Introduction=>
My primary motivation for writing this essay is to try to make people aware that what they want, is not always what is needed. One of the key points is that no matter what the trend is; it has the potential create chaos within the system if it is uncontrolled. My goal is to allow people to be able to identify when a trend, particularly in society as a whole, needs to be countered: to allow people to put their own feelings aside and recognize when action needs to be taken for the greater good of the system, even if the current trend benefits the individual. I will not preach my own political views; I will not tell people what I feel needs changing, though I’m sure you will be able to detect certain undertones. What I seek to accomplish is to expose others to a system of thought that will allow them to make informed decisions, become more aware of their surroundings and use their energies more effectively when they decide to take action.

Principals of the complex system=>
There are many things to remember about any complex system. Each point will be presented and explained in order of fundamentality. That is to say how universally "true" they are, and how basic of a principal it is, relative to the theory. The key to understanding these principals is to keep an open mind, and to realize that apparently contradictory statements can both be true at the same time. This essay is also arranged in a way that is intended to allow you, the reader, to apply more basic principals to the more complex ones mentioned later.  It is important to realize that the described interactions of the "instabilities" mentioned vary according to the "level" you observe them at. "Local" rules; while at a variance with the rules of the system as a whole, still hold true at the "local" level. An example of this concept is the social structure of a prison: there are "local" rules governing inmate-inmate interactions; codes of honour, personal alliances and the like. There are also the "system" rules, or the ones laid out by the prison authorities, which control, influence and dominate the nature of the "local" standards. Still; I think you would agree that the "local" rules of inmate interactions are very different from the rules of the establishment. In considering interactions within society, one has to simultaneously consider both the goals and actions of the individual as well as how those goals and actions are affected by the rest of society. In the body of this essay, the terms used are meant as metaphors for the behavior of ideas within of society, though they do apply to everything. Feedback from other readers has suggested that it is helpful to try to think of societal parallels for each principal as it is described. For example: try thinking of the described "crests" as social movements, or sweeping social changes.

The quest for stability=>
The first rule is that the goal of any system is to exist in the state that requires the least energy. Instabilities, if unchecked can greatly destabilize a system. That said, there is no such thing as a completely stable system. It is the instabilities that make it recognizable as a system; therefore, a completely stable system would simply cease to exist. Heavily featured in this essay will be the analogy of a tub of water, placed outdoors. This is our system, and its goal is to have as smooth of a surface as possible. This is a very lay-analogy, but one must try to keep in mind that a tub of water is much more than a mere tub of water. Within are atoms, sub-atomic particles and energies, constantly in conflict. No matter how smooth the surface may appear, there is utter chaos within. If this chaos stopped, that is, if all of the tiniest sub-atomic particles simply stopped moving (at absolute zero) the water really would cease to exist.
Most readers who have studied physics at the high-school level are familiar with wave theory and how water in motion acts. This is why I have chosen this analogy, and in my opinion, it does a fantastic job of allowing us to visualize the principals of the complex system.
Returning to the concept that every system seeks stability, we find that in our tub of water, every ripple or wave eventually dissipates. The energies put into creating the ripple return to the water and the highs and lows on the surface smooth out.

The changing system=>
The next aspect of the complex system is that it is constantly changing. Staying with the analogy of the water tub, we introduce the raindrop. As the raindrop hits the water, we introduce an instability. After the initial impact of the raindrop, a ripple is produced. This ripple represents the actual act of change within the system, caused by the initial instability of the raindrop. This ripple will follow certain rules, which will be adressed throughout this essay. The primary rule is that the ripple will start at a central point and will then gain momentum until it reaches a set distance from this point, directly dependant on how much energy was generated by the initial instability. After this point, the ripple, or change in the system will begin to abate until it fades completely.

The sub-system=>
An interesting thing happens when you introduce an instability into a system: it becomes a complete system in and of itself, contained within the greater system. The purpose of any system is to exist, but the sub-system has to struggle with the greater system. Take again the raindrop. As the raindrop hits the surface, it puts energy into the tub and turns it into the motion of the ripples. The goal of this system is to be smooth, just like the tub, but because it has more energy it "wants" to be smooth higher-up. Since it cannot rest higher up, the system converts the extra energy into ripples. If the sub system didn't have to succumb to the greater system, the ripples would continue forever eventually sloshing over the edge of the tub, and the greater system would destabilize. 
In this passage have been introduced two more principals of the complex system. The first is that each disturbance in a system is actually an individual system, with its own purposes and goals. In this case, the goal of the sub-system was to expend its extra energy, thus creating ripples and changing the greater system. The second principal is that each sub-system must ultimately succumb to the greater system.

The downward spiral=>
Following closely with the concept of the sub-system is the next principal. This is that within each sub-system exist all of the same principals of the system as a whole. This is an extremely important concept in understanding the complex system, but one that is perhaps the most difficult to understand and explain fully. More simply put is to say that each sub-system contains its own sub-system, which contains its own sub-system and so on, and this continues all the way down to the most basic aspect of the system. It is important to remember that all of the principals mentioned in this essay apply all of the way down to this most basic level. As well, all instabilities on any level change all of the levels below it completely. The difficulty in understanding this concept is that the reverse is also true; all instabilities will influence greater systems, but the two statements do not cancel each other. While a great instability will overwhelm a slight instability, the slight instability will alter the nature of the greater through being consumed.

Increasing complexity within the system: The rainstorm =>
To summarize, it has been stated thus far that in a complex system, each disturbance, or sub-system contains a near infinite number of sub-systems. Each of these systems are completely autonomous and independent, but are contained within the greater system and affected by all other instabilities. This is a linear, or straight-line analyses of the complex system, but as I'm sure you've surmised, the complex system is anything but linear. The natural progression of this essay is to ask what happens when you introduce several equal, or near equal instabilities to the system.
This is an excellent time for our tub to enter the discussion, although now there is an added element: the rainstorm. If we remember our grade eleven physics experiments, we remember that ripples are waves and that all waves have both a crest and a trough. When generating these waves in a system from multiple instabilities, what happens when they meet? If they are traveling in opposite directions, they will generally cancel each other out, as the crest from one wave fills the empty space left by the trough of the other. What results is a turbulent, but nonetheless relatively flat surface, lacking in extremes. Needless to say, how well the waves will cancel depends on many factors, such as wavelength amplitude and frequency, but for now, we will assume that our instabilities are relatively equal: raindrops in a tub. Anyone who has seen a pond in a rainstorm with little wind knows it's appearance to be "fuzzy," but with no large waves. Despite the constant disturbance of the surface of our tub, it will remain relatively flat. This analogy represents the complex system in a state of stability. As mentioned earlier, a system with no movement cannot exist, and one with very little movement is more easily influenced by relatively small instabilities. In the still tub, a single raindrop changed the surface dramatically; however, during the storm a single raindrop makes little difference to our system. This is how stability is achieved by the complex system; through the canceling effects of multiple, opposing instabilities, the system becomes more resistant to change.

