Most of nature’s equilibrium will last only for a specific time, even though it is Billions of years in most cases. If I remember correctly, the sun will stay in its current equilibrium state for another 5 billion years and then transition to a red giant phase before becoming a white dwarf.
We also have about a billion years on the earth before it will be inhabitable due to increased sun luminosity, so the time will come to find another home if we as a species survive that long.
And then we have a quote from John H. Holland:
If it is in equilibrium, it must be dead!
This highlights a fundamental principle in complex systems and evolutionary biology: true equilibrium implies a lack of change, innovation, or adaptation. In the context of life and ecosystems, equilibrium signifies a static state where no further evolution or development occurs, which is essentially a state of "death" for dynamic systems that thrive on change and adaptation.
Yes! Was just talking about this with Ernie: life seems to kind of defy these robust systems, almost "breaking the rules" by definition. As you put it, if it's in equilibrium, it's dead. I really like that Holland quote.
A dynamic equilibrium is a state of a reversible reaction in which the rate of the forward reaction equals the rate of the backward reaction and the concentrations of reactants and products remain the same.
Good article; equilibrium is an important concept and even related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics in many systems. As a biologist I will have to quibble with the idea of an equilibrium with the plants and animals and their environment (setting aside that the plants and animals ARE the environment since, in all but very extreme environments, biotic interactions are far more important than abiotic factors). A better understanding of how biota interact with the world around them is that they are running in place; that is, the are constantly evolving to track an ever moving target. It's similar to the Red Queen in "Alice's Adventures Through the Looking Glass" and has even been termed The Red Queen Hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis).
Some would call this a dynamic equilibrium, but a dynamic equilibrium still implies a steady state and is more applicable, say, to the hydrologic dynamics of a river in its floodplain. In evolution there is no steady state and evolutionary failure is extinction...which, in geologic terms, is the rule and not the exception.
Neat! Thanks for the clarification and help in understanding this.
Would you say that biological systems are considerably more about the medium becoming the art, so to speak? I mean that their inputs and outputs themselves are the primary drivers, in the same way that you might paint on a lumpy canvas and be inspired by those lumps, take the art in a different direction as a result.
I wrote about this a bit and called it "the observation problem in art":
It’s not really an observer effect; it has to do with the nature of living systems and their hierarchical nature. In the thermodynamic sense, living creatures are open-ended dissipative structures that utilize energy to maintain themselves away from equilibrium. That is, we eat to fuel the chemical reactions that keep us from dying (death=chemical/thermodynamic equilibrium). So this idea of “homeostasis” at the individual organism is similar to the Red Queen hypothesis. Add in the transfer of information across generations (reproduction) gives a new element to this…time, as well as population. That’s another hierarchy.
It’s becoming more and more evident that the primary drivers of these dynamics (individuals over time) are actually internal to the evolutionary lineage (i.e. population or species) itself. When I was in school in the 1980s people were arguing about “density dependent vs. density independent” population dynamics, but as chaos theory became more widely known it became obvious that the dynamics of most “density independent” populations were actually chaotic systems…and one of the requirements for chaos is a bound (i.e. density dependence). But those bounds are set by intraspecific processes. So the inputs and outputs, while necessary, actually aren’t the drivers…it’s the changes in the system themselves that allow the species to continue on. These changes are responding to pressures that are external to the individual, yes, but they mostly come from members of its own population/species. When the internal processes are inadequate to allow for continued successful reproduction of the population as a whole youget extinction.
It is a lot to take in, but it is now on my radar! It also reminds me of the concept of entropy, especially in the way life sort of defies entropy locally (although entropy in the overall universe continues to increase). Life can carve out special little exceptions here and there, and that applies to both biology and physics. Neat!
There's been attempts to link evolution, especially increasing complexity and speciation, to the second law of thermodynamics. The ones I remember from grad school were a bit contrived (using surrogates for entropy like information), but there's little doubt the second law is a huge driving force in biology at all hierarchical levels. The laws of ecology (the so-called "allometries") all scale to some exponent of 2/3 which, of course, is the relation of surface area to volume and ultimately what scales loss of heat to the surrounding environment.
