Abstraction layers for the universe

Universe is an emergent system built on subsystems made up of inherent properties.

Emergent systems, or in layman terms; “more than the sum of its parts” is a way to describe systems where simple compound come together and result in displaying properties beyond just a mere collection of these said compounds.

Quark particles make up atoms, atoms make up molecules, molecules make up materials, materials make up a piece of wood, a piece of wood makes a desk. The desk holds your laptop.

An atom by itself was a porous cloudy object with enormous empty spaces in its structure. Yet when combined, they act like a flat surface which would attribute to being solid.

Such emergent systems exist within and around us. This is no surprise to anyone. Emergent systems are well known and studied.

Problematic part to me is lack of abstraction layers when organizing these systems for an every day understandable format.

This problematic problem causes a misunderstanding when dealing with inherent and emergent properties of big systems.

Take following article and discussions about it on the hack:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22068826

A bunch of users rightfully claim this very effect we observe in space, interactions among large scale systems in the universe, could be some sort of inertia left from the explosions of big bang.

It can very well be so. But we might also be fooling ourselves into this packet of ignorance. Any unexplainable force in the universe can be attributed to emergent effects of the big bang. Because almost everything in the universe after the big bang is an emergent property. I say almost; because if anything is left after big bang of the original material that caused big bang in the universe, that can very well be defined as the inherent properties of our universe.

In a deterministic understanding of the universe; the very couch you are sitting on, is a “left over the inertia” from the big bang. It is only locally held together because other emergent properties such as atomic bonding overruns the this initial emergent property.

I believe you start to understand what I am getting to here. We can start attributing every macroscale mystery to “left over inertia” of the big bang in this situation. It is especially enticing to do when mysteries in question are related to motion and forces in the universe at macro scale. Because it is so much more relevant.

Abstraction layers are a must to avoid this pitfall

We need to identify layers where we should ignore cosmic inertia when dealing with mysteries of universal scale.

Take biology; should we take quantum scale properties when dealing with human organs? I don’t know. I am not saying we should entirely ignore emergent properties of another scale, but rather draw up a system where we can plan our thinking. Maybe layers can effect sublayers, but not higher. Maybe other way around.

Layers can be defined as systems where compounds produce features more than the sum of their group. Thus creating a new layer; an organization. These can accept or deny impact from child or parent systems; depending on their features.

When these systems are capable of denying impact from their parent group; we could say that’s where we draw the line for any type of explanation by the “cosmic inertia”.

Let’s not make “BIG BANG DID IT” the new “GOD DID IT”

— — THIS IS A DRAFT THOUGHT PIECE —