The Complex System of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014

It’s largely now apparent that complex system approaches can be extended to thermodynamics, in order to create a unifying method which combines the dominant models of the sciences: complex systems as the umbrella and unifying methods of comparison process method; Thermodynamics, relativity & quantum mechanics as the probabilistic model which describes best at present the complexities of such universal systems.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be seen to have many characteristics, which are also seen in complex systems. Initially, it was called the entropy/disorder rule, wherein energy release maximizes, thus reducing order, and maximizing entropy. But there is another aspect to the 2nd law, and that is least action, least free energy, least energy, and the maximizing of energy diffusion as well as mass concentrations being diffused. Also called the minimalist principle, and has been known in one form or another since the later 1700’s. James Hamilton called it least action. LaGrange used it to find the least energy L1, L2, L3, and nearly completely stable L4 & L5 points in the earth-moon system.
Least energy as it can be most simply called & applied, means that systems strongly tend to reach least energy configurations. Calling it least energy also allows it more simply to be applied to the many aspects of least energy, which we see in the real world examples. Least energy in manufacturing, as W. Edwards Demming began to develop his “efficiency” methods, means least time to manufacture, least costs, least amount of materials being used; least activities in moving materials and products around during manufacturing, and in short, all the myriad ways Least Energy can be applied & used to create efficiency increases & thus the advantages of surplus energy, time, materials, money, and so forth. That is, growth potential.
Apple Computer as the largest corporation on earth, developed those products which not only were highly efficient, easy and fun to use, but so well marketed, their least energy production and marketing methods, gave them the highest profits both by percentage and totals, ever seen, due to Steve Jobs’ outstanding talents. He united telecommunications, neatly, efficiently and usably with computers, thus doing a very great deal with a product which could be held in one hand. Least energy efficiencies, indeed!!
The multiplicity of the apps of least energy rules is its chief feature and in having these characteristics, show it’s very likely a complex system & approach. It’s not just A, or not A , but a rich panoply, plethora of outcomes possible which create the time, energy and cost savings in manufacture and the service industries.
Thus Least energy underlies the efficiencies of Adam Smith, the “invisible hand of the markets”, as a deeper analysis and more fruitful, and thus applicable means to create the growth created by those efficiencies.
There is yet another point in all of this. Synonyms and the previously related extensions of those by “word clusters” shows this multiplicity of methods and forms as existing and real. The Analogy synonyms are a good example of this. Hofstadter initially discussed this as a wide application of his cognitive work in “Godel, Escher, Bach….” and his conceptualization can be seen as a basis for the deeper and wider comparison process and thus complex system applications.
Thus the many ways in which we describe the Least Energy rule also show its synonymic and complex system nature.
Analogy, metaphor, simile, anecdote, parable, fable, story, koan, many myths, etc. are all the many types of comparison processing which can be used to explain, demonstrate, and teach new concepts and ideas.  But there is the complex system aspect here, too.
Of the multiplicity of comparison process methods present and real, too. Of the many phrases of words, which ALSO describe such methods. Take the synonym group of “Understanding”: comprehension, insight, apprehension, Know-how. Also, making sense, seeing the connections, seeing/visualizing, connecting the dots, working it out; the entire synonym/word cluster grouping, which shows the many ways in which we use the “understanding” words to “figure out” what we are trying to show, explain and do. Thus the word clusters/synonyms show us the multiplicity of ways we do things. The methods, techniques, skills, styles, technologies, etc.
The multiplicities of the synonym & word clusters are there BECAUSE of the complex system nature of events in our universe. We create & use language to show the myriads of ways of complex systems. This then deepens our understandings of complex systems by showing more of the vast ways that things are done. More of the myriad aspects of words which reflect the many ways in which events can be understood, classified and described. Synonyms/word clusters are part and parcel of the complex system descriptions of our universe of events. That’s where they come from and which the word cluster extension also develops and explicates as well.
This then describes the multiplicity of the ways in which we apply, understand and use the Least Energy rules. It’s complex system!!! And begins to unite the models of our universe by a deeper understanding of these multiplicities, such as the many dopamine and catecholamine receptors sites, as showing a complex system at work. & all the other myriads of kinds of receptor sites doing much the same. The many “side effects” of drugs, which are in fact complex system effects, and the many receptor sites for insulin, neurochemicals and many other instances. Each are formed of the same deeper method working, comparison process and creating standards of word categories, and measuring standards to create information as well as comprehend events.
There are MANY other key aspects of the complex system nature and characteristics of Least energy. A major form of which is stability. Least energy molecules CO2 and H2O are molecules from which no further chemical energy can be obtained. It requires a great deal of activation energy to convert those two into sugars & starches, which the plants can do. Thus stability is a major aspect of least energy. The orbits of the planets are least energy. And the Newtonian N=2 gravitational laws are ALSO least energy solutions to orbits. This largely, however ignores the complex system of the solar system, N=9 and more, but have touched upon that topic before, too.