The behavior of waves within the system=>
It is a law of wave theory that, by it's very existence the crest of a wave cannot exist without a corresponding trough. This trough follows the same path as the crest and (in ideal settings) is of the same intensity, amplitude and length. It neither adds nor detracts energy from the crest, and neither can exist without the other. In a system; however, the trough is always slightly diminished, as is the crest that follows after. This is due to the system removing energy as it tries to restore stability. Straying from our tub, I go to the sixties and will follow the path of a wave. The wave represents social change and the instigating factor, the initial instability is the advent of communism.
I must take the time to differentiate between a system's methods of maintaining stability. Primarily, a system achieves stability by countering an instability with an opposite instability. For example, with the rise of the communist movement, to retain social stability, the system increased western societies acceptance of capitalism. There is; however, a difference between the countering of an instability and the balancing of the sub-systems created by the two instigating factors. On of the more memorable results of the struggle between these two systems was the Vietnam War. This war was part of the process of change, part of the ripple effect of the two systems, and represents the crest of that ripple. A slightly less dramatic shift occurred as the complex system that is society sought to balance itself. The war became very unpopular and protests began, and disestablishmentarianism took hold. This was the "trough," a movement that would not have occurred without the war, but was not in direct counterance with capitalism. In fact, indirectly, it was created by capitalism. Continuing slightly, with the development of the disestablishmentarians, came the "hippy-haters;" the antidisestablishmentarianism movement. This was again, a smaller movement as the system removed energy from the ripple and social balance was slowly restored.
With that said, it should also be pointed out that the counteracting effects of ripples within the system can, given the right circumstances, amplify each other. A series of instabilities acting within the same region of the system will interact. A high-energy wave traveling in said direction will absorb a lower energy wave traveling in the same direction. The result is a single wave traveling with greater energy, velocity and wavelength, and consequently carrying greater potential to facilitate change in the system. As a cautionary note, it should be stated that this sort of wave, the reinforced wave, carries the greatest potential for creating system instability. This is due to the fact that not only is its energy increased, but also it's ability to overtake less energetic system ripples, further increasing its destabilizing effect while at the same time lessening the greater system's ability to control the sub-system. It should again be mentioned that the trough following the crest does not weaken it. In fact, energy added to the trough also adds to the energy of the crest, as the two are directly related
The second circumstance under which ripples will amplify as opposed to diminish is by meeting crest-to-crest, as opposed to crest-to-trough. This results in extreme system instability, though seldom in collapse. Energies from the waves originally directed to forward momentum are redirected into amplitude. If the ripple itself represents system change, then amplitude represents the degree of change. Change in this situation is extremely erratic and always undirected. The system restabilizes very quickly after such a crest-to-crest interaction, as most of the energies have been lost in the conversion of wavelength/momentum into amplitude. On yet another cautionary note, in the event of instabilities severe enough to facilitate system collapse; if one ripple should be even slightly more energetic than the other, there is the possibility that it will be able to travel un-opposed (due to the totality of the other waves affects on the system) to the extremes of the system, where less energy is required to initiate collapse. This is not as severe of a threat to the system as the previously mentioned "reinforced" wave, as it is extremely likely that the surviving waves' energies will be diminished enough that new instabilities would have enough energy to nuetralize it.
The ideal example of the aforementioned situation is the Cuban missile crisis. There was extreme energy involved in the standoff, but neither the U.S.(crest 1), or U.S.S.R (crest 2) was able to gain even the slightest advantage over the other. All energies were directed entirely towards the containment of the other nation. In the end, most historians would agree that a nuclear war was unlikely, as neither was able to gain and advantage over the other, and consequently unwilling to act out of a sense of self preservation. Upon resolution of the crisis, society quickly returned to its previous state of watchful peace; though most agree that had either nation been able to gain even a slight advantage, that the results could have been quite different.

Heisenburg’s Uncertainty  Principles=>
This is based upon the notion that you cannot observe something without changing it. Continuing further with this concept it the notion that what you observe depends on entirely on where you observe it from. Combining these theories, you arrive at the conclusion that by observing something, you change it, and when you change it, you consequently change your perspective of it. When you change what you observe in a system, you also change your own position within the system. This is perpetual and is one of the principles that makes the complex system so complex. That is to say that the system is constantly evolving. We are familiar with the following statement: “Every aspect of a system is changed by every other aspect.” This transforms into the next statement: “All systems are always changing every aspect within themselves and all other systems, at all times.” A system and all of its aspects and sub-systems cannot be measured short of suddenly gaining the ability to stop time and all the interactions.
Continuing on with the aspect of perspective, we go back yet again to our tub; to the difference between the act of balancing the system through contrasting instabilities and the balancing of the system through the relationship between the crests and troughs created by the instability. To say it more simply; occurrences higher in the system will always appear as "instabilities" while occurrences lower in the system appear as "ripples." This is an extreme simplification, as it involves measuring a system that, as previously mentioned, is immeasurable. An appropriate example is to compare the perspectives of soldiers to their general, and the general to his nation. Upon the nation's order to defend an ideal, the ripple effect is to send their general. To the general, this is the instability, and the ripple is to send the soldiers. To the soldiers, the general's order is the instability, the ripple is to fight and kill. In reverse, the general wouldn't have won if the soldiers hadn't killed, and the nation would have lost it's ideal if the general hadn't won. This is another of the perplexing aspects of the complex system; the ripples are themselves composed of other ripples and are at the same time initial instabilities to all other systems. This is a slightly more in-depth look at the earlier argument that within each sub-system exist all of the principals of the system as a whole.
Now is where we throw in the laws of probability and also introduce the concept that the complex system is infinite. As well the system, being infinite, cannot be contained and the observance of a system makes the observer part of that system. Imagine a scientist observing gorillas from far enough away that they are unaware of her presence. The actual behavior of the gorillas does not change, however, the knowledge of the scientist is increased and so she has been changed by the system. To be changed by a system is to become part of it. In return, the scientists perspective changes, which changes what she observes, and what you observe you also change, albeit very subtly. As well, the scientist's life will be irrevocably altered, changing every aspect of her life to follow and thus making the system infinite. If the system is infinite, then there are an infinite number of instabilities affecting it. An infinite number of altering factors causes everything within the system truly random. Adding again to this is the statement that changes within the system can be estimated to occur with a certain probability in a direct relationship between the "distance" between the area being observed and the initial instability. This said, a change can still occur randomly at any point within the system and is omni directional. The complex system cannot be confined dimensionally.

