I don't think it's very common to experience antifragility outside of abstract complex systems such as economic markets. My intuition is that physical systems which exhibit antifragility tend to be metasystems, and the antifragility is described in the context of achieving specific states of subsystems.
For example, with the universe in relation to supernovas, we can say that a supernova wipes out a solar system. But new solar systems then take their place, with a different metal distribution that may be more conducive to advanced intelligence. If advanced intelligence is the goal, we might say that the universe is antifragile to supernovas, or more generally to the effects of gravity.
However, it's definitely a matter of perspective given that supernovas themselves are entirely inconsequential to the universe as a whole, and are only relevant to subsystems at specific emergent layers within the universe.
We could also form similar conclusions about natural evolution in general.
We might even be able to generalize further and posit that there is a natural tendency for order to arise out of chaos, and so order itself is antifragile to chaos, given that order thrives under the right chaotic conditions[0] and isn't simply immunized against it. So antifragility may exist as a fundamental property of the foundation of stuff, but it's not automatically an inheritable property of subsystems.
It all becomes very abstract, but at least we can define some constraints, namely that antifragility should be described in terms of optimization goals and measurement of specific states, and are thus subjective to the observer and not an innate property of the universe or any other system.
My intuition is that antifragile is often mistaken for controlled/directed growth. In that it works well in examples where things are able to die off and to be regrown. Muscles, in that regard, are able to withstand tears and are able to grow back. They will do so largely where they were torn.
For example, with the universe in relation to supernovas, we can say that a supernova wipes out a solar system. But new solar systems then take their place, with a different metal distribution that may be more conducive to advanced intelligence. If advanced intelligence is the goal, we might say that the universe is antifragile to supernovas, or more generally to the effects of gravity.
However, it's definitely a matter of perspective given that supernovas themselves are entirely inconsequential to the universe as a whole, and are only relevant to subsystems at specific emergent layers within the universe.
We could also form similar conclusions about natural evolution in general.
We might even be able to generalize further and posit that there is a natural tendency for order to arise out of chaos, and so order itself is antifragile to chaos, given that order thrives under the right chaotic conditions[0] and isn't simply immunized against it. So antifragility may exist as a fundamental property of the foundation of stuff, but it's not automatically an inheritable property of subsystems.
It all becomes very abstract, but at least we can define some constraints, namely that antifragility should be described in terms of optimization goals and measurement of specific states, and are thus subjective to the observer and not an innate property of the universe or any other system.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_chaos