The ancient Egyptian triad, or trinity, of Uas (power, force), Djed (the backbone of Osiris, stability) and Ankh, (life), shows this. They elevated stability to a great part of how they viewed events. Thus, embodying efficiency and least energy implicitly in their understandings of events. As they strove towards stability, so they also achieved efficiency and by implication, thermodynamic least energy outcomes.
Even as the Efficiencies of the market Adam Smith called the “invisible hand” guide market growth and development.
And this growth and development as referred to above is yet another aspect of least energy. And it can describe events from avalanches, to market forces, to embryological growth, also. Most all growth in the natural world is least energy driven, from our basic innovations which succeed because they develop surpluses which can be fed back into the system to create growth, such as the obvious, profits. So the 2nd Law has thus Many aspects to it, which are complex system. And in this way, we extend & deepen our understanding by melding and integrating complex system thinking into thermodynamics, as well.
In describing the methods by which professionals approach their jobs, we find the fox and the hedgehog analogy. The Foxes know a very great many things, and use this complicated, but not coherent set of lists and methods to do their work. But the hedgehog, he knows one big thing!  And that’s what’s going on here. Complex systems require a very great deal of information to handle, use and understand them. & the foxes use the” splitter” method of knowing lots of details and methods to handle it. But the lumper, the hedgehog, knows a big concept, model, theory to handle it all. Simplifying the mass of data into a single, unified model.
In the same way,
For instance, Newtonian orbital equations simplifies most all N=2 orbiting bodies into a single, least energy equation, which describes ALL of the orbits, rather uniquely. As compared to the foxes who have the details and must know the descriptions of all of the orbits of all of the planets in all of the 200+ Billions of star systems in our galaxy, alone.  The least energy Newtonian method wins by least energy!!
In Shannon’s Information Theory, order, disorder and information have deep implications and relationships. The more the order, and precise, detailed description of events there are, the more information is there and the less entropy. Again, least energy extends I.T. And in addition, because incompleteness can be shown to be less order and more entropy in comparison to higher to lower information events. it becomes clear. Incompleteness is very likely least energy relationships as well.
Further, the more complete a model is, the less entropy; the more information and more descriptions it holds. The caveat is that the method must also be more efficient, not just a better description, more complete. This doubles up the creative, innovative new model’s value. And because we know from the Second law that perfect efficiency is very unlikely, if not impossible, we know very likely that complete descriptions of events are also unlikely. That most all our models are necessarily NOT complete. Thus there may be almost always much room for improvement in our models.
Besides the subtleties of incompleteness, there is that of simplicity. A more complete model simplifies all of the details, and links greater relationships to this increase in simplicity. This is yet another aspect of least energy. Or to quote H. D. Thoreau, “simplify, simplify, simplify.”
The major trait of new effective models is that they are elegant, explain much with little (simplicity), they are fruitful, giving many, important new insights and find many new and often unexpected findings. And that they are by Shannon’s rules, more complete, describe more with less, as well.
Let’s take the Periodic chart of the elements and examine it from these new epistemologies and paradigms. How did Mendeleev find this organization of the elements? Let’s use these methods to empirically look into how his mind worked. He knew that elements, intrinsically could not be broken down into smaller parts by normal chemical means available at the time. Thus, they were stable, being least energy atomically. Further, he began to see patterns, the before mentioned pattern recognition that follows basic recognitions, when the recognitions are fed back into the comparison processing systems. That created the next category as he knew lithium, sodium, potassium, cesium were all chemically very similar. His brain recognized this high similarity. So he grouped them in a linear, vertical line just under hydrogen, also with 1+ charge, we now know. Showing how bonding concepts flowed directly from this grouping of the alkali metals, the first hierarchy of the elements. Thus proving the hierarchical nature of the periodic chart and grouping with the many other taxonomies of our understanding by those uniting relationships.
Then he saw that NaCl, common salt, linked the alkali metal, Na, to chloride. And also, iodine, fluorine, bromine, and so forth. Using the alkali metals as a basic standard he created the halogen linear standard.
And at once given their weights realized that there were elements to the right and left of Li and F, as well as the next series Na and Chloride. He had created the outlines of the periodic chart. and all that was left was filling it in. His model was therefore, HIGHLY fruitful, not only in bonding characteristics, but in relating all of the elements into a chart reflecting their fundamental relationships of weights, atomic numbers, etc. Which also over time gave rise to nuclear models of the atoms, as well as the isotopes. AND he realized not only were there gaps in the chart, but that those could be found, as well. Thus it’s massive fruitfulness; again, the power of a good model.
He knew of neon, argon, krypton, but realized there was another element missing above neon, which was only found first in the sun much later, and then on the earth. Helium4 was put into its place. The chart was predicting outcomes, which were unexpected!!! And so rubidium was found below cesium, and francium below and so forth.
Finding beryllium, he put that next to lithium, and then ID’d those elements which combined with 2 halogens, as well. and on and on he went, with the heavier weight elements following each of them together. He’d found the grand design of the elements. And note how this comparison process model, models very accurately his modeling, as it does the models of Darwin/Wallace for evolution and how Edison found, by Trial & Error, his amazing discoveries, creations. As it does indeed Einstein and most all other creative acts.
