If we are to examine our existence we must first consider its initial formation; before particles became atoms, atoms became elements, and so forth. We must consider an infinitely simple existence, one without differentiation, combination, and the complexity stemming from those two things. However, an infinitely simple world of one source material would be infinitely homogeneous, and therefore neutral and incapable of complexity. For a single infinitely simple and infinitely homogeneous source material to become the world we know it requires at least one other source material to interact with. While it is possible for existence to have stemmed from more than two source materials, that is not known and may not be knowable by an entity stemming from and contained within that existence. So by Occam’s razor we may assume there existed only two source materials for this discourse.
Law of Differential Origins:
Whether perceptual, physical, or by other means an existence cannot form an entity nor be perceived by that entity without the differentiation of no less than two distinct source materials.
Like an atom is composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons; and binary code is composed of 1s and 0s; so too is everything that we perceive. If all atoms had no charge then interaction would remain impossible and nothing more complex could form. If binary code was comprised entirely of 0s, then no complex program could form. Since time exists and we perceive changes in our existence, then complexity exists and therefore differentiation and combination are occurring.
As two or more source materials interact, they must become more complex in order to create us and the existence we perceive. Therefore "low level complexities" form from the source materials. Those complexities then continued to interact with each-other and the source material to form various other low level complexities. Low level complexities are those that make our reality possible but exist below our perceptual threshold; it is likely impossible for us to define or quantify them, and perhaps they, like source materials, could be infinite.
Infinite or not, as existence becomes more complex, more source material is used making it increasingly difficult/unlikely for source material to exist in areas harboring complexities. Source materials are therefore out-competed from perceivable existence. Making our perceivable existence like a bubble of mid level complexities in a possibly infinite existence of source materials or low level complexities. Mid level complexities are defined by our ability to perceive them; such is matter, the laws of physics, other humans, and the universe.
Law of Infinite Complexity:
All materials and complexities by their nature will interact with each-other to become more complex.
Since clearly defining each level of complexity is impossible, barring omnipresence or existing outside the totality of existence, in accordance with infinite complexity we can also presume the existence of high level complexities. Those complexities which we may perceive in part but not be able to conceive of our roles within or how we interact within them.
Speaking to the origins of our own existence and the possibility of creation, and the potential creator(s) it implies, is a discourse that frequently degrades into theological arguments. This is especially true with reductionist methods such as these. Therefore we will simply accept all theology as a formation of this existence, another complexity among innumerable, and move forward with logical analysis free of preconceived constructs of God(s), religion, and worship.
To infer the presence of creation, that being some sort of intelligent design, we must ask how was an infinitely simple existence structured? Several possibilities exist but the relatively important issue to consider would be the quantity and distribution of source materials. An organized quantity and distribution would clearly indicate some level of preconceived design (consilio informatum); but if one substance was predominant before a second substance was somehow introduced, this may be more indicative of a “Big Bang”, design without method (consilio sine). Neither precludes any sort of creator(s) involvement but demonstrates a clearly different method of design, and also the extent of control a creator(s) may exercise over this existence. Neither precludes the possibility that our existence is an an emergent property of an existence outside our own, therefore not perceivable, occurring without creative intent and therefore without a creator(s).
Unfortunately, without being omnipresent, it is likely impossible to determine how an infinitely simple existence was structured though means of logical reduction; thus making it impossible for complexities of our level to make a determination as to the control or presence of a creator(s) though this logic. However this is expected, as a creator of this existence would, by its very nature, exist outside of it. A creator cannot be governed by the rules of its creation before the creation exists. For example, if this existence operates much like an automated computer program; without a sudden input/act of a user/creator(s) to suddenly change the computer's operation, we would continue operating oblivious to the fact our existence is merely an automated operation within a computer. However this does leave open the possibility to prove the existence of a creator(s) through what might be called "an act of God".
If for some reason the laws that govern our existence are broken by an “act of God”, then the chain of interactions that result in the Law of Infinite Complexity would also be broken. As such, even if such an act occurred, it may be unlikely we would notice; since it would require the entire structure of existence to be reformed to incorporate the change. If we were perceptually aware of the change through the alteration of something like the laws of physics, this then would indicate a creator(s) level of omnipotence. We cannot know the laws that govern the world outside our own existence, the world a creator(s) exist in, if any such constants exist at all. As such, there may be variations on the power of a creator(s) beyond the standard accepted “God” model.