Expanding analogies=>
Our simple tub model no longer suffices to describe the incredible complexity of the system. What started as a ripple in a tub caused by a single raindrop has evolved into a barely fathomable jumble of obscure ideas and principals. Don't lose heart though, the principals from the tub of water don't get any more complicated, but plotting and understanding the interactions within the system becomes extremely difficult. Now to refine some of our ideas by bringing our models into the three dimensional realm:
Firstly, the ripples spoken of aren't exactly ripples. To better understand what is really happening, try to imagine a point of light floating in space. This will represent our system instability. From this point are eminating pulses of light that expand outward in a sphere, similar in appearance to a shell. This shell is constantly expanding outwards, getting dimmer as it travels away from the site of the initial instability. This sphere represents the probability of change to the system to the system. The brighter the sphere, the more likely it is to initiate change.
Now to expand on the notion of the crest and trough: The best example I can think of is to relate these to changes in air pressure. Anyone knows that objects moving through the air at velocity create areas of high pressure in front with lower pressure behind. This is not an entirely accurate analogy as there is no object to create these changes in pressure; however, that is how the "sphere" behaves. The "bright" areas of the sphere are like areas of high pressure. Areas of high pressure are areas where changes are most likely to occur, and by their existence create vacuums in their wake. These "vacuum spheres" are areas where opposite change is likely to occur. The higher the pressure, the brighter the sphere is, the higher the probability of system change. Conversely, the more total the corresponding vacuum, the higher the probability that opposite system change will occur. Again, the probability of system change decreases with the spheres distance from its point of origin. Areas of "high pressure spheres" are like the crests the ripples, while the "vacuum spheres" are like troughs. It is important to remember that despite the spherical nature that our ripple analogy has adopted, it still follows wave theory and interacts with other spheres in the same ways that our ripple interacted with other ripples.

On system collapse and edges=>
Mentioned earlier was the concept of system collapse and edges. How, you ask, can a system that is infinite collapse or have edges? Well, strictly speaking, it can't; however, you can observe the direct effects of an instability until it reaches a point where its ripples become so small as to be relatively inconsequential to the complex system as a whole. Do I really care if the fact that I'm writing this essay starts a ripple that ten years from now, makes someone choose seafood over steak? Not really, although it's certainly interesting to think that such a decision could be affected by such a benign act. Maybe a car will hit that person, because they had to wait an extra ten minutes for their lobster to be prepared... That; however, is a tangeant, back to the concept of "edges". Bearing in mind that a sub-system is actually a complete, autonomous system that consequently cannot be measured, activities within the system can be estimated to occur with a certain probability. The "edges" are the points where the direct effects of an instability are mathematically insignificant enough to be counted as zero. The edges are the weakest point of the system because they have the least energy and therefore are where countering changes will have the most effect. At the edges, the ripple has given most of its energy to the greater system. Remember the effects of the single raindrop on the still tub, and it's effect during the rainstorm? Are you most likely to vote for a political candidate if you are present for his stirring speech, or if you overhear part of a conversation about a newspaper article concerning the stirring speech on the bus? It is also easiest to initiate system collapse from the edges: the system becomes more difficult to change the nearer you are to its origin because that is where there is the most energy. Subsequently, the nearer to the origin you are, the greater the probability that any changes you create will either be reversed or met with equal resistance. Will you prevent more people from voting for the candidate if you tell the people on the bus that you heard he was a convicted paedophile who changed his name, and that they should tell all of their friends? Or if you tell his staunchest supporter, who will most likely call security on you?

More on collapse=>
A sub-system (I use this term to differentiate it from the total system, which is infinite, though each sub-system, as stated earlier is a system in and of itself) is collapsed when all of its energy has been expended. This can be achieved in two ways. The first is through direct counterance of energies through other sub-systems. The second is through the sub-system achieving its goal totally, that is to say that it has managed to change the system entirely towards whatever trend it created. Take for example the system of capitalism; imagine you wanted it overthrown. This can really only happen in two ways. The first is that communist china can destroy the monetary system through complete nuclear holocaust, a direct countering action. The second is a little more complicated, but ironically the most likely to occur. Remember that the trend of the system of capitalism is the amassment of wealth: to obtain money and not spend it. If this wasn't true, then we wouldn't have billionaires. So imagine for a moment that big-business amassed all wealth completely, that it removed it from the marketplace, and suddenly stopped needing to pay (or keep) its workers: thus freezing the flow of money. At this point, capitalism will have achieved its goal, all money has been collected, there is nothing left to be changed. If you remember, the goal of every system is to achieve stability, through the total amassment of wealth, the system of capitalism has become stable. What happens though if no one spends any money any more? Money would become obsolete. It's there, all the wealth of the world still exists, but no one is using it; thus, through the system achieving it's goal it has also achieved it's destruction. It simply ceases to exist. In reality, this would probably never happen. The flow of money can never stop completely, communist china could probably couldn’t kill every last person on the planet (there're 6 billion of us and LOTS of lead to build radiation shields… someone would survive) Both are also unlikely to happen for another reason; namely that as the system nears stability, it inherently becomes more susceptible to the influences of small disturbances. Just when it seems that a sub-system has achieved total control is when it is inherently the most likely to reverse. The system can become completely overwhelmed by these smaller systems and never achieve totality.