And this is how most all of our anatomies, taxonomies, hierarchies, & classifications are built up. Not ignoring the alphabetic hierarchies of the dictionaries, thesauri, indices, telephone and city directories, and maps, which show how all on those classifications are related to most everything else, there, too. Alphabetic systems are used, with numbers, to rank together words whose relationships are not known, but need to be organized so they can all be listed, organized & understood.
And within the dictionary, which are least energy classifications using ordering by alphabets are also least energy. & within the dictionaries, we can find THESE least energy classifications, which correspond to groupings unsuspected in linguistics, largely least energy. We find the repeating words, beginning with “re-“, 1000’s of them in fact. Reiteration, reflect, re-organize, remind, reconsider, remember and most importantly, recognize, etc. And those similar words, such as again and again, forever and ever, etc., etc., etc, which reflect the repeating events in existence and map and describe those very, very well.
In addition, and this has been missed, we find the “com” words, in all their nearly unlimited forms, again, the “cum” words from the parent Latin word, which go together under the “com” sections, and many others, as well. Those are the “go together” words, the “KO-ine’ related words. Cooperate, company, commiserate, and so forth. & yet, each of those are groups of events which can be connected, and collected together. Hiding all the time, and disguising and camouflaging the parent of the entire organization, “comparison”!  These are the depths within depths, and yet there are far, far more in the dictionary. Without limit, too. & anyone can open up the dictionary and find many of those and many other examples too many here to relate.
We find the hierarchies of the “high higher highest” grouping of the comparative adjectives, and the “low lower lowest” forms, or the “some, more most”, and “some lesser and least”, to show how many kinds those are, which although NOT grouped together in the dictionary ARE grouped together as the 3 forms of linear adjectives which describe, and can be used to create linear numerical groupings as well.
There are the least energy, vast numbers of contractions (can’t, weren’t), acronyms (NASA, FBI), and abbreviations (abbrev, etc.), which are ALSO least energy forms, too. Seen often in slang, esp. the Aussie -o ending for funnel web spider, the funno, and so forth. Again, least energy forms in all the myriad ways.
Returning to the “com” words we see depths within depths again, just as Mendeleev did, in the commons, commiseration, company forms. But hidden there are the collection, com-lection changed to collection to save a consonant and thus time. Corroboration instead of com-roboration. Again, hiding the “com” words in all their myriads of ways. Those missed by linguistics not understanding the Least energy rules and applying those deeply widely and without limit to the words, themselves.  And the lovely co-re-spond being an “re-” word as well as a “com” word. And the same with com-re-lation, correlation. Without limits. least energy forms!!! All of this missed, too.
And yet there are MORE depths within depths of least energy rules.
Knowing Latin we know of the ab  and ex prepositions. So for “abfection, we get affection; and likewise for ex-fection, we get effection, saving yet another letter/consonant and time/energy in saying the words. And those are also without limit, too. arrogate, instead of ab-rogate. Affliction shortening now ab-fliction.  & on and on as we can find literally numbers without limit of those all over the dictionaries. Thus we have applied the comparison processes which created the periodic chart of the elements to the dictionaries to find again, those relationships and categories of many, many kinds of words which heretofore have been missed.
There are many many other examples of many kind of word groups, which there is no time nor space to relate. See what you can find which is original, new and not expected, the fruitfullness of this approach is at once apparent again!!!
These show the vast efficeincies and apps of the comparison processing and least energy methods. Without limits.
But furthermore as well, we know that as our models are most all incomplete, that they can become MORE complete by work of trial and error and related processes. Thus we have the means, without limit, & most all of our methods can be “improved” without limit, virtually. because no matter how efficient they might be compared to earlier methods, they still have room for improvement.
This necessarily contemplates and implies that there likely exist unlimited improvements in our ways of doing things. Our models, our technologies, skills, devices, tools and methods can be improved without limit, Up to a point of diminishing returns. And means that once realizing this, we can always find ways to get better from there.
Further still, the skills of the professionals compared, versus those of the amateurs can now be understood as efficient methods developed over time, by trial and error. We can apply least energy rules here as well, without limit, and the applications of these can change and improve education in ALL fields. Comparison processing and least energy are universally applicable
For instance, We can take a group of 12 highly skilled professionals & studying their styles and methods of doing things for the specific methods each uses. Then comparing those dozen persona & their myriads of similar and different methods for efficiency. & Then teaching those specific, now unknown, but which can be found with careful observation and work, methods which are very efficient. Then teaching those advanced methods to students, specifically. This will speed up education substantially. and because it’s a universal application, likewise likely applying to ALL fields, to improve and upgrade our professionals without limits. This is the Promised Land.
These are but a few of the multiplicities of implications, developments and possibilities which can be created by the complex system approach to the 2nd Law. Unlimited growth and an efflorescence of creativity and outputs in the sciences & arts, and indeed in all fields, unparalleled in human history!!  All because the the applications fo the complex systems, comparison process and unlimited methods, and least energy rules. This is the promised land of the undiscovered country. Unlimited cultural nd scientific developments potentially dwarfing most anything which has ever been seen before.
Least Energy Rules…….

