3.18 Systems theory

A system comprising of a car and driver has many properties. One of these properties is the ability to move along a road. If the value of this property has a certain level, such as 200 km/h, a relatively small factor, like an oil slick, can transform this system into another - a pile of scrap metal and a dead driver. We ususally name this type of transformation using strong words such as disaster, catastrophe, destruction or death. However, from the point of view of the physics of life, it is a simple transformation from one system into another. The original is no longer what it was and it is irreversible - and it is the main feature of destructive transformations. Even waste or ashes are systems - new ones, different from the previous ones, but systems.

Transformations do not have to be associated only with disasters. There is an interesting class of transformations that alters the system in a very specific way - by splitting it. Bifurcation⁶⁰ splits a system into two (or more) filial systems. For example, a bifurcation of a river into two filial streams, which then flows into two different basins. This can occur in rivers with a gentle stream flowing through marshy plains. The main factors of this bifurcating transformation are: geological (type of ground), meteorological (wind strength and direction, precipitation) and hydrological (sudden flood, melting snow) [Wikipedia pol., excerpt 2009.01].

To discuss a bifurcating transformation of a social system, let us use a model system of a sounder of wild boars in a large grassy meadow. There is a reason for choosing wild boars in this example, because they are omnivorous (like us) so they eat food of both plant and animal origin. Initially, there is an excess of food and the wild boars, lead an idyllic life: they eat, play and reproduce. The situation is their version of paradise. Everyone has as much food as they want and get it effortlessly. No wild boar dies tragically. The population is growing rapidly because all the wild boars survive and reproduce - the strong and weak, the slow and fast, the small and large, the stupid and wise and those with larger teeth and those with smaller. The sounder is growing exponentially and the diversity of their anatomical, physiological and behavioural properties broadens from generation to generation. And a small digression: the issue of differentiating of the properties was meticulously described by Darwin in "On the Origin of Species" in the chapter entitled "Variation Under Domestication". To show that there will be a diversity of properties in future generations, he quoted pigeon-fancier John Sebright, who used to say, with respect to pigeons, that he would produce any given feather in three years, but it would take him six years to obtain head and beak [38, page 67]. In the illustration, you can see how different individuals arise from a common ancestor. If someone has never dealt with breeding and still does not believe in the differentiation of features in successive generations, just look at the children in any large family. You can see that they are not identical and differ not only anatomically but also physically and mentally, with different abilities and limitations, even monovular twins.

But back to the wild boar, at some point, this idyll becomes so populated that there is not enough food for all. Some of them starve and may even die from malnutrition. This resources deficiency causes that the entire population becomes subjected to competitive selection criteria, which makes that only those individuals who are able to get enough food will survive. Only those with the best set of features that ensure they get food live whilist others without such a set die. This selection criteria makes sure that the subsequent generations contain only individuals with features which ensure victory in the competition⁶¹ for food. Of course, the most vulnerable are the ones that do not have these ideal sets of features. Their only chance of survival, and further reproduction, lays in the discovery of something new, previously unknown way to get food. And at some point, one of the losers, feeling that it was his last chance, in an act of desperation, bit off a piece of a rival's body and instinctively swallowed. It turned out that this desperate act sustained him. This wild boar has accidentally discovered a new food resource, and from that moment he began to hunt and eat his own kin. Initially, he did it with little skill and a high reluctance, but in time, he gradually became accustomed to it. However, he failed to eat some individuals as they were able to defend themselves by becoming stronger or faster. So he attacked the kin easiest to hunt and at first, in such a large and diverse population, there was a lot to eat. Thus, our new-born predator ate very well. So he was able to produce offspring. They also became meat-eaters and eventually started to compete against him for food. The number of herbivores decreased significantly, and the only survivors were, from the point of view of the predator, the most difficult to hunt. At this point, it is worth noting that carnivorous animals acted in the best interests of the herbivores, by reducing the number of mouths to feed, and contributing to a decline in the demand for vegetation. Grass, acorns and roots started to grow until they became available in abundance. The herbivore survivors were able to gorge themselves again. So now, there are few herbivores and many carnivores. As there are so many carnivores and so little food available, they were not able to catch the well-fed, strong and fast herbivores. The initial situation has been reversed and those carnivores who were less proficient at hunting, began to die from malnutrition. Over time, both populations fluctuated resulting in a new state of equilibrium.