On following the rules:
I realized, recently that the general impression I have made with this essay so far; is that systems tend towards balance and achieve it entirely from the interactions of instabilities, sapping energy from one another. While this is true, it is often only observable over a near-infinite timeline. The fact of the matter is that systems are very rarely balanced at any time, and that the troughs that follow the ripple may take so long to appear that they cannot be observed at all. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen; just that it happens too slowly, or with such a delay that they may as well be considered non-existent.
Why does this happen, you ask? One of the guiding principles, mentioned at the very beginning of this essay, is that the greater system will gradually remove energy in an effort to achieve stability. What I have failed to describe, up to this point, are the mechanisms that remove that energy. These mechanisms are the system’s rules. In the tub analogy the ripples will eventually be dissipated by the effects of gravity. Gravity is the defining rule, ultimately, the controlling factor in our tub analogy. 
The rules of the system are complex and difficult to understand. What are “rules” exactly? The rules are a reflection of the current perceived state of the system. I say perceived, because rules are slow to change, and the actual state of the system may be quite different from the rules. The rules that define a system are instabilities to all other aspects of the system: every interaction is governed, directly or indirectly, by the presence of these controlling factors.  This is really just an expansion of the notion that all sub-systems’ must succumb to the effects of the greater system. The greater system; however, is a reflection of combined state of the sub-systems it contains. To simplify further, the greater system is the average of all the sub systems it contains. If a system contains more sub-systems that bolster a certain type of change than ones that counteract that same change, then on average; the system supports that change. If the total system supports that change, then that change will become the rule, and the effects of counter-acting sub-systems will have less effect.
Sometimes, system’s support rules so totally, that opposite change is almost immediately stifled, or its’ effects are so muffled that they cannot be measured. That said: the complex system is infinite, and therefore uncontrollable. Given a long enough time-line all rules will be broken. In fact, not only will they be broken, but, given an infinite time-line, the rules will eventually reverse in accordance with the principles of complex system theory. The trough eventually follows.
A good example of this is the current state of human sexuality. Throughout history, open homosexuality has been regarded as aberrant; though current research suggests it has always been far more common than once admitted to. The oppression of open homosexuality has long been the societal norm; the rule. Recent polls suggest that now, among people under the age of 29, over 70% support gay marriage. In contrast, support for gay marriage drops to under 40% for those respondents over the age of 65. Statistics also show that homosexuality is far more common, with most estimates showing that one out of every ten individuals is resolutely homosexual, and rising. Sexuality, among humans, is showing to be more of a conscious exercise in aesthetics, than a biological control factor. As thought tends to normalize, it is not a very far-fetched assumption that; given some time, acceptance (not the act) of homosexuality will become so widespread that it will become the norm. With human sexuality now becoming a choice in aesthetics, it stands to reason that sexual orientation will depolarize. Instead of having an exclusively heterosexual populace, where homosexuality is considered aberrant; we will have an openly bisexual populace, where extremes of orientation will become the exception. We will have a new rule. 

More on rule bending:
As earlier stated, the rules of a system are reflective of its perceived state. What this means is that while the system may have already changed a great deal, other aspects may be oblivious. If a court does something erratic like, oh let’s say, grant itself the authority to seize any property for any reason without direct evidence (only the suspicion) of the use of said property for illegal activities such as drug trafficking. And said court doesn’t make its decision publicly known, then most of the populous will remain completely unaware that said court has that terrifying authority. The populous will not react with the outrage it normally would, even though the decision has the power to shape every aspect of their lives. Why, you ask? Because they are unaware of the new rule, and are still reacting to their system as though it were unchanged. Their perception has been guided, their consent manufactured.
This can happen in other ways as well. After the transition of a type of change from aberrant to majority, the rest of the system that has yet to be altered will often remain oblivious. Laws can become dated simply because of the secretive nature of aberrant behaviors within the system. The “secretive nature” I refer to isn’t meant to insinuate conscious behavior; rather it is meant to be representative of the nature of interactions within the system. Remember that systems are weakest at their edges and subsequently, that is where change is likeliest to occur. A system may remain entirely unaware of the changes occurring to it, if they are occurring at the fringes. The participants deeply embroiled in the action of the system may be too busy being dominated by its rules to notice what goes on further out. The center of our “sphere of change,”  which is focused on the initial instability, is where the change has been the most complete. The behavior of sub-systems near the locus are a good cross-section of what would happen if the system achieved its intent completely and changed everything towards its goal.
Allow here another real world parallel to illustrate the point. This may seem very liberal of me, but I’m about to talk about marijuana possession laws. In Canada, depending on what polls you cite (and there are many) you will find that the general opinion shared by those polls is that approximately half of all Canadians smoke marijuana at least twice a year. Logically; if they are willing to partake, on occasion, it stands to reason that they are not opposed to its use by others. The reality may be different: statistics are a highly erratic gauge of societal values. To continue; many people in Canada are still fervent anti-marijuana activists; and follow this behavior in accordance with Canadian law. It has become obvious though, that the law is not reflective of the opinion of many Canadians. With marijuana use on the rise as it gains acceptance, this opinion will continue to change and eventually, marijuana users will be the majority. It will become the dominant opinion and therefore will also become the system’s new rule; though one with many exceptions. The laws, though, may take some time to change, as will the minds of the rest of the populous. They are reflective of the perceived state of the system. 
Why, then, do the laws not change immediately with the establishment of a new norm? Illegal drug use is not exactly something most people go around bragging about. This is how systems remain unaware of the change: it always starts from the fringes. Drug users were traditionally ones who felt the law was unjust, or who led lives outside of the law to begin with; and therefore were not highly visible. They existed at the fringes. This lack of visibility makes people unaware of its presence, and therefore they will not be changed by it. This behavior creates a lag between when a change occurs and when the rest of the system recognizes that change.
This is a principle that is well know and executed with frightening regularity and increasing frequency by governments and corporations. No one will object if no one notices; and fewer are willing to protest, after the fact . When people feel they can prevent something from happening, they feel more motivated to act, because there is an imperative need. When something has already happened, people are more willing to forget or ignore, as they are likely to feel nothing can be done.