Table of Contents

1. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 1

2. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 2

3. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 3

4. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 1

5. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 2

6. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 3

7. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 4

8. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 5: Cosmology

9. AI and the Comparison Process

10. Optical and Sensory Illusions, Creativity and the Comparison Process (COMP)

11. The Emotional Continuum: Exploring Emotions with the Comparison Process

12. Depths within Depths: the Nested Great Mysteries

13. Language/Math, Description/Measurement, Least Energy Principle and AI

14. The Continua, Yin/Yang, Dualities; Creativity and Prediction

15. Empirical Introspection and the Comparison Process

16. The Spark of Life and the Soul of Wit

17. The Praxis: Use of Cortical Evoked Responses (CER), functional MRI (fMRI), Magnetic Electroencephalography (MEG), and Magnetic Stimulation of brain (MagStim) to investigate recognition, creativity and the Comparison Process

18. A Field Trip into the Mind

19. Complex Systems, Boundary Events and Hierarchies

20. The Relativity of the Cortex: The Mind/Brain Interface

21. How to Cure Diabetes (AODM type 2)

22. Dealing with Sociopaths, Terrorists and Riots

23. Beyond the Absolute: The Limits to Knowledge

24  Imaging the Conscience.

25. The Comparison Process: Creativity, and Linguistics. Analyzing a Movie

26. A Mother’s Wisdom

27. The Fox and the Hedgehog

28. Sequoias, Parkinson’s and Space Sickness.

29. Evolution, growth, & Development: A Deeper Understanding.

30. Explanandum 6: Understanding Complex Systems

31. The Promised Land of the Undiscovered Country: Towards Universal Understanding

32. The Power of Proliferation

33. A Field Trip into our Understanding

34.  Extensions & applications: Pts. 1 & 2.

(35. A Hierarchical Turing Test for General AI, this was deleted after being posted, and it’s not known how it occurred.)