A creator may be omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient; the final being both omnipresent and omnipotent. If a creator is like that of a standard computer user, then he may not be aware of all active processes at any given time but have full control to cease them individually or completely; thus being omnipotent but not omnipresent. Similarly a creator may be aware of every active process but may be unable to interfere with the activity due to the rules that govern his world, such as the inability to alter the physical construction of a computer while the operating system is running due to complete instability and operation breakdown that would occur; thus being omnipresent but not omnipotent. Lastly the creator may be omniscient, having full awareness and full control to alter all activities within the system at will.
Should there be a limited supply of source material then presumably there would be a limited point of complexity wherein all complexities converge to function as a singularity. Thus infinitely high level complexity could not exist. Additionally at this point all combination and function would stagnate, including perception, effectively ending existence for those within it. Therein an omnipresent being could not exist within the existence because such a being could not form until the existence stagnates. As such an omnipotent/omniscient being also could not exist within the existence. This not barring the possibility of an omni being(s) outside the existence.
If source materials are unlimited then the possibility of infinitely high level complexity does exist. As such, it would be possible for an omnipresent being to form within the existence in constant change, but purely depending on the distribution of source material and assuming the structure of such a complexity does not indefinitely approach infinity. Though it is unlikely for an omnipotent being to exist since any omnipresent being would be in flux and not control. Again, this does not bar the possibility of omni being(s) outside the existence.
As complexities comply with the Law of Infinite Complexity, it is apparent that low level interactions are easily equatable to predictable atomic and chemical interactions. In theory if enough variables were known an interaction would become predictable. Yet for for all of existence to become predictable, one must know all variables, and therefore be omnipresent. Since an omnipresent being inside this existence would be, as a sum of its parts, in constant flux then it would be predisposed to a direction dictated by its parts unless acted upon by an entity outside its existence; but such an act of god would therefore defeat it's omnipresence as the outside entity's will acted upon it. As such, an omnipresent singularity is neither predestined nor of free will, it simply exists; as do the complexities that compose it. Each complexity seeks to expand in accordance with the law, but while the law may be consistent even to the level of predictable it cannot be truly predicted without omnipresence and therefore it cannot be neither predestined nor free of predestination.
The only considerable influences that truly could make an existence predetermined or free of will lie beyond the confines of that existence. Such creator(s) can interact with omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, or various combinations and degrees of each; making for endless possibilities, many of which may not even be perceived by anyone within the created existence.
A creator(s) who is responsible for the complete design and implementation of an existence in effect can predetermine its direction. However should this creator have any effect on the existence after creation, such an act of god would completely destabilize the existence if it was perceivable by those within it; in order to not destabilize the existence it must be completely rewritten with each change, meaning that those within the existence would not even be aware there was any change made, and therefore remain predetermined. For example, if you instruct your calculator to add 1 and 1 the result will be 2. You can modify the calculator to say 3 but you know that you modified it to say 3 and therefore it is correct in that it has done as instructed; the calculator will remain oblivious to the change.
A creator(s) may also found an existence but be restricted by the laws of their own, resulting in a lack of omnipotence. For example, you can design and run a computer program with a predictable or unpredictable result, but you must have a computer to be able to run the program in the first place. Additionally you may run a computer program but it may be impossible for you to monitor or edit the code while the program is running.
This is a discourse that can be continued nearly indefinitely with various other possibilities, however this would then become a mental exercise rather than the document it currently is.
The existence of mid and high level complexities are supported by long trees of lower level complexities. These trees are not only the composition but also amount to a complexities' level of influence across the whole of existence. However, the stability of a complexity is only equivalent to the tree it is built upon. If a complexity has lower level complexities that appear frequently in the whole of existence, then those lower level complexities are more neutral and therefore more stable, resulting in a more neutral and stable higher level complexity. Complexities that appear more frequently due to stability are also more influential, because they are capable of interacting and sharing branches with similar complexities resulting in a new even higher level complexity. The less influence the lower levels of a complexity exert, the more unstable a complexity becomes. Complexities that are exceedingly unstable become vulnerable and face an increasing threat of termination the more complex they become. Termination is the dissolution of a complexity, wherein the formation know as a particular complexity either changes beyond recognition or breaks down and has its lower levels absorbed into other complexities. By this order, most complexities naturally seek a neutral level of existence which results in the complexity becoming part of a higher level complexity faster and more frequently. More influential lower level complexities can therefore exhibit more influence over how the higher level complexity expresses itself.