Introducing neutrality
One thing you will notice in any of the sciences, is that most things do nothing most of the time. One of the greatest puzzles to early quantum mechanics was the purpose of the nuetron. If an atom had an equal number of positive and negative charges, it was balanced. Why, then, did atoms need nuetrons? They didn't actually seem to be doing anything. The answer lay in the amount of energy needed to keep the parts of an atom bound to each other, and the problems that said energy creates if there is too much or too little. Atomic weaponry is the most awesome power yet discovered; and its near infinite energy is actually the energy binding the atoms together. The fact is: there's a lot of energy in an atom. 
What physisists soon realized is that atoms are constantly being rammed into by vagrant sub-atomic energies and particles; as well as each other. They observed that little chunks of the atoms were being knocked loose. What scientists then realized is that the only thing keeping that phenomenol amount of energy in check is the balance between positive and negative.  In short, if the balance between positive and negative in an atom is lost for any length of time, it will break itself apart, and all of the energies bound within will escape. To be succint: can you say BOOM? But, the very fact that we exist makes it clear that breaking bits off of an atom doesn't actually make everything instantly explode.
So, what then is the purpose of the neutron? Remember that on the molecular level, there are so many atoms slamming into each other at all times, breaking bits off, that there is always a replacement part floating nearby. All the atom needed to keep from breaking apart completely was a little more time to find a replacement for whatever had been knocked off. That's where the nuetron comes in. If you've been paying attention at all, you know that the more energy a system has the less it will be influenced by a small change. The single drop in the tub as compared to the single drop in the rainstorm. It's all relative (sic)
So; by adding neutrons, you add more energy to the atom. If the atom has a lot of energy, it's not going to be affected as greatly when it loses a little piece. It will be able to survive longer without breaking apart, and will therefore have long enough to find a replacement part and restore balance. The nuetron is a buffer. It doesn't directly pull one way or another, so therefore it certainly doesn't contribute to any tension between the proton(+) and electron(-). All it does is keep the peace, so to speak, between two opposing forces. Without it, even a slight unbalancing of power leads to very rapid destruction.
Hydrogen is the only element in the periodic table that doesn't have a neutron. Independantly, hydrogen is very stable. It remains stable for two reasons: the first is that there are no other forces acting within the atom itself. No extra electrons to run into each other, no extra forces affecting and destabilizing it. The second is that it is very, very small; even as far as atoms go. If you're firing something that can knock an electron free at an atom, what are the chances that you're actually going to hit the tiny bit that's whirring around so fast that you can't actually know where it is at any given moment? It's a lot higher if you have eight or ten buzzing around in the same confined space than if there's only one. But, if you can actually hit the electron on a hydrogen atom, it's the easiest type of atom break. It has no nuetrons, and therefore has no time to restabilize once its broken. To put it another way, it's the easiest atom to break, but the hardest one to catch. Put it in a situation where there's no way you can miss (say a nuclear explosion) and its literally like shooting fish in a bucket. This is why adding hydrogen to an atomic weapon increases its power exponentially. 
Now would be a good time to remember one of the first principles mentioned in this essay: the rules of the system apply to all levels of the system. They apply from the most basic, sub-atomic level, to the infinite expanses and far off corners of our reality.

Raindrops, waves and vibrating buoy's: it's all the same thing
In the early days of quantum physics, scientists were puzzled by the way light travels through a vacuum. They believed that light was a particle, yet sometimes they found it behaved as though it were a wave. As waves are actually a mechanical action, an interaction between particles, they were puzzled as how it could occur in a vacuum. The solution to their problem was to invent an imaginary "ether" through which light could travel, but which science could not yet detect. This has since been cleared up by the realization that matter really is just an interaction between different forms of energy. When you put your hand on a table, it's not that there is an actual thing filling that space and thus preventing your hand from passing through. What actually happens is that the fields of energy created by the energy in your hand cannot pass through the fields of energy created by the atoms that make up the table. This is a little bit of a paradox in itself. Basically, atoms move so incredibly fast that they are really kind of everywhere at once. The principle is easy to observe in life: simply look at a spinning propellor on an airplane. It looks almost like a solid circle, and you know what would happen if you were to try to pass a stick through. You know that it's really just three small blades: they simply spin so fast as to effectively fill all of the space in the circle at once.
I bet you're wondering the point of all of this, though. Well, this realization, that matter is really just a form of energy, turned two seperate aspects of physics into one. Up until this realization, energy and matter were thought to be two seperate entities. Light threw a wrench into that notion, since it behaved as both. The aknowlegement that matter=energy allowed scientists to clear up the debate and recognize that sometimes energy acts like energy, sometimes like matter, and sometimes both. The same holds true for the behavior of information and change within the system. Sometimes change travels through the system in the form of something intangible, like an idea (energy); a shift in societal values for example. Sometimes change occurs in a system due to something more tangible (matter); for example, the construction of a building. Sometimes it can take on the form of both (light) as in an instance where that something is both tangible, and a producer of the less tangible. People for example.
That makes people, and really anything at all that doesn't stay exactly the same all of the time, a bit of a paradox. This is really just a revisitation of the earlier statement that all aspects of the system are constantly changing every other aspect, while being altered by every other part of the system themselves. It's a constant give-and-take relationship where what's given alters the nature of what's being taken, and what's being taken alters that which is being given; in perpetuity.  It's the same thing in physics: matter by its very existence, releases energy, affecting everything around it. Energy is everywhere, constantly affecting any matter that may be present.
The point, then, is to clear up any further possible misunderstandings about the nature and interaction of different aspects of the system, by removing the percieved "ether." The error in early physists' assumptions about interstellar ether, is thier assumption that the light needed a medium to travel through. This erroneous assumption was reasonably based upon the notion that matter and energy were seperate things. Recognize that they are one and the same and you remove a lot of rules you've imposed mentally, and can better understand how one can become the other. It's just a change in state. The same is true for changes to a system. As change moves through the system, it does so through direct interactions. The change doesn't just "magically" happen. A poignant example is sound.
What is sound exactly? Literally, it is the mechanical action of molecules of air, which is then interpreted by the brain. Air is the medium, through which sound travels, and we know that there is no sound without air. The problem lies with our thinking. The problem is the belief that sound actually is a thing. We tend to think that sound is almost a solid tangible object, but that it needs something to move through. This is not the case. Sound is actually our interpretation of a change in our surroundings. Literally, sound is not a thing but rather an observation. Sound doesn't exist. The same is true for any type of change. When you observe changes within a system, you aren't observing an actual entity, but rather the changes in behavior of individual aspects of the system. The medium is the message.
To better understand what I am describing, let's compare sound travelling to a game of chinese whisper. In either, you can observe three things: the change in the individual, the change in the actual message and the change in the overall state of the group. 
For sound: the individual is an individual air molecule: it recieves the change (change to the individual); imposes the limitations placed upon it onto the change (a different trajectory, for example ) and passes it on with the new control factors, giving the molecule next to it a different trajectory than it otherwise would have (change to the message.) After many such interactions, you can then observe the new locations of each molecule that was moved by the sound. (Change to the overall state of the group.) In addition, you can also plot the change as it happens. Watch the wave.
For chinese whisper: the person recieves the message (change to the individual); imposes any limitations they may have (hearing it improperly, for example) and passes it on with anything they thought they heard (change to the message.) After that, you can then ask everyone what they heard (change to the overall state of the group.) And of course, if you wanted, you could listen to what everyone heard and then said, as the message passed through the group. Watch that wave go!
This also helps to understand the principle that each aspect of the system is an instability to the other aspect of the system. The second person in the chinese whisper analogy is both part of the wave, as s/he has been changed by it and acts as an instability to the next person in line. That person is both at once. 