35. The Structure of Color Vision

36. La Chanson Sans Fin:   Table of Contents

37. The Structure of Color Vision

38. Stabilities, Repetitions, and Confirmability

39. The Balanced Brain

40. The Limits to Linear Thinking & Methods


41. Melding Cognitive Neuroscience & Behaviorism

42. An Hierarchical Turing Test for AI

43.  Do Neutron Stars develop into White Dwarfs by Mass Loss?

44. An Infinity of Flavors ?                   

45. The Origin of Infomration & Understanding; and the Wellsprings of Creativity

46. The Complex System of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

47. How Physicians Create New Information

48. An Hierarchical Turing Test for AI

49. The Neuroscience of Problem Solving

50. A Standard Method to Understand Neurochemistry’s Complexities



Origins of Information & Understanding

Origins of Information & Understanding; and the Wellsprings of Creativity


By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014

Working with the comparison process, comparison methods, Least energy, Complex systems, and structure/function methods, the complex system origins of information have become clear.

From the article on “Descriptions and Measurement”,

Essentially, this strong origin & deep equivalency of the outputs of language, verbal description, and measurement, mathematical description or numericity can be easily established. It’s best exemplified and most easily shown to be the case using measurement and the Einsteinian relativity epistemology this implies. First, take a simple saw cut wooden stick of sorts. Lay it down next to a meter stick and compare the length of the stick and read off the length in centimeters. This act essentially, by comparing the relatively fixed, stable measuring standard of the metric system, then shows about 19.5 cm. in length. Measuring the width we see about 10.2 cm. in width, and about 2.1 cm. in height. We have just created information about the stick haven’t we? It’s numerical information, but the comparison of the centimeter scale does that. Using a relatively fixed, standard, mercury thermometer, we then compare the temp of  water on the scale, measure it at for instance, 72 degrees C. This creates information/data about the water temp. Hanging the same thermometer in the air out of sunlight, we can read the ambient air temperature as well. This also creates numerical data, description and information, does it not?  Thus comparing a mass of a simple metal block on a balance scale, we place set gram standards on the opposite scale, and find the balance at 85.5 gms, for instance. This creates data, info.

Thus it is with each measuring scale we use, regardless of speed, velocity (kms/hr, for instance), hardness, Moh’s scale or Kilo-pascal measurements, even density, which is the ratio, comparison of mass/volume. In each case, we get a measure, numerical description of each event we measure by comparison. Thus, most all measurement is a comparison against a relatively fixed, standard measuring device. And that creates data, which was not there before, by comparison processing of the event. This is very clear. Measuring of most all kinds creates information.

Now, to extend further this same model of verbal description, measurement using language.  We have a standard scale for color, which is ROY G BIV; basically, red, orange, yellow, Green, etc., by which we use in comparison to describe colors. We know what green is, as it’s largely the colors of plant leaves. We know the reds of sunrise and sunset and the blues of the sky. We know the white of clouds, and the black of night, and the unlimited grays in between, the white to black color scales, which we use to describe colors of objects. So we sight a cloud, and we call it grey, comparing to our Long term memory (LTM) recognition of what that color means, do we not? The comparison process drives the recognition, that is the “re-knowing” of the comparison to our memory of any and all colors. Thus color descriptions which are verbally created also create color information which is verbal and using such standard words, which reflect our standardized, conventions for each color. That processing of sensory information creates information/data of colors. Which we can then write down and record this measurement, just as we do with lengths, temps, hardnesses, etc. Sensory information is thus processed by comparison to create information and data. The processing of internal information occurs in the same way as we recognize pain, pleasure, areas of our bodies which are moving and hurting, too.

