If you thought evolution was hard to define try "complexity"!
I sometimes hear (or see) certain people voicing the mantra: "Evolution is not directional".
Depending on one's attitude and approach to defining Evolution, it is (or isn't).
Even if one think of evolution as "the filling of configuration spaces for mutable self-replicable
things limited 'only' by other already filled forms of self-replicability and by astronomical and
geophysical factors", there is still a dimension to evolution that goes in the direction of
increasingly complex self-replicable mutable patterns.
Here is a recipe for an open (-minded and open to be improved upon) synthesis that I don't feel
uncomfortable loosely wrapping my mind around:
Take the bloated (but rather irreproachable given that appropriate meanings are ascribed to the
words: population, heritable, and generations) approximate definition:
"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many
generations."
Weed-out some surperfluous words and add one generalizing plural form, and boil it down to read:
Evolution is heritable changes in populations over generations.
Put it into a complementary frame partly made of "the filling of configuration spaces for mutable
self-replicable things, limited by already filled forms of self-replicability and by astronomical
and geophysical factors" which in turn partly contains a directional dimension, and call the entire
frame the Evolutionary Pressure Totality.
We then end up with a definition that looks something like:
"Evolution à la EPT is heritable changes in populations over generations in context of that our
Universe's on the whole increasing entropy is defied by increasingly less widespread instances of
increasing complexity of emerging patterns."
-------
That was the easy part!
Here is an attempt to sort out some subsumed definitions.
Any "pattern" (whether observed or philosophically implied) is a perceivable (or conceivable)
regularity of some dialectic interactivity.
Dialectics refers to the recognition of Nature's polarities or opposites, and that, between these,
different 'regularities (or cycles) of change are being naturally maintained - not the least as far
as evolutionary developments, and evolved patterns, are concerned.
Of course, changes can be both constructive and destructive, but as far as my EPT definition of
Evolution is concerned they are constructive.
The Yin and Yang symbol can be seen to represent the observation of "dialectical interactions"
in Nature.
-----
How I am trying to deconfuse myself about the difference in meaning between "order <=> chaos" and
"complexity <=> simplicity":
A pattern and/or process can be most chaotic (consist of most irregular or unpredictable
interactions) or be most ordered (consist of most regular interactions).
Another measure of "a pattern/process" is its complexity.
However, it is difficult for me to be visually and conceptually clear about what I vaguely feel is
the difference in meaning between complexity<=>simplicity and order<=>chaos.
A most chaotic pattern has the least possible complexity. But a most ordered pattern (a most regular
interactivity) can be more or less complex.
In respect of a recognizable biological process (pattern), its "degree of complexity" can be thought
of as the *intricasy* of the ordered interactivity within it. In that definition-preparing sense,
complexity (intricasy) can be seen increase in proportion to the number of interactions and
interacting elements required to carry out a biologic function; And, the choice of defining function
can be both as simple and as summarizing as all that an individual does, with some regularity within
its life-time, to sustain itself - *whether or not* it thereby also eventually reproduces.
Perhaps in a flat or open universe the difference in meaning between between simplicity?complexity
and order?chaos can be likened to a pair of rail-road tracks; closely parallel and connected with
sleepers but never meeting; And, from where the tracks begun being built, the degree of order?chaos
(represented by one of the tracks) is at its maximum (min entropy), whereas the
"simplicity?complexity track" was at a minimum degree of complexity.
In a closed universe I can only come up with a diagram where the two tracks curve around back to the
line of origin of this doubtful dichotomy; the simplicity?complexity track being either maximized to
close towards the bitter end or long since utterly simplified, and the order?chaos track having more
crudely transitted from maximum overall order, through maximum overall entropy, and back again to
maximum order.
%-?
Entropy increase = diminishing quantity of energy in forms useful for Evolution (à la EPT).
Life or "living entities" = anything from "energy moderating/metabolizing macro-molecules" capable
of a self-replication that results in replicas with some heritable structural and functional
(functural) variation.
