The Dance of Complexity and Entropy
I muse on the new proposed Law of Nature
My father used to say stars were alive. He would point out that they are born, grow, age, die and, in some meaningful way reproduce…thus fitting all the definitions of life.
Stars are trees, perhaps?
A group of nine scientists and philosophers have now proposed a new Law of Nature that encompasses evolution.
Under this proposal everything is alive.
Think about that for a moment.
The Law of Increasing Functional Information
So, here’s what the scientist proposed:
1. Evolving systems form from several interacting building blocks, whether atoms or cells
2. The process creates many different combinations
3. These combinations are subject to selection for useful function
Whewf, complex, but in simple terms:
Anything that forms out of simpler “building blocks” is subject to natural selection. As matter, all of it, is formed out of simpler building blocks, then the entire universe is subject to natural selection.
A butterfly evolves. A star evolves. A planet evolves. Aluminum evolves.
Everything evolves.
About Those Stars
When the universe spun out of the Big Bang it contained two elements: Hydrogen and helium. These formed the first generation of stars.
These stars created twenty heavier elements, including carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. Then they died, decomposed, and exploded those elements into space.
The next generation grabbed those and used them to make almost 100 more. Everything that is us was made in a star.
But only some combinations of atoms and their component particles actually work. This might be the shape of a crystal, the stability of a star or *stretches hands*. Useful things, hands.
The argument is that natural selection acts as a law to increase complexity and functionality. It prunes out unstable ions (they may survive for a while, but they ultimately decay. Except that too is useful, because it creates light and heat).
The scientists proposed that there are three functions something can be selected for:
1. Stability.
2. Dynamism, which means using and/or creating ongoing supplies of energy
3. Novelty
The universe, in other words, is always working towards complexity. But why? Why does the universe constantly experiment with new forms that might lead to a white dwarf or to us?
Entropy and Complexity
I’ve always held, philosophically, that life is the counteracting force to entropy. These scientists argue that increasing functional information complements the second law of thermodynamics. In other words, it balances with entropy. Entropy increases over time and tends to make things simpler. Evolution wants to make them more complex.
So, does evolution keep the universe from dying out into cold nothingness prematurely? And does entropy slow and stabilize evolution? I think so.
But here’s a philosophical thing to think about.
If only certain combinations have function and thus survive, does that include universes? The philosophy that the Big Bang created millions of universes but only some persisted has circulated before. And perhaps it does apply.
What is clear is that without the law of functional complexity, the universe would have faded out early in its existence. Without the 2nd law of thermodynamics, though, the universe would…become a static mass, because there would be no way for energy to flow.
Gaia and Galaxia
So, does this mean the Earth is alive? Gaia theory postulates that the Earth is alive and, at some level, conscious, and generally argues that we must not tick her off.
In the Foundation series, Asimov postulated Gaia in a different sense, a kind of planetary hive-mind that left people with their individuality while binding them to the world. And he postulated that this could expand through the entire human galaxy. (The robots, incidentally, trimmed the galaxy’s evolution to ensure only humans lived in it).
Would such a thing be the end goal of the evolution of a biosphere? We’d like to argue that the end goal is us, but really, that’s primate hubris speaking. I have plenty of it myself!
I could imagine that the ultimate goal of an ecosystem is to evolve into harmony, but looking at the one sample we have, it doesn’t seem to work that way.
Or perhaps it does, but that pesky entropy thing gets in the road.
As for whether the Earth is alive? Yes. Conscious? Well, that’s a stickier wicket.
The Function of Consciousness
Consciousness is really not something we understand well. I know I’m a conscious being sitting here typing. I presume from that that my husband is a conscious being. The horse I rode last week? Conscious, but not perhaps in the same way. They have a sense of humor, and that’s definitely a sign.
Do a search on “What is consciousness?” and you’ll find answers such as “an intrinsic property of certain complex systems” (but which ones?), “the ability to experience the outer world through senses”, or “A kind of behavior.” Truth is, we experience it, but we don’t understand it. We don’t know what it’s like to be the horse (although we can learn to work out what the horse might be thinking).
But consciousness in lifeforms serves a basic function. That basic function is survival. A bat needs to be conscious of the signals from its echolocation or its going to fly into a wall and possibly die. A horse needs to be conscious of the sweet blade of grass and also the fact that it just heard a wolf in that valley and needs to know if it’s one wolf, that can be ignored, or an entire pack, that might be a threat.
Hrm.
I think we might be able to feasibly argue that the law of complexity of function governs how consciousness develops and may even require it. If some level of consciousness is required for a lifeform to function, then it will be selected for along with everything else.
(Trees appear to be conscious too, by the way. Plant cognition is a really fun subject).
So, why is our consciousness more complex? What function does it serve?
It serves the function of allowing us to be aware of more complex systems. This allows us to develop technology, and technology “serves” the law of complexity of function. It can also serve the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (This is starting to sound kind of gnostic. But which one is God and which one is Satan?)
A more complicated state of consciousness also allows us to work together in larger numbers. And, in theory, to live in harmony. Unfortunately, we’re terrible at that. And perhaps we’re not being all that functional right now.
We also impact the law of complexity of function directly in many ways, such as by breeding Basset Hounds (Somebody I know was at the Scottish national show and posted so many pictures of ears and sad eyes), or by building skyscrapers, or by flying into space.
Part of our consciousness includes the drive to invent and to explore. Every invention goes down false starts and few things are made perfect first time, so the law applies to our technology too.
Are we, then, an instrument of this law of nature? Perhaps. And it’s an interesting philosophy because unlike, say, determinism, it fully allows for free will. The law of complexity of nature requires free will, because every decision creates a novel situation that might be better for function.
Got a headache yet? I think I gave myself one.
What we do know is that everything in this universe is subject to evolution. Life is only a subset. And perhaps the line between alive and not alive is thin.
My dad was right.
Stars are alive.
Sources: https://phys.org/news/2023-10-scientists-philosophers-nature-evolutionary-law.html
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/consciousness/
This is the last of these posts that will be free! If you want to see more, you need to become a paid subscriber. I appreciate all support people can give this blog.