A good book on this is Lev Ginsburg's book "Ecological Orbits" if you can find it. He was my wife's graduate advisor and I had many conversations with him about this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Orbits
See? I keep telling my family I need alcohol to balance out my unstable body, but I drink two tiny bottles of vodka for a Tuesday lunch and they're all "Intervention" and "Divorce" and "Social Services." Sheesh. Have you heard of equilibrium, people?
I suspect that many knew of the power of the Sun. Years ago people used the rising of the sun as a clock. There's proof of that with places like Stonehenge, although I also suspect that was a burial ground.
It makes sense that it would be for worship because even I have always been affected by the Sun. Times may have changed and new technology found but I bet some health matters remain the same. At a younger age, my seizures were MUCH worse and my family would always know that on a full moon, I would have a seizure. Heat would also bring on a seizure, every time! It was like clock work coming straight from the sky. The suns power is amazing!
There's also the fact that in the pre-Columbian civilizations of Mexico and Peru, sun worship was a prominent feature.
In Egypt, Akhenaten (the 18th Dynasty) is known for his development of a kind of early monotheism that stressed the uniqueness of the sun god Aten, as well. Akhenaten had to have had those who also believed in the Sun God or the power of the Sun. It has been thought that the Pharaohs
Tuthmosis IV, Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun (the 18th Dynasty)
may have suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy, which is the same kind I have. If people actually witnessed the fact that a seizure happens when there is a full moon in cases that are that bad, that would have been reason for people to worship the Sun.
I think that you're absolutely right that everyone should think of their own health. If not, it won't always be possible to think of everyone else. I struggle with that one but mainly because if I think of my own health, it is often assumed that I'm a selfish person. I don't believe that I am. At least not always because I can't help anyone if I can't help myself. Sadly, everyone simply does not realise that fact or want to. It's hard....
Excellent post!
Most of nature’s equilibrium will last only for a specific time, even though it is Billions of years in most cases. If I remember correctly, the sun will stay in its current equilibrium state for another 5 billion years and then transition to a red giant phase before becoming a white dwarf.
We also have about a billion years on the earth before it will be inhabitable due to increased sun luminosity, so the time will come to find another home if we as a species survive that long.
And then we have a quote from John H. Holland:
If it is in equilibrium, it must be dead!
This highlights a fundamental principle in complex systems and evolutionary biology: true equilibrium implies a lack of change, innovation, or adaptation. In the context of life and ecosystems, equilibrium signifies a static state where no further evolution or development occurs, which is essentially a state of "death" for dynamic systems that thrive on change and adaptation.
Yes! Was just talking about this with Ernie: life seems to kind of defy these robust systems, almost "breaking the rules" by definition. As you put it, if it's in equilibrium, it's dead. I really like that Holland quote.
Equilibrium in the human body is death. "Dynamic" is the operative word here.
Dynamic equilibrium?
A dynamic equilibrium is a state of a reversible reaction in which the rate of the forward reaction equals the rate of the backward reaction and the concentrations of reactants and products remain the same.
I think this state of dynamic equilibrium our bodies are always in is called homeostasis.
Good article; equilibrium is an important concept and even related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics in many systems. As a biologist I will have to quibble with the idea of an equilibrium with the plants and animals and their environment (setting aside that the plants and animals ARE the environment since, in all but very extreme environments, biotic interactions are far more important than abiotic factors). A better understanding of how biota interact with the world around them is that they are running in place; that is, the are constantly evolving to track an ever moving target. It's similar to the Red Queen in "Alice's Adventures Through the Looking Glass" and has even been termed The Red Queen Hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis).
Some would call this a dynamic equilibrium, but a dynamic equilibrium still implies a steady state and is more applicable, say, to the hydrologic dynamics of a river in its floodplain. In evolution there is no steady state and evolutionary failure is extinction...which, in geologic terms, is the rule and not the exception.
Neat! Thanks for the clarification and help in understanding this.
Would you say that biological systems are considerably more about the medium becoming the art, so to speak? I mean that their inputs and outputs themselves are the primary drivers, in the same way that you might paint on a lumpy canvas and be inspired by those lumps, take the art in a different direction as a result.
I wrote about this a bit and called it "the observation problem in art":
https://goatfury.substack.com/p/the-observation-problem
I'm very interested in that phenomenon anywhere I can find it. I think that's much closer to the world we're living in, too.
