LDR Category List

Books

CDs

Events/Exhibits

Film/Video

By Eric J. Chaisson.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. US. 2001.
274 pp. Illus. b/w. $27.95
ISBN: 0-674-00342-X.
Reviewed by Robert Pepperell, University of Wales College, Newport, Caerleon Campus, Newport NP18 3YH, Wales.
E-mail: pepperell@cwcom.net


One of the most puzzling aspects of physical law is the emergence of pockets of order in a Universe which, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, should be gradually dissipating into formless noise (entropy). Even more puzzling is the fact that order (in the form of galaxies, planets, life and societies) not only emerges but seems to increase in complexity over time, - certainly if the evolution of life on Earth is any guide. Eric Chaisson is eminently qualified both to set out the terms of this paradox clearly, and also to offer some useful explanation without contravening the Second Law or appealing to new or non-science. The explanation, it turns out, is relatively straightforward, although the mathematical proof is expressed in a way that would be opaque to most non-specialists. Put simply (and I hope accurately), the early period of cosmic time saw a Universe consisting of essentially formless radiation which was fairly evenly distributed everywhere. But as the Universe expanded and cooled it gave rise to gradient shifts, or imbalances, in energy levels between different points in space, and this caused energy to flow from one place to another. In particular, the exertion of the gravitational force became increasingly decisive and eventually allowed the condensation of radiation into clumps of matter (galaxies, stars and planets). Each such shift, or concentration of energy, whilst generating form, simultaneously discharged some 'noise' into the surrounding Universe, - in accordance with the Second Law. Thus the Universe gives rise to form as it expands but at the expense of an overall increase in entropy. This much seems compelling and contributes to Chaisson's overall thesis of "Cosmic Evolution". Cosmic Evolution is offered here as "next big idea", to follow on from the Cybernetic, Catastrophe, Chaos and Complexity theories of recent decades. The book attempts (in an admittedly broad-brush manner) to synthesise a grand theory that unites cosmology with biology, or at least contemporary theory in these fields. The Darwinian (actually "Neo-Darwinian") model is scaled up to a cosmic level whereby processes of chance and determinism serve to account for the development of form, i.e. parts of the Universe that are out of equilibrium with the rest. Much of "Cosmic Evolution" theory rests on the application of "open-system, non equilibrium thermodynamics" which amounts to the study of energy flow in complex systems. This is perhaps the most original, and for me the most exciting, emphasis the book. Chaisson uses his considerable scientific muscle to construct a cosmic view based entirely on energy flow (thermodynamics). He offers the concept of "free energy rate density" as a quantifiable measure of the amount of energy flowing through a system in relation to its mass. The higher the rate of energy and the smaller the mass, then the greater the free energy rate density and, for Chaisson, the greater the complexity of the system. What this means, in practical terms, is that although the sun turns over a huge amount of energy compared to a bird, in proportion to the sun's much larger mass the bird actually has a greater level of energy flow and, hence, a higher degree of complexity. Using this formula the author charts an historical timeline, starting just after the big-bang and ending today, of a Universe travelling along a "time-arrow" in the direction of generally increasing complexity in which islands of "order" emerge at the expense of an overall increase in entropy.

Whilst I was able to follow much of the trajectory of Chaisson's argument there were a couple of strands I seriously objected to. Firstly, like other writers on the subject, the author globally conflates, on the one hand, the concepts of low-entropy, order, non-equilibrium, predictability and complexity and, on the other hand, their apparent opposites of high-entropy, disorder, equilibrium, randomness and simplicity. There have been many attempts to re-enforce these oppositions, to objectively calibrate the orderliness of systems, and rid such measurements of any trace of human subjectivity. Yet all such attempts are, in my view, ultimately thwarted by the fact that order and disorder are relative, qualitative values placed upon the world by human perception, not intrinsic absolute states of things in the world. At best they can be defined probabilistically or statistically. Basic Chaos Theory has shown us that order and disorder lie on a continuum, and are dependent for their appearance on viewing resolution. Although his adherence to an innate concept of order does not distract from his general thermodynamic argument, Chaisson, like other scientific colleagues, is unable to let go of this fundamental assumption, especially at the outset of the book where he describes a fairly standard model of thermodynamics. However, later on (p. 128) we are offered a more relativistic definition of order as "an absence of disorder" and even later (p. 133) he acknowledges the deficiencies of some of the most common methods used to define order, - 'information' and 'negentropy'. This sets the ground for the introduction of his own definition which, as we have described, uses energy through-put in relation to mass as an objective measure of complexity. Whilst this approach yields some impressive and persuasive results, it also leads to the rather unconvincing conclusion that a Pentium II chip is more complex than the human brain (p. 202). Strangely, this is justified on the dubious grounds that the chip can do calculations faster than a brain, thus ignoring the magnitude of complexity variance between a linear digital processor and a hyper-parallel organic structure. This, I believe, exposes the limits of this latest attempt to objectively quantify order and complexity, powerful though the energy flow argument is in general.

Secondly, Chaisson's repeated sideswipes at mysticism and vitalism (pages 34, 40, 108, 122,142, 217) are unnecessary . He seems to be unaware of the accord between his proposals and other widely held spiritual beliefs such as the "unity of the cosmos" (Tao) and the "eternal flow of energy" (Chi). His thermodynamic analysis of the human head, revealing that the human brain emits a similar amount of infrared radiation to that of a small light-bulb, is highly suggestive of the traditional depiction in art of the halos of Buddha, Christ and Saints. His dismissal of vitalism (which is an extremely dirty word amongst today's biologists) is equally misplaced since the essence of his theory of life as a complex flow of organised energy is entirely sympathetic to the notion of an Úlan vital. However, to be fair one suspects that Chaisson is taking a somewhat defensive posture in anticipation of a backlash against his holism from some more reductionist colleagues.

Whilst the author is capable of explaining complex ideas with great clarity, the book's structure leads one to question who the target audience is. The reader who needs to be primed in the basics of the Second Law in the Introduction is not the same reader who will be able to follow the pages of hieroglyphic formulae pertaining to cosmology in chapters one and two. Chaisson makes no apology for this although one might suspect, again, he is trying to head off criticism that his more speculative ideas may be taken as 'unscientific' without a prior demonstration of appropriate mathematical rigour. As a production the volume is well supported by a summary of symbols used, a glossary, a comprehensive and annotated further reading list and a great bibliography for anyone interested in this field. The omission of RenÚ Thom's Structural Stability and Morphogenesis from this, however, was a little odd.

For all this though, here is a book of broad vision, often free of scientific dogma, which makes a compelling case for interdisciplinary understanding and holism. I hope that the emphasis on energy flow will help to free us from the current orthodoxy of 'informationism' and 'mechanism' and open the way for a much more expansive and subtle view of existence.

top