beauty of nature

note: further down in this post the importance of defining what is meant by the terms organization and design is inevitable and a definition is hazarded which sheds needed light of the scientific sort on the nature of nature .

we find beauty in the intricacies and visuals of nature continuously on every scale from the molecular and subcellular to telescope deep field scales . Beauty and perfection as in flawlessness of design are thus found at every level of organization in the phenomenal world - the world of hadath, or of hodooth , or of al-mahsoosat , or of al-shahaada (witness, testament, witnessing).

it is clear also that moving through the scales of scope or size, we move through successive levels or layers of organization - we might also be able to say through layers of abstraction .

it would be remarkable that the level of complexity remains constant , but does it?

is the level of complexity (design complexity, constraint complexity , in terms of all the "rules" or laws being played out , size complexity - but then again what kind of size? - the same for a system of atoms and molecules and ions in subcellular systems and a system of a group of galaxies ?

in terms of number of atoms and molecules, of course the group of galaxies would be of enormously larger "size" then the number of atoms inside a single cell,

but would the number of stars or star systems be comparable to the number of molecules or atoms inside the cell ?

if so would this mean that both systems would have the same "size" complexity ?

another feature is that densities of matter between dense and very sparse alternate in succession as we go from small to large scale of scope of what we observe - eg from the atomic scale to that of galaxy superclusters and whatever lies beyond
at higher levels of organization.

Back to density , the densities of matter fluctuate as one traverses both distances and orders of their magnitude.

as one goes from the nucleus of an atom , and the enormous distance compared to the nucleus' size , until we reach the electron cloud and the fuzzy borders of the atom , there is a palpable large amount of void followind the closely packed density of matter inside the nucleus at least at the level of baryons,
like neutrons and protons.

as we get farther from the nucleus and the much larger atom, the size of the system observed also grows , and now we can look an entire molecule ,

which replaces the period of void with a densely packed "matter" in this respect atoms rather than nucleii ,

and a certain level of organization seems to bind the molecule together , and further still , another level of organization bind large numbers of molecules together into lattices or crystals or foams or fibers of some sort or another forming various kinds of materials, our own familiar macroscopic kind of objects,

in a very large collection of materials nearly constantly changing into each other makes up our planet and a very densely packed amount of matter measured in macroscopic units like tonnes .

but that density and the size of our entire planet is again followed by even larger size of the distance of void between it and other such "planets" like the moon further defining a yet larger system, the binary system of earth and moon , which again is followed by a long distance of void much larger in diameter than the system's , until we start encountering other similar systems comparable in size which ranges in difference from the asteroids to giant planet-satellite systems like jupiter and saturn and even the sun , the star of the show.

the entire solar system incredibly much larger than any of its constituents is itself tiny compared to the sphere of void that surrounds it until other systems comparable in size to itself are encountered, forming galaxies and later yet groups of galaxies.

is a molecule's organization more complex than that of an atom?

is that of a block of material or cellular organelles more complex than the molecules?\

of coures the molecules of blocks of material are much less complex than those of cellular subsystems ,

and the homeostasis of a system such as the cell required to maintain the state of a living cell is clearly a lot more complex than that the kind of homeostasis needed to maintain the state for a block of rock , ie for a block of rock to continue to be a block of rock .

which incidentally brings us to the important point on what is organization and why do i use the term design ?

would not the use of design immediately suspend my discourse from the sphere of science altogether, since i betray an a priori belief in God ?

well, not necessarily , which is the crux of the point.

the level of organization of a natural is the sets of all the rules or laws or algorithm or constraints that keep the system behaving in the natural way , such as we observe the system in nature. the level of organization defines the structure , form , behavior , and stasis as well as eventual change of any given system in nature .

organization thus defines states of systems, and the state machines (or algorithms , or functions) of different natural systems of all scales of size (and complexity).

this is even more dramatically seen in biological organisms such as ourselves where the natural system is very complex , its homeostasis is very complex and is defined as a program of automatic control that lasts since our conception until our passing.

such a program (program as in algorithm, or automatic machine) yields an autonomous self-repairing self-motivating etc. orgranism, that though changing over the course of its lifetime, consists at every instant of a stasis or homeostasis suitable for its functional wellbeing at that moment.
That homeostasis is maintained throughout and fits perfectly - or takes into account the long-term changes that occur to the organism from formation to death and decay . (of course long-term could mean years and decades for a a human , but only a few hours or minutes for a bacterium or weeks for an insect)

I do not think there can be discussion of systems in which is so clearly present automatic control , along with its subsystems of feeback , error detection and correction , without talk of design .

thus speaking of design in natural systems is not unscientific at all - it is very much in the domain of applied science as not only matters of engineering but also as that finished examples of functional and very well "designed" systems that surround us in nature , including our own selves.

It is not unscientific either to speak of the beauty we collectively feel when confronted with the elements of "design" or organization of such systems , literally from first sight (the visually aesthetic) down to the minutest details (the continuity of intricacy throughout from the global system to the smallest discernible constituent subsystems)

whatever the significance or meaning of that experience of "beauty" that we feel or note when observing physical systems it is not at all unscientific to take account of it at least by making note of it. in fact refusing to make note of it and trying somehow to make use of it in the scientific work (and technological work) is more unscientific in approach , as some information is omitted purely at the discretion of the scientist or technology designer which could prove important in the understanding of what these systems mean.