Because the initial selection function was weak, due to an abundance of food and no risk, an increasingly diverse population grew over time. This diversification not only concerns features, but also the subsets of these features⁶². For instance, if the feature we consider was teeth, the diversity of the state of this feature relies on the fact that in subsequent generations the state will vary. Some descendants will have harder teeth, some softer (state of hardness), some longer, some shorter (length), some bulkier others sharper (shape), some whiter some darker (color), some having 22 others 24 (number). Variation can deal not only with states changing but can also produce a brand new feature. A fold of skin may appear inside the mouth of one offspring which, after several selections (generations), turned into a new, very useful feature, the tongue. The tightening of the criteria of selection due to dwindling resources led to the bifurcation of the system - the group split into two sub-groups: those who managed to acquire resources and those who did not. Another factor which changed the system was the emergence of the first carnivore. It changed the system, but in another way to before. Changing the type of food led to the creation of two interacting groups: the existing herbivores and one carnivore. From now on, in each group the brand new selection criteria was built upon. Initially, the life of the unique carnivore was very easy. The criterion was very weak, because all the food needed was in abundance, while for the herbivores, times became harder. Not only that they had to compete for food, but also the additional threat of the carnivore. The influence of these criteria led to the specialization of the two groups. As a result two different subspecies appeared containing new, differing, sets of features.

Using wild boars in this example was to only illustrate bifurcation. This phenomena is based on the "reinforcement mechanism" which strengthens a random and seemingly unimportant disturbance within a group and splits it into two opposing factions. Galileo, by introducing an inclined plane, slowed the movement of objects caused by the gravity of Earth. This allowed him to closely monitor and analyze the characteristic of this movement. Inclined plane, for mechanics, was what the microscope was for biologists - a tool that changed perception. Zoom enabled biologists to see what was previously invisible, and the slowdown allowed mechanics to catch the correct characteristic of the absolutely non-intuitive motion of falling objects. These were the milestones for both sciences. In the physics of life, the example of the wild boars is a similar milestone. This example is so important and we will refer to it many times from now on that it deserves to be named. I therefore propose to call it the classic wild boars model.

Of course, this is an abstract model, whose sole purpose is to show the bifurcating transformation of a group. In nature, wild boars do not attack others for food. However, there are different species of animals that are ideally suitable for our model. One of them are mice, genus Onychomys (eg Onychomys leucogaster), the cousins of the house mouse (Mus musculus). 89% of their diet includes grasshoppers and other insects, scorpions, lizards, and - attention - other mice! The remaining 11% is vegetation. Male king cobra (Ophiophagus hannah), when hungry, instead of courting the female, will just eat it. Thus, the process described in the classic model of wild boars happens in reality because Onychomys leucogaster and Mus musculus have a common ancestor. Why talk about mice, when monkeys and humans, with a common ancestory, also commits acts of cannibalism.

Presented in the classic example of wild boars, the auto-separating population mechanism, leading to the differentiation of the construction and behaviour of living objects, acts on each level of life, starting from its simplest form. It is highly probable that it started in the primordial soup and the role of the wild boars were played by the first, very primitive, replicators. Over time concecutive repetitions of bifurcation led to the huge diversity of living objects we have now.

At this point, let me make a biblical digression. As Christians know, eating the apple led to a very serious consequence - Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. Is this not an illustration of bifurcation transformation? And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel. Is the curse of God to the serpent not a metaphorical description of two mutually interacting groups, the same as those that have just been discussed in our model of wild boars?

We already know that transformation could damaged or separate the systems. Is the opposite true? Can two objects merge into one? Why not? Attaching four sub-systems - wheels, to the system - chassis, results in a single system - the car. Eleven men dressed in red shorts and white T-shirts for an hour and a half are a football team, which, depending on the choice of the observer, can be called an object or a system. This object can win, lose or draw. Of course, it is not permanent - when the match finishes, participants spread out and nobody knows whether or not the same eleven objects will be built in the same system. The example of the natural merging transformation, which merges two separate organisms to form a single new organism, is symbiogenesis - a phenomenon which combines and strengthens two initially independent groups of living objects. In subsequent generations, this will result in strict co-existence, even to the extent that one (or more) living objects lives and reproduces inside the other! This extremely interesting and little known phenomenon will be discussed further.