The
Star Larvae Hypothesis
|
Science concerns itself with, among other things, causality—relations defined by cause and effect. Objects fall to the ground because gravity pulls them to the ground, or because gravity warps spacetime in a way such that objects will travel toward the ground, or because somehow or other something, call it gravity, causes objects to fall to the ground. This is the normal scientific view. Science does not say that the falling of objects being correlated statistically with the presence of gravity is just a coincidence. Events do not occur merely in patterns of correlation. Events occur because they are caused to occur. But if this is the case, then what can be made of a science of self-organization, which concedes that the most interesting structures in nature are not caused in the usual sense but, rather, cause themselves to come into being? They "self-organize."
Complexity theory, insofar as it grants the power to self-organize, to self-create, to natural processes, constitutes, if not a vitalism itself, then a kind of pantheism at least, in which nature's fecundity buzzes with divine self-causality. In his dealings with Moses, the God of western monotheism called his own name "I am that I am," laying claim to the power of self-organization. The Greek gods similarly were self-created; they were not products of any discernable causal chain. Complex systems are gods, then, and complexity theory is a brand of theology. It redefines in its own terms occurrences that in prescientific language were referred to as "miracles," namely, events of self organization. The rhetoric and formulas of complexity theory do little to dispel the prospect of miracles. The whole scientific discipline of complexity theory can be seen as a vitalist, pantheist mysticism with spontaneous or emergent self-organization filling in for the abandoned life force or entelechy of the older vitalist formulations. Complexity theory is science's bow to the miraculous, an ironic shift in sentiment, given the origins of modern science. (And the possibility of making inroads through this shared borderland are not lost on the Intelligent Design advocates who embrace complexity theory.)
During the European Enlightenment, rationalism, empiricism, and secularism collectively delivered to the Western mind an alternative worldview to that of church dogma. As a legacy of the Enlightenment, metaphysical concepts, such as soul and spirit, fell into disrepute among intellectuals. But these notions did not die. Beyond seminaries and houses of worship, philosophers of various stripes continued to argue for natural and supernatural processes that lent form to the expressions of nature. Even during, and as a reaction to, the Enlightenment, some philosophers, such as Hegel, argued against a strict materialism and for the notion of a formative spirit (of "the times" or a "national" spirit) that nudges the flow of historical events toward greater complexity (alternatively, toward "the good"). A list of cognates for this influence might include Henri Bergson's elan vital, Plato's metaphysical forms, Adam Smith's invisible hand, the Will of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, Tielhard de Chardin's radial energy, Freud’s libido, Whitehead's Creativity, Reich's orgone, and Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields. Tao, chi, shakti, kundalini and similar concepts from Asian metaphysics illustrate the universality of the idea that nature possesses an innate anti-entropic capacity, an inherent capacity to organize its constituents and grow. Since modern complexity theory began its long gestation in the disciplines of general systems theory and cybernetics during the early years of computer/cognitive science, the metaphysical underground has been quaking and in places breaking the surface, spilling into the scientific laboratories.
Resurrected vitalist concepts, with technically polished names, such as "spontaneously self-organizing dissipative systems," that connote a scientific rigor, are disrupting the marketplace of ideas. Semi-adopted by science, they remain rooted in a metaphysics that is at odds with the established scientific model of the world. That is, they are at odds with, or at least seem resistant to, the venerable Second Law of Thermodynamics.
NEXT > Entropy: Nature's Preferred Direction?
![]()
The Star Larvae Hypothesis:
Stars constitute a genus of organism. The stellar life cycle includes a larval phase. Biological life constitutes the larval phase of the stellar life cycle.
Elaboration: The hypothesis presents a teleological model of nature, in which
|
|
||
Text Copyright ©2004-2012 Advanced Theological Systems. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Statement: We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, visit the Google ad and content network privacy policy.