Our Complexity Relative To Our Surroundings

I am fascinated by our higher complexity level, relative to our inanimate surroundings. But exactly how much more complex are we? 

We can readily see that we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings by the fact that there are medical textbooks. The more complex something is the more things there are that can go wrong with it. A medical textbook is a description of all that could potentially go wrong with the human body as the lower complexity, meaning containing less information, inanimate surrounding environment "tries" to pull the higher-complexity human body down to it's level.

To express how much more complex is the human body than our inanimate surroundings we have to be able to quantify complexity, which means expressing it with a number. In my theory of how information works the complexity of something is expressed as the value of the denominator when it is expressed as a fraction or ratio.

Since we are at a higher level of complexity and our surrounding inanimate environment at a lower level, the difference between the two should somehow be seen as manifested around us. That is what I want to look at today, indicators that show the difference between the two levels of complexity.

Since we are more complex, meaning more information per mass, than our surrounding inanimate environment then our bodies must be organized in ways that our surrounding environment isn't. What about the number of different systems in our bodies? Not the number of organs but the number of basic systems that work together.

In my information theory creatures with free will are at a higher level of complexity, relative to the surrounding environment. But plants are of the same complexity as the inanimate surrounding environment, containing no more information, but of much higher intricacy, meaning having more information per mass.

This means that plants are of a lower complexity than we are. Since we must eat food to sustain our higher level of complexity, since the surrounding environment is continuously "trying" to pull us back down to it's level, no single plant can sustain our higher level of complexity. 

This means that we require a variety of plants, whether directly or indirectly through meat, and the number of different plants required for a balanced diet should give us a clue as to how many times more complex we are than our surrounding inanimate environment.

We see our surrounding environment, and our interactions with it and involving it, through our own more complex perspective. This causes us to see our knowledge as falling into different categories. The number of these different categories should be an indication of how much more complex we are than our surrounding inanimate environment. This means that the number of general subjects taught in school should give us an idea of how many times more complex we are than our surrounding inanimate environment.

The same goes for the number of very broad employment categories. Since all work can be broken down to imposing our higher level of complexity on our surrounding environment the number of very broad employment categories should be a reflection of how many times more complex we are than our inanimate surroundings.

Sports involves interacting with the laws of physics of the surrounding natural environment. It thus follows that, since we are more complex than that environment, the number of very broad categories of sport should give us an idea of how many times more complex we are than our surrounding natural environment.

I also have the idea that the ratio of total door width to total wall width is an indicator of how many times more complex we are than our surrounding inanimate environment. We build structures to shield us from our surrounding environment because we are more complex than it is. But yet there has to be doorways for us to go in and out of our structures. The more complex we are the more space we will require, and the more space we will find it worthwhile to seal off from the surrounding environment. 

This means that, very roughly, the ratio of the total width of walls, interior and exterior, to the ratio of door width, including entranceways where there isn't a door, should indicate how much more complex we are than our natural surroundings.

Then we might consider the number of different rooms in a typical house. Each room serves a different purpose. The house serves as a frontier between us and our surrounding environment. Therefore the more complex we are relative to that environment the more different rooms there should be in a house.

Considering all of these examples here my conclusion is that we are roughly eight times as complex as our surrounding inanimate environment. The inanimate environment only ultimately has electric charges with which to store information, while living things have another dimension of information in DNA.