This data is then processed to the larger concepts which create our knowledge and understandings. We know that grass is green, tho of many shades. In the category of “green”: we know this to be the case. Thus our descriptions are kinds of data generation based upon our LTM standards/references.

Take adjectives, for instance. We have the base adjectival form, high. Then the higher, and last, the highest. How this scale using low, lower lowest works, is strictly analogous to a number line being linear, as well. The base form, the last, the superlative, often marked by the ending, -est, or -st, Identifies this usage. But the middle form is the “Comparative” And there it is again, hiding in our language, as all the high, higher, highest forms, within all their myriad ways are the same comparison processing. Bigger than a bread box, smaller than a pea or marble. Big as a house. Fast as a falcon, faster than a speeding bullet. Most all are simply comparing new events to our LTM and creating data regarding the event, are they not? Thus our verbal descriptions do give meaning by these unlimited forms of comparison standards, which we call words.

Please peruse the 1/3 central section of the article beginning “But there are deeper depths within depths hidden in our language and here….”

This is where meaning comes from. Data/info from comparison standards built into each word. And this is why language is so complex. Each word acts as a comparison standard, just like our more limited measuring scales, does it not? And derived by the same comparison processing of sensory & internal data, as well. Thus as stated in the above article, description verbal is the equivalent of measuring numerically. Will not go into why we use math at all, except to say it’s least energy.

Thus we have the basis of most verbal language and how it describes most all sensory events, AND the relationships/associates of such events. Our understanding is very simple, given by the not widely recognized keen neuroscientist, Albert Einstein, who wrote in his 1936 book, “Physics and Reality” that essentially, understanding was derived from the relationships of events to each other. This deep insight readily provides a basic standard to understand how we know how events are related, and how things work. Structure/function relationships are a widely used method in this type.

We derive relationships by comparing events in existence to words, and then comparing those ideas/words to each other. In the same way we explain words in terms of other, related words, do we not? Thus this complex network of words, each acting as standard, relatively fixed meaning, compares and measures most all others in some way.

This formally explains the previously not stated means within our cortices of how it works.
This kind of complexity is essentially why AI doesn’t “understand” how language works. Comparison processes which create recognition of all sorts, work within this method. Bayesian math is used with massive number crunching to find the words to describe events in existence, that is to recognize, that is to Comparison process data to give names to images, faces, and so forth. Those early AI systems also give meanings to sounds, which are standardized versions of words, which then in turn related generally to the categories of descriptions which we call ideas.
This simple system largely describes most all languages, and how they relate to each other. And why

Ich bin Hier.
Je suis ici.
Estoy aqui.
Hic sum.  &
I am here.

Each uniquely translates the others, by a close identity among these expressions.

In the same way, the words in a single language can all translate each word into others which explain, identify, and describe what each word means. In the same way, words are used to describe all parts of mathematics. But not this comparison. Very few words can be efficiently expressed mathematically!! And that shows the problems of using math alone, to describe verbal descriptions. While words are used to teach math, math cannot be used to teach most all words. This shows exactly why numericity is not translatable to efficiently expressing most all of Shakespeare for example. Or as Ulam stated, most presciently, so many years ago, mathematics must advance substantially before it can describe complex systems (viz. language). This is a VIP point. And strikes to the heart of the AI problem.

But there is a way around this, and it’s Bayesian methodologies. And that’s why the above article on AI is also relevant here. AI cannot figure meaning. And it cannot because meaning is NOT inherent in mathematics, universally, as it is in ideas/words. Meaning can, however, be given to words by using the same kinds of standardization of word meanings by comparison processing of words. That simple model shows how to create general AI using languages. Words are complex, they have many denotations and connotations. They have many contextual meanings as well. All of this driven by comparison processing, which is WHY context of the meanings of words can be derived by comparing the words around the unknown word. Context verbal, social, and implied is everything many times in language., And this again, shows HOW to use the recognition potential of Bayesian math to create valid language and meanings. How to get the AI system to “understand” words and their meanings. By comprehensive understanding of what each word means, in comparison to the social, verbal contexts of the other words around it, meaning is derived by our human brains which have general intelligence.