I read that article; it was a good one!
It’s not really an observer effect; it has to do with the nature of living systems and their hierarchical nature. In the thermodynamic sense, living creatures are open-ended dissipative structures that utilize energy to maintain themselves away from equilibrium. That is, we eat to fuel the chemical reactions that keep us from dying (death=chemical/thermodynamic equilibrium). So this idea of “homeostasis” at the individual organism is similar to the Red Queen hypothesis. Add in the transfer of information across generations (reproduction) gives a new element to this…time, as well as population. That’s another hierarchy.
It’s becoming more and more evident that the primary drivers of these dynamics (individuals over time) are actually internal to the evolutionary lineage (i.e. population or species) itself. When I was in school in the 1980s people were arguing about “density dependent vs. density independent” population dynamics, but as chaos theory became more widely known it became obvious that the dynamics of most “density independent” populations were actually chaotic systems…and one of the requirements for chaos is a bound (i.e. density dependence). But those bounds are set by intraspecific processes. So the inputs and outputs, while necessary, actually aren’t the drivers…it’s the changes in the system themselves that allow the species to continue on. These changes are responding to pressures that are external to the individual, yes, but they mostly come from members of its own population/species. When the internal processes are inadequate to allow for continued successful reproduction of the population as a whole youget extinction.
I hope that makes sense?
It is a lot to take in, but it is now on my radar! It also reminds me of the concept of entropy, especially in the way life sort of defies entropy locally (although entropy in the overall universe continues to increase). Life can carve out special little exceptions here and there, and that applies to both biology and physics. Neat!
There's been attempts to link evolution, especially increasing complexity and speciation, to the second law of thermodynamics. The ones I remember from grad school were a bit contrived (using surrogates for entropy like information), but there's little doubt the second law is a huge driving force in biology at all hierarchical levels. The laws of ecology (the so-called "allometries") all scale to some exponent of 2/3 which, of course, is the relation of surface area to volume and ultimately what scales loss of heat to the surrounding environment.
A good book on this is Lev Ginsburg's book "Ecological Orbits" if you can find it. He was my wife's graduate advisor and I had many conversations with him about this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Orbits
Hey, neat! Thanks for the recommendation, too.
See? I keep telling my family I need alcohol to balance out my unstable body, but I drink two tiny bottles of vodka for a Tuesday lunch and they're all "Intervention" and "Divorce" and "Social Services." Sheesh. Have you heard of equilibrium, people?
Equilebriation!
I was inequilibriated.
Fortunately, you liberated yourself from this condition.
Self-liberating inequilibriation is an under-rated skill.
WOW! That was interesting to read!!!
I suspect that many knew of the power of the Sun. Years ago people used the rising of the sun as a clock. There's proof of that with places like Stonehenge, although I also suspect that was a burial ground.
It makes sense that it would be for worship because even I have always been affected by the Sun. Times may have changed and new technology found but I bet some health matters remain the same. At a younger age, my seizures were MUCH worse and my family would always know that on a full moon, I would have a seizure. Heat would also bring on a seizure, every time! It was like clock work coming straight from the sky. The suns power is amazing!
There's also the fact that in the pre-Columbian civilizations of Mexico and Peru, sun worship was a prominent feature.
In Egypt, Akhenaten (the 18th Dynasty) is known for his development of a kind of early monotheism that stressed the uniqueness of the sun god Aten, as well. Akhenaten had to have had those who also believed in the Sun God or the power of the Sun. It has been thought that the Pharaohs
Tuthmosis IV, Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun (the 18th Dynasty)
may have suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy, which is the same kind I have. If people actually witnessed the fact that a seizure happens when there is a full moon in cases that are that bad, that would have been reason for people to worship the Sun.
I've been interested in that and talk a bit about it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtroWE86Plg
I think that you're absolutely right that everyone should think of their own health. If not, it won't always be possible to think of everyone else. I struggle with that one but mainly because if I think of my own health, it is often assumed that I'm a selfish person. I don't believe that I am. At least not always because I can't help anyone if I can't help myself. Sadly, everyone simply does not realise that fact or want to. It's hard....
Anyway, interesting read!!!
Thanks, Angela! I agree completely about the Sun. I think it was the first thing anyone really thought to worship, and it's really easy to see why.