Please, if you like this blog retweet, comment, like or share! Thanks! 

Complexity in nature is only natural — when Excogitatoris Evolutis thinks naturally, the Universe can be their oyster? Until then, Homo Sapiens should floss-up on their Complexity Mathematics — it's going to be a bumpy evolution.

Common sense decided to locate our Earth at the center of our Universe. Common sense made our Earth flat. Neil Tyson still faces flat-earth trolls — Neil thinks some trolls are harmful to our modern democracy. Should rappers dictate Neil's science? Listen to what Neil thinks:


Are climate trolls even worse? Science can accurately describe nature, yet science might not tell the full story — do we know everything about quantum physics? Do we need to know "it all" to understand what we can observe and prove? Where do we draw the lines? Well, complexity isn't linear, we must think in patterns, not lines — Listen to Gavin Schmidt "attempt" to explain patterns of climate change science:


When Sir Isaac Newton published the laws of universal gravitation , was their "definition" of gravity the same our 2016 definition? Newton's laws work great for classical mechanics — the formulae can correctly predict natural motion. So, did Newton know about quantum mechanics? Does it matter? No — scientific theory can correctly predict natural events, but it doesn't have to be representative of the many mysteries our Universe hides. Newton's science "landed on the moon" — It does well for some jobs, not others. If Einstein proved Newton wrong, why did the spaceships work so well?

The reality of gravity is that science can't fully explain it, yet. Science is more certain of evolution than gravity, yet some "believe" in gravity more, seeing is believing. Does science have all the answers? No — both gravity and evolution can both be thought as "classical terms", but what science is actually doing is "further defining" both in more complex terms.

Complexity science explains more than "singular observation science" — complexity is more like a model that tries to describe non-linear multidimensional systems. A complex model that behaves similarly to nature can be described as "skilled", as Gavin Schmidt describes.

Climate science is harder to "understand" than Einstein's General relativity because Albert ingeniously "defined a natural observation" — while complexity science includes many systems to consider, but technically complexity science can't include all natural unknowns. We don't know those things yet. Did Newton and Einstein worry about these things too?

Will future "Quantum Gravity Theory" make Einstein's General relativity theory wrong? No, Einstein's theory is skillful — works just great for what it's been doing for 100 years. Thanks, Albert :P

So, what about plastic oyster complexity?

It seems our classic "definition of nature" must evolve the same way, from a world of singular observations to more natural terms of complexity science. Our modern tools must do many things, but we must also consider the complex cost of these tools we create — snake, meet tail. Our current plastic, "green" plastic and plastic recycling industry is more "Newton" than "Einstein".

Would Einstein try to fully define our plastic industry to fully account for every Joule of energy? The way we think of plastic and how it impacts our Earth must become more complex before we can solve this issue. Do our laws need to be more fluent in complexity science?

Plastic hurts oysters? Yes, oysters are filter feeders — the design of their complex food system doesn't understand the difference between yummy ocean oyster food and deadly microplastic. As we learn more about ocean complexity, we see that many animals are suffering from plastic. Some say in 2050, there will be more plastic in our oceans than fish. 

Fish eat plastic. Birds eat the fish. Birds eat plastic. People eat the fish. Whales eat the fish, whales also eat plastic — it gets complex. Sea turtles eat plastic too. When we think of the ocean ecosystem we must think in complexity terms. Are chemicals and toxins swimming up stream to fertilize our bodies? 

When we think of how our complex government deals with our complex reality of nature, we see that these systems are dysfunctionally incompatible — do they need to start talking the same language? Until our government policy can evaluate and execute priorities based on skilled models, there is no protection from complex systems — even ones that include just an apple, the force of gravity and the head of some Homo Sapien.