Accumulative disruption (the entity paradox)
The principles explained thus far do wonderfully for plotting, observing and predicting the actions of waves of disruption through a system. We know that a on both the tangible and intangible plane, when an instability or disruption occurs, it moves outwards in a fairly linear manner. Its direction, and the probablity that it will change something varies with the obstacles it encounters. The degree of change it causes varies with where it is in the system, the rules it has to obey to exist within that system and on the degree of similarity between the destabilizing aspect, and the system it is interacting with (bolster or counter principle). We know that the mechanics of change depend on the state that it is in, be it behaving as an intangible idea (ripple) or a solid change which the rest of the system has to change around (instability). We know that the definition of ripple and instability used in this essay is interchangeable, depending on where in the system you observe it from. We also know that systems need neutrality to avoid breaking apart completely. Lastly

Application of complex system theory

Why application of complex system theory is important in making informed decision=>
One of the main purposes of this lengthy and complicated essay is to prepare the reader to make informed political decisions. More and more I witness people "jumping on bandwagons" and making uninformed decisions in their lives with little knowledge or regard for the consequences of their actions. I recently witnessed this trend poignantly displayed at a protest against the recent war on Iraq. Now I wish to make it clear that the comments made here are reactionary, based upon the opinions of those involved. My opinions on this recent instability are for another essay. To continue: I followed this group mainly as an observer. I wanted to know just how aware the masses were of the consequences of their actions. I asked several people why they were there, to which one of the most common responses was "I want to change peoples' opinions." With this in mind, I asked several people why they thought this war was taking place. The resounding response was that the U.S. was after the forced spread of capitalism as well as Iraqi oil. Now to introduce the setting of this protest: it started at a park, around which was ample parking space. Most of the protestors arrived in cars, and surprisingly few car-pooled. This was in a relatively small city, which nonetheless had an excellent public transit system. After marching through the city for a while, we arrived at a large courtyard, outside of the city's main bank, its symbolic center of capitalism. This was as much a protest against capitalism as it was against the war. People arriving at the bank for work, or to resolve business matters were harassed The protestors made their opinions heard, forcefully and those being harassed rebuked in turn, forcefully and angrily. After a time a microphone was set up and people were invited to speak their minds. After a period of relatively benign and repetitive rhetoric, my curiosity and annoyance got the better of me, and I stepped to the mic. 
"Raise of hands, how many people think this war is for oil?" A sea of hands shot up. "Why does the U.S. need this oil?" I asked. After a brief pause and some murmuring I heard "Because there's demand for it!" shouted from the back I nodded in agreement. I then asked how many people had driven to the protest. Sheepishly, about half of the crowd gathered raised their hands. Next I asked the crowd if any of them knew why they had chosen a bank as the location of their protest, to receive their message. One of the protest organizers seized the microphone and shouted: "Because we want to send a message to those greedy bastards, here and in city hall, that the system needs to change!! That we won't stand for their shit any more!!" The crowd erupted in jubilant cheers and applause. After flashing the guy a dirty look, I regained control of the mic and, incensed, began to speak.
"This protest has been wasted." I began "Most of you contribute more to the war effort through your daily excesses, such as driving instead of walking, wearing polyester instead of cotton, than you could ever hope to detract from it by protesting. You are the ones creating the demand for oil, creating a market for it, creating this war! As well, if any of you were serious about changing people's opinions, than you should have realized that it's message would have had a greater impact had it taken place at a school; where young minds are malleable, and underpaid teachers would have been sympathetic to your cause. The people in this building are shut off to your message because you are harassing them, and because their livelihood depends entirely on the same system that you claim to want to overthrow. Most of you are simply here to cause a raucous or get out of school. Your time has been wasted!!" I stepped down from the mic amidst stunned silence and started walking towards the liquor store. I really needed a beer. 
Needless to say, my impromptu speech was neither so eloquent, or concise, but the points made were the same, as was the crowds response to my chastising queries and subsequent lecture. I'm sure you get the point; however, that had the protest organizers been aware of complex system theory, the protest could have had a much greater impact. Exemplified here were two of the main principals of complex system theory, both of which were ignored by the protestors. The first is that every action, no matter how small, will either amplify or counteract all other systems. The protestors were inadvertently creating a reason for the war by excessive use of oil-based products in their everyday lives. As well, it must be remembered that direct counterance can actually bolster the effects of a ripple. By harassing the people in the bank, the protestors may have made them unsympathetic to their cause, creating system instability by adding energy but ultimately wasting that energy. In the end nothing changed. The second principal neglected by this protest is that a system is weakest at its edges. They certainly would have facilitated greater system change by having a well-informed activist speak at a school, though measurable change may take longer to develop.