While neutrality usually results in stability, truly neutral complexities are less likely to occur the more complex one becomes. This leaves the possibility for a cascading to change to occur. A cascading change occurs when a more neutral complexity comes into existence that overpowers the frequently occurring current neutrally structured complexities of a similar level. The results can range from simple replacement to overwhelming termination of complexities higher than the level in question. Yet, because complexities may branch further apart and truly neutral complexities become less probable, certain portions of existence can become naturally insulated from cascading changes by retaining varying levels of differentiation.
If physical existence, humanity, animals, plants, and rocks exist on the same/similar levels of complexity, then to define them separately would be to define their class of complexity. The key difference between these classes being how they adhere to the Law of Infinite Complexity through different potentials for connection, expansion, growth, etc. As humans we can only perceive complexities in a limited way, restricted by our own level of complexity, as such we cannot ascribe class differences based on these structural potentialities. To this extent, “motive” and consequence of motive are the closest tangible/semi-tangible things we can ascribe to define a complexity’s class. As humans each exert/expand/express their own motive, a sub-class of humanity may be defined as an individual human.
As humans, we can with some degree of confidence describe motive. This in contrast to rocks, animals, and the perceivable universe; as our understanding of all these things is limited. The human sphere of influence possesses three types of motives to expand/express their sub-class of complexity; additionally there are two types of expansion/expression for these motives. Motives, like levels of complexity, are not clearly definable categories and may overlap.
Biological – At the most basic level humans seek to expand the influence of their complexity through reproduction and physical means. Being limited to sexual reproduction, humans seek traits in a mate(s) that they wish to pass to offspring. We then impress, through parenthood, their complexity unto offspring. We also acquire sustenance to perpetuate physical being; through food, water, shelter, and so forth. In a society we usually justify collective concept of work/jobs as a means to these ends. Ends often being of physical returns in the form of physical objects we believe to exercise control over.
Social – Directly humans may attempt to exert their will over other humans by expressing their complexity through orders and structures, however others find such social expression through sharing common traits. Religion and government, being of most significant example in the recent past and present, can be noted for the shared expression of human complexity through the social means of a group that shares such things and controlled directly by those who wish to dictate their own complexity.
Intellectual – The most indirect of the three motives remains the pursuit of expression though intellectual means. That being a human who creates such things as inventions, languages, writings, and art; fixes things that others see as not fitting within their complexity; or discovers things that other humans adopt into their complexity, all pursuant to expansion.
An inability for a human to express it’s complexity leads to dissidence. This could be cause by a variety of things, examples include; the inability to acquire biological sustenance resulting in death or shaming from society, language barrier resulting in the inability to participate in a society, and so on. Negative results are often withdrawal from society, depression, and suicide; as such most suicides leave notes as final attempts at expression of their complexity before termination. Positive results of the inability of expression may be the discovery of something new to society resulting in a cascading change, the ability of a human complexity to express itself outside the preexisting confines of its complexity byway of alteration, or by creating alternative societies that exercise their own branching complexity. The key differentiating factor between positive and negative results being determined by the complexitys location within existence and the stability of its lower levels.
As to make such things clear, the concept of altruism at its very core is a contradiction to the principals of existence. Even such humans who believe themselves to be doing altruistic tasks are preforming expressions of self in various ways as to make it impossible to take action or non-action without it being self-serving. Even in most cases of termination, the expression of self is of foremost importance despite the outcome appearing altruistic; suicide, death for cause, committing atrocities. The dissolution and subsequent reabsorption of lower level complexities into the complexities of others is merely a byproduct of self-serving actions. It is likely the concept of altruism exists as a combination of social and intellectual motives wherein a complexity(s) faced the inability of expression and created such a concept that resulted in a cascading change in societies that accept such notion. Therein making it real to form but not to function.