Populations = from one to any number of living entities (usually
existing in some biospherical locality
Ecological Population Totality = living entities of different species and
indirectly interdependent life-styles.
"Struggle for suvival" = the by natural selection encouraged propensity of living entities to in
various ways strive to obtain (including, to within and between populations compete for) limited
resources required for their relatively persistent existence ultimately (but not only) through their
replication or reproduction.
Natural Selection (NatSel) = The fact that the different ongoing interactivities between living
entities and/or other aspects of their environment results in differently realized or fulfilled (or
in many cases simply not realized) "configuration-space potentials".
"Configuration space potentials" is here meant in a completely generalized sense: Known *and
unknown* mathematical probabilities for any pattern - e.g. mental (or psychophysical) to fundamental
matter (fundamental particles) or biophysiological states (e.g. a beating heart) - to exist.
(The probability of a beating heart existing is 1 %->; but we can't be as sure about such existences
in the future %-\.)
[A broad analogy: Consider particle accelerators and their bubble-chamber attachments. 1. Not even
one particle of a kind hypothetically predicted to regularly result after a certain collisions
within a certain energy range arises! IOW the theory that predicted this non-event is therefore
wrong - there is no such particle available *even* in configuration space. In accordance with
theory, more or less short lived particles result after their 'parental' (accelerated pre-smash)
particles (matter-particles) have actually been accelarated and smashed together. (Virtual particles
can be realted to the notion that biological configuration space contains many genotypes that never
will get born because they are that far from being viable.)]
Here is one perhaps important-to-recognize result of that *certain* categorizable selection
pressures have tended to pressure in parallel in phylogeny (or if not throughout phylogeny so at
least in the multi-cellular, and nervous system proliferating, era of the phylogeny of fauna):-
AEVASIVE neurological, psychological and behavioral characteristics of animals! AEVASIVE
characteristics is a feature of fauna in general. However, it is by far most strongly manifest in
the wide and elaborate range of AEVASIVE aspects/characteristics of the human genophenotype.
=========
Darwinian evolution (by heretable variation and natural selection) defined with quotations (enclosed
by double quation-marks) from Darwin himself:
The trait-building (genophenotyping) outcome of the probability that "in the great and complex
battle of life" [during the long and often 'richly parallel' existence of numerous successive
generations of concurrently living individuals ('parallel' was especially but not only meant in a
sense relevant to
including heritable variation of internal functions) are in some way more useful to the reproductive
success of individual carriers of such variations, than are other heritable variations concurrently
carried by other, closely similar and likewise as if survival-seeking and hence often rivaling,
individuals.
----------------
The concEPTualized philosophical facets of what naturally selects:
Evolutionary pressures (EP) selects. And EP is suitably sectioned (septalized) into Opportunity type
EP (OTEP) and Adversity type EP (ATEP).
OTEP = The once mere potential emergence of self-replicating living entities; ecological or
sociaoeconomical niche-spaces not yet exploited
(e.g. near at hand by not yet realized survival and reproduction promoting co-operative interactions
between individuals); potential steps or pathways, in (e.g. biochemical) configuration space,
toward new means to the ultimate effect of increasing
The path of patterning towards the OTEP facet of the ambi-advantageously adaptive phylogenetic
pressures and steps of functional biochemical patterning that preceded the emergence of Music, being
one small example.
The other EPTly recognized facet of the phylogeny of Music - Music as an example of an "ambi-
advantageously evolved" AEVASIVE capability - is ATEP of "[censored] type".
Apropos "[censored]": Specified more or less complex examples of situations within (by) which some
genophenotypes would have tended to be naturally selected for (ahead of, or at the expense or active
exclusion of, others) in the process of evolution (in phylogeny) can be generalized and covered by
types or suitably named categories for such naturally selective situation.
[[censored] (short for "selectiveHibernation imploring type situations"😉 is one such category.]
At least it can to the limited extent that _I_ have been (and is) interested in constructing such
categories. ;-)
P