Application of complex system theory: Observing and predicting trends=>
By applying complex system theory, it becomes possible to make predictions about certain trends within society with varying degrees of certainty. The most important aspect of this field is observation. To make informed decisions, one must be aware of as many of the factors affecting the trend as possible. Remember that in a world where everything affects everything else: what may seem like a relatively inconsequential factor can start a ripple large enough to overwhelm a system if it is ignored. It is also important to note that unobserved factors carry the greatest potential to disrupt a system. As well, the individual with the greatest knowledge will make the most accurate predictions. Imagine for a moment, an unlikely, but poignant analogy: the worlds greatest heavyweight boxer is placed in a match against... a twelve year old boy? For this analogy to work, we have to assume that no one in the model is intelligent enough to realize that there is something wrong with the setup. They will base their predictions on the outcome of the fight on the information presented to them, namely that the boxer is physically superior to the boy. Based on this assessment, it is a fairly safe bet that everyone will predict the boxer will win. The unobserved factor here is that the boxer has been paid to take a dive. Yes I know, DUH, but remember that everyone in the model is as intelligent as a mushroom. This is where another principal comes into play; namely that the system is unaware of an instability until after it has changed something. Knowledge of the instability rests entirely within the instability itself until after it interacts with something. No one could have known the outcome of the fight, aside from the boxer and whoever paid him.
This analogy was meant strictly as a cautionary tale. We do not have the IQ's of fungus and most systems are fairly straightforward. Through past experience, we can also learn to recognize when something is amiss. Why did you immediately know the fight was fixed? Because you are familiar enough with the system to recognize how improbable the fight was, and that this was probably so to accommodate an unseen factor. We drew on previous experience, a precedent, to guess at what that factor was: the fight was fixed. As we familiarize ourselves with a system, we increase our ability to recognize improbable circumstances and prepare ourselves to react to the unforeseen instability. We cannot; however, predict what that instability is unless there is a precedent. We wouldn't have known the fight was fixed, unless we'd heard of it happening before. We would have looked at it and said something along the lines of: "That seems odd but I don't know why." Fortunately, in the political arena, there is a precedent for just about everything.
As the preceding discussion has proven, the most important aspect of prediction is observation and every unobserved factor decreases the probability of making an accurate prediction. As well, these unobserved factors may radically alter the nature of a system in unforeseen ways. It is also important to note that the complex system is still considered truly random and that no prediction is certain. It is possible that the boxer really would beat up a small boy, or that the boy had some amazing super powers...
It takes a little more than mere observation to formulate an opinion or accurate prediction. It also takes careful analyses of ALL of the observed factors. I can observe a dozen drunken frat boys making fools of themselves. I cannot predict which one will be sick first until, through careful analyses, I determine who is the most intoxicated. As well, if I only observe six of the frat boys, there is a fifty percent chance that the first one to be sick will be part of the other group. 
Not only do you have to observe the factors individually, but also how they are interacting within the system. Is the instability using its energy effectively? Starting from the edge inward? Is the trend growing or abating? If I observe the frat-boys once again and base my predictions upon their current state, I would likely assume that the one curled up in a ball in the corner will be the most likely to become ill. However, he is no longer drinking, his tendency towards illness is lessening. If I were to look around and see someone chugging a quart of vodka on a dare, my assessment of who would become ill first would, obviously, change. 
Observation of the momentum a trend possesses is quite important. A prediction that seems accurate at the moment could very well change in the near future. In predicting trends, it must again be emphasized that external influences will add to or detract from a trend. Through observing various disturbances, you will likely be able to predict when and how they will interact, and thus have a more accurate current prediction. This can be summarized again, with the drunken frat boy analogy. (Who said partying never taught you anything?) Imagine that you were again asked to predict who would most likely become ill. Upon your initial assessment, you would likely predict the young man curled up in the corner looking very pale, but resting. However, imagine that you overhear one of them talking to another about a plan to bet the noisy braggart in the middle of the living room, expounding his virtues to a young woman he obviously wants to impress, that he wouldn’t drink a quart of vodka all at once for $50. It is possible that he will turn the offer down; but you know from watching this fellow that he probably won’t, especially for $50 and a woman he wants to impress watching. In this situation, what would you now predict? 
Situations like the one just described, obviously depend on many factors, and the individual’s interpretation of them. Different people would predict a different outcome, but I believe my point is well made; that observation of the way things are at any given time isn’t quite as important as observing the factors that will change them. The world, and everything in it is a constantly changing system and as such its behavior cannot be predicted based upon static observation. Understanding the basic principals of complex system theory and applying them systematically to all the observed factors leads to immense awareness of the surrounding environment. 

Maintaining Balance=>
Now that you effectively know how to analyze and predict trends around you through application of complex system theory, you will hopefully be able to apply it. These principals can be used in the analyses of trends in the world around you: political, social, environmental or even in your personal life, among your friends or at your job. Mentioned in the introduction to this essay was my desire to make people aware that even trends that may at first seem desirable will eventually wreak havoc if they become too totalitarian. Most of us are already aware of this principal, but on a slightly more subliminal level; that is to say that we are aware that too much of a good thing is just as bad as too little, though we usually wouldn’t relate this common-place knowledge to a math-based essay. In my experience; however, sometimes you will be more aware of what you know subliminally if it has been formulated into words or images that you can consciously draw upon. Using myself as an example, I have done a great deal of independent research on body language; something that we are all subliminally aware of. You usually know when your good friend is unhappy, but are you consciously aware of what physical cues have led you to this conclusion? Research in this field has allowed me to be able to recognize very subtle actions; some people are able to hide their emotions very well. This is one advantage. Another advantage is that it has allowed me to remove my own personal feelings from the assessment. Have you ever had a bad day, and ended up in an argument with a loved one because you didn’t realize they were upset as well? Or superimposed your own fears and emotions upon others? Conscious knowledge of body language helps to prevent this, as it allows you to step back and rationally analyze a situation and another individuals’ reactions without having to rely entirely on intuition. While intuition is very powerful, it is greatly influenced by your emotions.
Allow here, another example of the difference awareness of this theory makes and why it is important to control trends regardless of whether or not they seem beneficial: Imagine you have a friend whom you are developing a close relationship with, and gradually begin to spend more and more time together until you become inseparable. Most of us will reach a point where if we spend all of our free time with people, we eventually stop enjoying their company. The friendship will suffer, and feelings may be hurt when someone finally gives in and says: “I need some space.” Spending all of your time with your friend at first may have seemed wonderful, but subliminally, you probably know that it is best to have some time apart. Most of us have been in this situation, and the experience has made most of us realize that time apart is healthy for a friendship. The mistake you made has allowed you to consciously be aware of the consequences of the situation; it has turned you into a critical thinker. Ultimately that is what I have sought to encourage by writing this essay: to expose people to a system of critical thinking that applies to all aspects of life.

