and on. How are we to understand which to use? This really depends on what we are studying. We would not use kinetic energy to describe a the flow of electrons in a circuit. So we must then define an exchange of energy in an evolutionary system. We could simply call it energy, but many smarter persons will confuse the definition with those that are given to us from physics. To find a suitable word, we must investigate further. What form of energy does an evolutionary system need to evolve?

Energy is really just a representation for something which is exchanged. Remember that in normal circumstances it is not created, nor destroyed but rather traded. In an evolutionary system, it is the same. Energy is needed for a system to order itself. Our sun is a great source of many different kinds of energy. Both gravitational and electromagnetic energy ordered our solar system to the point to where it could support life. In another case, our labor is energy. It is an exchange of our time, for some investment or collateral. With our labor we order our lives, upkeep our nests, save for our children's college tuition, which in turn is another investment. While these are rather abstract examples, they are examples none the less of what energy does. Evolutionary Systems need some form of energy to represent the exchange within itself and other influential systems. In the previous paragraph, I asked what form of energy does an evolutionary system need in order to evolve. If we are to make a generalized argument for evolution of any system, then we must have a generalized representation of energy. It really depends on what system you are studying. We really don't have any better word for the type of energy utilized by an evolutionary system than the word energy. Whenever I write a post and examine a particular system, I will plead my case for the type of energy associated with that system.

So an Evolutionary System is one with a degree of diversity within itself. That System is ordered by means of diffusion of energy. Ordering occurs according to the rule of entropy, where energy tends to be distributed throughout the system by the most efficient means.

For the next couple of posts I will focus on primarily examples of Systems. This will bring some of the language and ideas I'm using into focus for many of you. Until then, safe travels.

2. Evolutionary Systems

Throughout these posts I will be using the term "system" periodically. A definition of the word system is as such; A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole. This is not just a good definition for a word, but for an idea as well. Evolution is not something which only affects Biological Systems, but all systems of interrelated complex groupings. More importantly, no matter how unrelated one system is from the next, they evolve according to the same set of rules. This means that whether your system is biological, some social construct, or even an abstraction from society, it evolves.

Do you believe that all Human Beings are the same? Diversity within system brings about evolutionary changes. How can a steady state system ever evolve? The answer is simple, It can not. The very characteristic of a steady state system is that it does not change, that it is in fact at equilibrium. So an Evolutionary System must be a non-homogeneous system. Furthermore, if an Evolutionary System is non-homogeneous, then what system exists which does not evolve?

All systems have some degree of diversity. What makes this interesting is what governs that distribution of diversity. To answer this, we must understand why diversity is an integrable part of Evolution. Why must a system be diverse for it to evolve? While it is rather easy to say that reason being is that it is not a steady state system, no further argument can be made as to why. Diversity in a system represents the system's response to a given problem. The more diverse a system is, the more adaptable it is. This is not so much an argument for evolution, as it is an argument for basic survival. Now it can be said that the portions of a system which survive are the portions of a system in it's next evolutionary step. Still we are missing the trigger for which a system is forced to survive. So the diversity of a system is the potential for it evolve, given some triggering mechanism. This really is the long way of saying, Diversity in a system is the means of "Survival of the Fittest".

Another defining characteristic of a system is its population size. Without a given population size, diversity within a system is limited. What does this mean? As a population size grows, it allows for the existence of more diversity within a system. Furthermore, as a system's population grows to even higher degrees, the diversity within that system will bring about sub-systems. These sub-systems will be largely in part the same as it's parent system, except for some interrelated characteristics that it only shares with other members of the same sub-system. For example, the Human race is an evolutionary system which contains many sub-systems. Race, culture, preference in religion or politics. The members of all those sub-systems all have something in common. They are human. However, they have more in common with other members of their sub-system than they do with all members of their parent system. Let's take a look at another seemingly unrelated example. Ball-point pens, Felt-tip pens, pens with reservoirs are all sub-systems of Pens. Each has it's own solution to the same problem.

The next time you leave your house, or disconnect yourself from your cellphone, take a look around. Observe and define a grouping. Is it non-homogeneous (diverse)? Does it have a population size? If it's population size is small, how diverse is it? Is it contained in, or does it contain a sub-system?

Until next time, Safe Travels

1. An Introduction

What is evolution really? What do we know now? We have statistical evidence that suggests evolutionary process, but in the end the statistics can only describe the process in its current step. As many of us know, evolution is a process of many steps. I have in many ways devoted my life to understanding the Dynamics in Evolution. I want to know what truly governs this process from a more general view. What makes a system what it is? What predications can we make on a coming evolutionary step? Can a system be forced to evolve? I hope to answer many of these kinds of questions and establish a scientific method in proof of my claims. I will do this by observation, example, and what tools I have available from my knowledge of mathematics. It is my intent to explain the math I'll use to the best of my ability so even those without knowledge of the subject can remain involved in the arguments. This will be a journal of my observations.

I realize that this is an undertaking, one which I have already spent the better part of a decade pondering. While I realize that this format is not the best format in which too plead my case for Universal Evolution, I do believe it is a great place for me to start gathering my thoughts. Along the way, I will be adding some math to begin backing my ideas. However do not believe that what I am talking about here is scientific by any measure, because making it scientific is in fact my goal. I have spent much time tweaking my ideas, the philosophy, logic, but I can now start testing them with the tools mathematics has given me.

Please join me in an expression of introspection, I am almost certain you'll enjoy what I have to say. In my next post I will be discussing what I define as a system, so as to avoid arguing over semantics in the future. Until then, safe travels.