And that’s the point here. Our words create descriptions of many kinds of events, from pain, to the emotions, to feelings, to specific forms of loves, and our brains’ language centers, augmented by the various visual, motor and spatial and auditory centers, all work together, to create meanings.

Thus we end this simplified version of what’s going on to create information in brain by looking at the wellsprings of creativity. & it’s simple. Recognition creates a ‘re-knowing’ of events. Comparing LTM of events creates knowledge by a standard, relatively fixed (but efficiently, to extend Einstein’s epistemology and use a thermodynamic term)  and that’s how it goes. The systems is efficient, too.)

So thus we have the wellsprings, the roots, the origins of creativity. Each time we ID a new event via LTM comparison, that is recognition, we are Creating new knowledge, facts, information, data. When we understand that blue-green is a mix of blue and green, we have done this. When we understand the relationship between pi as the comparison, ratio, proportion of the Circumference to the diameter of a circle, then we have new knowledge. This creates a NEW standard, Pi, and also as it’s comparison process, that is algebra, we can describe it verbally, as well as mathematically, because those related terms all translate efficiently and fairly exactly into each other. We have found a way to express our words in terms of numbers, and given those numericities. This is but a simple, however, cameo part of understanding and creativity. This new ratio, pi, can be used as a comparative standard to describe the numerical relationships between a circle and a piece of a circle. The volume of a sphere and area of a circle, and of arcs of known degrees, the lengths of such arcs, and so forth. The complex relationship of Pi to spherical geometries are well worked out.

This is how creativity works with words, at first. We see a new relationship. We see a new kind of beetle. And we find the elytron, the abdomen, and the jointed 6 legs, and the cephalon, thorax, and the wings, as well. Thus, we ID and create the data to fit into the category of beetle. We do the same kind of creative work via the history in the medical work up and create a diagnosis by comparing known diagnostic cases this way.

In radiology, an even more clear way to show this, we “read’ the chest x-ray, PA and left lateral and “compare” it to the known, clear cut, descriptive, NOT mathematical standards of what we know the heart should look like. What we know how the bones should appear to be in the ribs, spine (cervical, thoracic, etc), scapulae, clavicles, etc Those reading X-rays know this, intuitively, but it’s not been formally stated before. We have set, efficient, standardized words & X-ray reading methods which describe what’s normal. and by comparing those to the complex issues of “normalcy” regarding an image, be it CT, MRI, angiographic, ultrasound, etc. We compare those set normal standards to what we see. & then with a known set of Not normals, we ID the condition and “make the creative diagnosis, by comparison processing of recognitions. This is how it’s done. This tells precisely how to create AI diagnoses of all types of radiological images.

Have written about this before, in the discussion of styles, methods, skills used by professionals. and how we know [professionals from amateurs. It’s all the same thing. Professionals use highly efficient, standardized comparison methods which let them do their work. Comparing to amateurs, they do the work faster, better, with fewer problems, and with greater completion and outcomes. Thus, they are efficient, that is least energy in all those fields.

Thus, with radiologists, we take the best 12 radiologists we can find in each radiographic procedure. ID what the methods they use for “standard of normal”, against which they compare each image. And also find those ‘standard of abnormal identification/recognition they use to find the variations of normal versus not normal. Once those are ID’d, and then fed into an AI system, not only can we teach medical students, nurses and technicians of all kinds how to read each of those studies, much faster, but we can actually teach AI systems how to do this as well.

But there is a deeper understanding here. Because each of those standards of description and recognition of normal versus not normal are clearly identifiable, & can be written down, we can exam, study and work on each method used to make it MORE efficient, more streamlined, more Least energy applied and with out limit improve each comparison method/device/skill, until it grows better and better, without limit. Because each method/skill is NOT perfect, but necessarily incomplete, thus thermodynamic, has a limited efficiency, most all can be improved on this scale.  This can create improvement without limit, up the exponential scale of the unapproachable “perfect thermodynamics efficiency” scale. This is what’s offered with the comparison process model of what creates knowledge and information/data & understanding. Unlimited growth in efficiency.

And that of course, is the bottom line of professionalism, how we create information and knowledge, how we understand, and how we mathematize verbal descriptions of all kinds. This is the Promised Land of the Undiscovered Country of complex systems understanding. & there it is.