Neutrality in continuous entities

On Society=>
Again, though, I emphasize the need to apply this system of critical thinking to society. With expanding awareness of the world around us, particularly human behavior patterns, corporations, governments, individuals and those controlling the media (print, television, radio, etc.) have exponentially increased their abilities to mold society towards their own desires. There are entire fields of study devoted to predicting how well society, as a whole, will respond to the introduction of new ideas, products and trends. There are people whose careers are devoted entirely towards making unpopular ideas socially acceptable, whose job is to do so as efficiently as possible. There are market analysts, advertising consultants and countless other professions devoted to this.
The problem? The goal of most of these professions is to change society, without society realizing it. Individuals are resistant to change. Change is, I admit, absolutely necessary to survival. I also concede that many individuals don’t know what’s good for them and need to have change imposed upon them. The first problem, then, is this: with our vast knowledge of how people act, particularly in groups, it has become extraordinarily easy for just about any one to change the system in just about any way they want without many people noticing. Not all of those who seek to create change do so scrupulously, or with the motivation of bettering society. 
Take for example advertising. What is the goal of advertising? To convince people that they need a certain product, so that the corporation can make money. Much of advertising is subliminal: how many commercials can you think of where people are frowning while using a product? The message, therefore, is that using the product creates happiness. There are innumerable studies on advertising that suggest that many people will accept an idea due to peer pressure, or because a person in a position of authority presents it to them. Think of commercials for smoking: most involve an individual, surrounded by a group of revelers who obviously accept him, despite the horribly unhealthy and certainly unpleasant smelling cigarette perched between his lips.
This is the problem with advertising: it seeks to change people, but is the change bettering society? In most cases, the answer is no: the only motivation the company has is to make money. Almost any company, with enough knowledge of how markets work can make their idea accepted: no matter how horrible it is. Secondly, I ask how morally ethical it is to change someone without their knowledge? If someone is unaware that their life is being altered, then how could they possibly have given their permission to allow it to be altered? This is a tremendous ethical problem, in my opinion. 

More on advertising=>
Recently, there has been a growing trend among people to stop advertising. Through research, individuals began to become aware of the tricks advertisers were using to mold them, and they rebelled. Counterculturism is becoming very widespread. People are revolting against the consumerism mentality, using the awareness of the ploys advertisers use to recognize when they are trying to “pull the wool over our eyes” and thus gaining the ability to make their own decisions. Suddenly, they have the ability to give their permission to an advertiser. I admit that when I see and advertisement for a pizza place when I’m home with a few friends and have the munchies and twenty bucks to waste, that I’ll probably call and order a pizza. This is representative of a form of another form of advertising; which simply involves letting the public know about the existence of a product, without trying to dupe the populous into believing that it is the only product they should use.
However; this is actually representative of one of several trends advertisers have created to deal with counterculturism. In fact, they are capitalizing upon it. 
Several years ago, when society was uninformed of the tricks advertisers were using, an advertisement that didn’t spend all of its time expounding its products’ virtues would likely have been summarily ignored. In the present, though, when someone sees an advertisement which uses the tricks we are learning to recognize: the smiling faces, the use of peer groups, or using the testimonials of “professionals” (doctors, athletes, etc.) we often feel that our intelligence has been insulted. This was a tremendous problem for advertising firms. How to counter it? Make the individual feel as though they are in control of the decision. They will respect you for not insulting their intelligence, and buy your product.
Advertisers have actually taken this idea one step further: instead of simply not using the traditional advertising “tricks”; thus making the individual feel intelligent and in control, they have actually taken to mocking them. Two examples spring to mind: the first is an extraordinarily successful advertising campaign for a well-known soft-drink brand. Slogans in the commercial stated that if you were going to use the product, use it because you wanted to, not because someone tells you to. The advertising campaign heavily featured celebrities making fools of themselves, mocking the traditional advertising method of celebrity endorsement. 
The second example is a magazine, which shall remain nameless which I had tossed upon my desk by a close friend: an anti-consumerist, social activist and all around nice guy. It was full of well-written, informed essays, and fantastic artwork, all concerning counterculturism, all directed at stopping the spread of rampant consumerism and advertising. As I was browsing through the magazine, I found advertisements for the magazines’ own products: t-shirts, posters and the like. It even had the audacity to point out elsewhere in the magazine that it was self-promoting and that you were stupid if you purchased their products. I set the magazine down and my friend asked excitedly “So what did you think? Pretty great eh? Advertising’s done for!!”
With a puzzled look upon my face I asked him how much he had paid for it.
“Twelve bucks.” He replied. 
Point made.

Expanding awareness=> 
It’s not only advertising firms that have extensive knowledge of how to mold society. Governments do as well. The problem with governments is that the changes they create are usually far from the public eye. Whereas advertising depends entirely upon the direct acceptance of a new idea; it has to be thrown out and exposed, and if it isn’t seen by the general populous then it cannot create societal change. The government; however, has the liberty of being able to introduce new ideas by simply changing things a little bit at a time. This is fairly familiar to us: taxes steadily climb. As well throughout history we have seen the rise and fall of countless dictators and systems of governments who usurped power slowly. We have also seen systems of government that at first seemed ideal, but gradually became totalitarian, communism for example. The nations where communism still exists seldom have the military strength to assume total control of their population, and as such there remains some degree of balance.
The difficulty is that within any system of government is the government’s inherent desire to be the ONLY system of government and stay in power. As a government becomes more and more accepted, it becomes more and more controlling. Gradually, opposition is routed. This is not always a violent act, as witnessed in totalitarian states. In nations where free speech is promoted, the government in power doing anything and everything it can to promote itself frequently suppresses opposition. Often a government will become so powerful that it becomes all its citizens know. As such creating change becomes extremely difficult. Ancient Rome is an excellent example: Julius Ceasar was originally an elected candidate who stayed in power so long that it was decided that he should simply be made ruler for life.
I must urge that I am not an anarchist, that I am instead a student of history; someone who is constantly aware of the famous experiment of “the frog and the kettle.” A frog dropped in a kettle of boiling water will jump out immediately; but a frog placed in a kettle where the heat is increased very slowly will simply sit there until it’s cooked.

In Closing
The theories I have expunged here will hopefully allow you, the reader, to recognize when “the heat’s being turned up.” Hopefully, as well, you will be able to create necessary change by effectively applying yourself and by realizing how your actions will affect your surroundings. Remember, dear reader, that everything you do affects everything else. Every trend in society will eventually reverse; though hopefully you can now recognize when the time is right to apply yourself to controlling them and do so before they make life intolerable. Sometimes change takes lifetimes, even eons. I urge you dear reader, to think of the future, the future beyond yours; the future of your children. Remember as well the past; for in the past lie the precedents. Above all, I urge you to be aware. Of everything.